jump to navigation

“Noise” December 27, 2009

Posted by Michael in Politics, Science.
trackback

Here’s a map showing the 877 snowfall records set last week.

The Gore Effect Is Everywhere!

And that’s not all, for the week ending Dec 13th, there were 815 new snowfall records set. December 2009 is shaping up to be quite the snowmaker.

via Watts Up With That?

Here in Dallas, by the way, we had our first white Christmas in over 80 years.

Of course, the AGW alarmists dismiss such observations as “noise” in the data which does not challenge the “settled” science of catastrophic warming caused by CO2.

Noise.  It’s a term which conjures up static on the radio, mere “interference” with the broadcast that must be tolerated.  “Noise” matters not, you must simply ignore it to hear the program. Watch for that term “noise.”  It’s a favorite of Al Gore, for example.

I’ll tell you what it means.  It means “pixie dust.”  It means “I can’t explain what is happening.”

Most importantly, it really means “my CO2-based AGW hypothesis has been falsified”  — and the AGW alarmists don’t want to admit it because there is so much money, power and corruption involved.

The hypothesis has been falsified by:

(1) the missing thermal signature of CO2 in the tropical atmosphere which the IPCC model requires (in order to trigger a water vapor feedback loop), an inconvenient truth that they continue to kick under the rug.  Keep in mind, everyone sorta has to admit that CO2 by itself doesn’t do much.  Even at current concentrations, it’s a teensy weensy bit of the atmosphere (.00038) that soaks up only a teensy weensy bit of the sun’s long-wave radiation at a particular high altitude in the tropics (the tropics account for about 80% of the Earth’s energy budget).  Moreover, we have long since passed CO2 concentrations which are more than sufficient to flag down 99% of that wavelength.  So, a hypothetical  “feedback loop” is necessary in order to make CO2 scary.

(2) new and better data from Antarctic and Greenlandic ice cores showing that CO2 does not cause warming, but is a feedback effect.

(3) the recent demonstration by German physicists, published in International Journal of Modern Physics, that the IPCC model violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (i.e., their predictions are impossible) and that the atmosphere does not faintly resemble a greenhouse.  (Because, there’s no frickin’ glass wall around the planet to make it a closed system.)  In other words, ignore Al Gore when he smugly asserts that the “greenhouse effect” has been proven in the lab.   He is referring to glass enclosures, not an atmosphere open to space.

(4) both surface station data and new satellite data (which is not subject to distortion from the “urban heat island effect” or rigging by undisclosed computer models used by AGW alarmists) indicate that the warming trend had stopped by 2002 while CO2 continued to increase substantially — which the IPCC model does not permit.  Whoa, it’s really getting noisy, huh?

(5) recent publication, in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, of evidence that the modern global warming correlates with CFCs interacting with cosmic radiation, and does not correlate with CO2.  Unfortunately for the politicians, bureaucrats and grant pimps, CFCs are a problem that has already been fixed, and the ozone holes over the poles are repairing themselves.

How can the AGW alarmists maintain their religion in the face of such science?

And, by the way, has climatology even earned the status of a science?   There was an interesting observation in the article linked at #3 above — the climatologists you read about today never took a single course in climatology when they were in college.  The field did not exist.  They are making stuff up as they go along to invent this new “ology.”

Most of what you read about global warming is not actually science, i.e., the application of the scientific method to observed data to test an hypothesis.  It’s computer modeling based on assumptions that are literally pulled out of one’s ass (about stuff we don’t know like the actual effect of cloud cover at various altitudes), and breathless predictions about the awful things that could happen if AGW accelerates, like the drowning of London if the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets melt real fast.  (Last I read, the retreat of the northern ice sheets had stopped and they are starting to rebuild, and the Antarctic ice sheet continues to grow to record levels.)

Mark my words.  You are going to hear a lot about “noise” in the weeks and months to come.

Update:  Bonus Graph Below the Break

More noise!

No statistically significant warming since 1995, which, oh by the way, is after we fixed that CFC problem.

About these ads

Comments»

1. Al Gore - December 27, 2009

Yeah, too much noise from you deniers. STFU.

2. Al Gore - December 27, 2009

I’m serious. I got a Nobel Prize and you didn’t.

3. epobirs - December 27, 2009

True, but to be fair, if you were a Computer Science major in the 80s, there was a good chance your instructor was among the founders of the field.

The problem isn’t in being a new -ology but in not accepting the limitations and plethora of false starts a new field produces. The most important finding climatology has produced to date is the understanding of how difficult it is to produce any practical models of a planet. A planet with an atmosphere is far worse.

4. Christian - December 27, 2009

Assumptions LITERALLY pulled out of one’s ass? That explains why their research stinks.

5. Michael - December 27, 2009

True, but to be fair, if you were a Computer Science major in the 80s, there was a good chance your instructor was among the founders of the field.

Not likely. Computer Science majors in the 80s had a better handle on Fortran than the idiots at the University of East Anglia, based on the readme.txt files leaked during Climategate.

6. BHO - December 27, 2009

#1, yeah baby!

7. Andy - December 27, 2009

Glad you could use that item at #3. I spent most of yesterday reading it (off and on), and a couple of points really stood out.

First, the whole exposition of what’s really going on in the glass house cannot be repeated loudly or often enough. It’s all about interruption of convection … the fact that the glass roof absorbs longwave radiation is a miniscule part of the “warming.”

Second, the whole second law of thermodynamics/perpetual motion machine argument really shoots AGW in the head.

Nice work, Batman.

8. Big Al Gore - December 27, 2009

I would like to take the time to debate all you deniers, but my private jet is running, and I need to get back to my new Yacht. Also, I suffer from a very heavy flatulence problem, it’s just not convient to debate at this time. You know, got to change my depends right away and stuff. Thanks, send me your donations, I’ll tell you how to cut down on the stuff and junk that heats up our planet…okay? Love ya!

9. Charles Johnson - December 27, 2009

You creationist big industry deniers! I shal ban you from the internets!

10. Michael - December 27, 2009

That reminds me, I’ve been meaning to show up at LGF in order to get banned. I feel like I lack some internet cred until I can proudly be inducted into the Banned By Charles Association™.

I was a founding member of the Banned By Bill of INDC Journal Association™, but that’s ancient history now.

11. Neo - December 27, 2009

In 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR.

The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn’t cause higher air temperature than CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures.

12. daveintexas - December 27, 2009

>>Computer Science majors in the 80s had a better handle on Fortran than the idiots at the University of East Anglia

I made a B+ in FORTRAN

13. Michael - December 27, 2009

I made a B+ in FORTRAN

And, Dave, even more impressive, you were drunk at the time.

How come you aren’t flying to conferences in a private jet?

Huh?

Loser.

14. lauraw - December 27, 2009

15. lauraw - December 27, 2009
16. James Hansen - December 27, 2009

Did you hear about the terrorist attack? Now that’s a major story.

17. daveintexas - December 27, 2009

I counter your Aretha post

Nothing better.

18. Rosetta the Daddy - December 27, 2009

I don’t know who authored this post under Michael’s name but it’s impressive.

Well done mystery smart person.

19. lauraw - December 27, 2009

Last link was supposed to go to ‘Good to me as I am to You.’
Jes scroll down and gettit, why don’tcha

20. 877 snowfall records were set last week « Wintery Knight - December 27, 2009

[...] snowfall records were set last week The post is here on Michael’s Comments. (H/T [...]

21. daveintexas - December 27, 2009

although that one was good.

she’s the queen of soul

22. Michael - December 27, 2009

#14 — “ain’t no way for me to love you”

Yes, Laura, there is.

You can make me a sammich.

With meat, cheese, and jalapeno peppers.

Thanking you in advance . . .

23. daveintexas - December 27, 2009

E-R-E-S-P-M-E_C-T-M-Y FIND OUR WHAT IT MEANA TO ME

24. sherlock - December 27, 2009

Here’s another trial balloon that is going up – the economy is so bad we just can’t do anything about climate right now. Just started seeing Dems making this proposition in the last few days, in support of Obama’s “hard pivot” to focus on the economy in the new year. Look for more MSM editorials supporting Obama’s “pragmatic” approach of putting the economy first. In other words Globaloney is dead.

25. Michael - December 27, 2009

E-R-E-S-P-M-E_C-T-M-Y FIND OUR WHAT IT MEANA TO ME

See, Dave, that spelling issue when you have been drinking tequila is why you only got a B+ in FORTRAN.

I aced COBOL.

26. Doc Liberty - December 27, 2009

Incidentally, while CFC use has been declining in the US for quite some time now (the greenies got this one 100% correct back in the late 60’s and my thanks to them for doing so) it’s going up, up, up in China. The modern enviros don’t put much pressure on China and seem to be happy with promises and commitments that see little follow through. For its own part, China has a pretty good deal going on for it; pollution levels can rise and do damage and in exchange the West cuts back on industry and moves it to … China. That’s like trying to discourage people from speeding by giving them $20 every time they go over the limit.

For my own part, I think there’s very real environmental damage being done in the US, but it’s mostly in the arena of land use. Land use isn’t a very fun area to be in unless your idea of land use regulations are to ban development. Responsible land management is a lot of work, which is why nobody does it and instead they build right on top of coastlines and blame the soil erosion on “rising water levels from global warming”.

… however I suspect I am preaching to the choir on this.

27. daveintexas - December 27, 2009

COBOL? Oh please. It was written for simps who can’t figure out gas milage.

IDENTIFICATION DIVISION: I’m uh, a business major or something. Don’t make me take a foreign language.

ENVIRONMENT DIVISION: Uhh.. I’m on the second floor of Abernathy Hall, East?

DATA DIVISION: WAIT, I know this one, I’m a Kappa Sig!

PROCEDURE DIVISION: If I insert a few unindexed cards in this deck my grades won’t make it home until after the ski trip! WOOT

28. Michael - December 27, 2009

PROCEDURE DIVISION: If I insert a few unindexed cards in this deck my grades won’t make it home until after the ski trip! WOOT

It’s true that I did a lot of skiiing when I was that age.

Errors in the Procedure Division actually require the prof to figure out what you did.

29. daveintexas - December 27, 2009

When I made errors in the procedure division I used the company VM machines to correct them.

I didn’t stand in line like an asshole, waiting for the prof to tell me what I did wrong. Fuck him.

30. mockmook - December 27, 2009

I’m not sure the CO2 acting as a greenhouse is total rubbish.

Seems “everybody” agrees that water vapor is a greenhouse gas–how come CO2 can’t be one too?

Don’t cloudy nights stay warmer–presumably because the clouds reflect infra red (heat) back towards the ground. Isn’t this effect analogous to the greenhouse gases?

31. Sparky - December 27, 2009

Stupid me, not a scientist, but I sure wish some global warming would come my way. It’s really cold. Hey Al, give us all a break, send in the clowns…ops….I mean warmth.

It’s an inconvient truth….not a good time of year to ask Al for some heat.

32. Lipstick - December 27, 2009

As Dennis Miller says: “I wouldn’t mind some global warming — I’m always a little chilly”.

My feets are cold! I’m heating up some soup.

33. daveintexas - December 27, 2009

you’re puttin your feet in hot soup?

34. Kevin - December 27, 2009

I read somewhere that ‘Global Warming can cause up to 877 points of record snowfall in a single week.” I think it was Al Gore who scientifically proved it – with his mind.

In other news, global warming also causes me to write stupid comments on websites! GW is pernicious!

35. Jerome - December 27, 2009

Don’t be too quick to rely on the Second Law claim. I’ve read the paper, and I think they are off base (Like the authors, I am a Physics PhD). It is true that the Second Law would preclude a NET heat flow from the upper atmosphere to the Earth. But that doesn’t mean that CO2 in the upper atmosphere cannot have a warming effect. Put it this way – on a cold night, your blanket is colder than you are. So, the Second Law says it can’t be transferring heat to you. But that doesn’t mean that you would be just as warm without it.

I think you are on safer ground pointing out that the Earth has been a lot hotter in the past, with a lot more CO2 in the air, and the result was — an Ice Age! And we are about due for another one. So I really don’t care what some bozos’ “Climate Model” says, any more than I care what his economic model says. Simple models of complex systems all have one thing in common. They are inadequate for making useful long term predictions.

36. Socratease - December 27, 2009

My understanding was that it wasn’t a science until its theories could explain past observations and predict future ones. Seeing as how the AGW models have repeatedly failed to do either, I don’t know how anyone can call them “science”.

What the models do seem to be good at, however, is generating lots of research grants, which seems to be the most important thing in the scientific world today, facts and results having been relegated to the back seat. They’re also good at generating papers in journals whose reputation used to be based on the rigorous questioning of momentous claims of new scientific theories (eg: “cold fusion”) but that now seem to be actively suppressing questioning of AGW.

37. msr - December 27, 2009

The reference to radio noise at the start of the post was amusing. Yes, that noise is annoying. It interferes with the intended message. And, as it turns out, that noise won a Nobel Prize for Penzias and Wilson when they pointed out they had found proof of the Big Bang. Those big glowy things in the sky are always interfering with stuff here on Earth.

38. William Wangard - December 27, 2009

Correction: CO2 is 0.00038 (mole fraction) or 0.038%, not 0.00038%. Sorry to be picky.

39. Beto Ochoa - December 27, 2009

CO2 is primarily a by-product of photosynthesis.
That’s why it follows warming and not the other way around.
This Green House Gas stuff is bullshit.
This planet is a gigantic gas pump on a scale that makes man look like a school of fish in the ocean.
This planet is primarily warmed by two sources, the star we circumnavigate and radiation we encounter as we and said star crash through outer space at a clip of nearly a million miles a day.
A tiny bit of heat from geothermal sources and even tinnier bit from burning stored energy is also present but if the sun gets too quiet, try warming this place up and you will fail miserably.
If it flares too much we won’t have to worry about anything else either.
All the taxes man can invent wont change those realities.
The real scientific question here is,
What has happened to these people brains to make them believe we will burn up in a cataclysm of melting ice?
For fucks sake

40. alanstorm - December 27, 2009

Jerome, your understanding of “blanket thermodynamics” is confused – the blanket is not transferring heat to the person under it, it’s slowing down the heat transfer rate from the person to the exterior.

Also, the blanket is only colder than you on the exterior. The interior surface will be approximately body temperature.

Might want to get that physics degree re-tuned :-)

41. Michael - December 27, 2009

Seems “everybody” agrees that water vapor is a greenhouse gas–how come CO2 can’t be one too?

Water vapor is the true greenhouse gas. Clouds (especially in the tropic zones) likely operate as a planetary thermostat, both from their reflection of radiant energy back to space as the surface heats and low-altitude cumulus clouds form, and the ability of cumulonimbus clouds to fling heat energy back to the edge of space and return cool rain to the planetary surface.

Learn more about clouds here.

42. Michael - December 27, 2009

William Wangaurd — thanks for the correction. You are correct. I will delete the % from the post.

The point is, we are talking about parts per million, and “teensy weensy” is a scientifically valid descriptor of CO2 in the atmosphere.

43. Jerome - December 27, 2009

Alanstorm,

You are correct on all three counts.

1- The blanket is not transferring heat to the person under it, or at least, not as much as the person is transferring to it. The net flow is person to blanket to cold night air. That is why there is no violation of the Second Law. The cited paper claims that global warming due to CO2 would require such a violation, which is why I think those of us who do not believe in AGW should be cautious about citing it. It makes some rather sweeping claims, which may not stand up to investigation. Although it also makes some good points.

2- Presumably, there is a thermal gradient established across the blanket.

3 – I don’t know about “re-tuned”, but certainly, I have a lot to learn about physics. But nowhere near as much as Al Gore.

44. Lipstick - December 27, 2009

Whoa. All of a sudden we gots smart people at this blog.

Trying to adjust to the change.
:)

45. Andy - December 27, 2009

Jerome, on your #1 above, I read the paper as claiming that the AGW models incorporate a net flow from atmospheric CO2 to the surface. Like an electric blanket, to extend your example. Except without the electricity, which, in a nutshell, is the problem.

This is entirely consistent with what you’re saying. What am I missing?

46. Michael - December 27, 2009

The cited paper claims that global warming due to CO2 would require such a violation,

No. I think they are claiming that the IPCC model makes this assumption, which is impossible. In other words, AGW does not just say that the blanket conserves energy (which is likely) but that it drastically increases the accumulation of energy through a water vapor feedback loop that can’t be found with real life data, notwithstanding the launching of thousands of balloons with thermostats.

In other words, AGW activists are saying that the energy budget of the earth’s atmosphere is like a greenhouse, a closed system, never mind that it is open to space.

47. Michael - December 27, 2009

By the way, let me make something absolutely clear.

My qualifications to comment on climate science are about the same as Al Gore’s, i.e., we both went to law school.

That’s not irrelevant. Law school teaches you to objectively evaluate evidence, and to smoke out bullshit.

Here’s the difference between me and Al:

– I graduated and passed the bar exam.

– Al quit and ran for Congress.

48. Jerome - December 27, 2009

Andy,

The authors cite numerous attempts by GW enthusiasts to explain the “Greenhouse Effect” (GE). Some of those attempts, which are mostly hand-waving, could be taken to include a heat transfer from the upper atmosphere to the surface. And if that is taken to be a net transfer, then it would violate the Second Law.

However, I am seeing people (Like Alexander Cockburn! Imagine! Alex the Red is a fellow Denier!) claiming that the paper proves the GE is thermodynamically impossible. My point is that there are models of the GE which are consistent with thermodynamics.

49. Michael - December 27, 2009

And, as it turns out, that noise won a Nobel Prize for Penzias and Wilson when they pointed out they had found proof of the Big Bang.

YOU ARE MAKING MY POINT! They won the Nobel Prize because they did not have a dismissive attitude about “noise” which contradicted othodoxy, but instead eagerly greeted the “noise” as an opportunity for scientific inquiry.

Compare that to the reaction of the CRU clique to the “noise” of Briffa’s tree-ring findings after 1960.

Did they say “Hola, we welcome a new mystery to be examined with scientific rigor, a new adventure on the frontiers of human understanding!”

Nope.

They said: “Hide the decline.”

50. Jerome - December 27, 2009

Michael,

I am not sure there is such a thing as “the IPCC model”. As has been noted recently, these people don’t (willingly) publish their computer programs. In any case, the question is not whether the IPCC is wrong. Iit is whether the evidence connecting our CO2 emissions and GW is strong enough to warrant drastic measures. I think we can answer that in the negative without recourse to the Second Law. And as an attorney, you should know that making a bad argument can discredit your good ones.

As to your credentials, they are good enough for me. Certainly, your argument is to the point. And in Al’s defense, I will point out that in politics, he at least came close.

51. Andy - December 27, 2009

The funniest (funny ironic, not funny haha) thing about the Fall of the Church of Algore is that the paleoclimate guys are taking the lead in its demise.

They were the heroes after IPCC TAR, where the MBH98 “Hockey Stick” took center stage (or, I guess, center ice). It was even featured prominently in Gore’s sci-fi movie, because it told them what they wanted to hear, namely: (i) the MWP was a local/regional, not global, phenomenon, if it existed at all, and (ii) that 20th-century warming was “unprecedented.”

But, like most things that are too good (from the Warmers point of view) to be true, it was. After McIntyre and McKitrick started biting at their heels, they circled the wagons and built an elaborate web of lies and half-truths to defend the Hockey Stick at all costs, scientific method and compliance with laws (FOI, specifically) be damned.

Now the whole house of cards is collapsing and taking with it the credibility of anyone even tangentially associated.

* points finger and laughs hysterically *

52. daveintexas - December 27, 2009

I don’t think the facts are having quite the effect we’d like them to have.

We’re going to need a couple of dozen events like the CRU emails to stem this tide.

53. mockmook - December 27, 2009

41. Michael – December 27, 2009

Water vapor is the true greenhouse gas. Clouds (especially in the tropic zones) likely operate as a planetary thermostat, both from their reflection of radiant energy back to space as the surface heats and low-altitude cumulus clouds form, and the ability of cumulonimbus clouds to fling heat energy back to the edge of space and return cool rain to the planetary surface.

Clouds are made from water droplets and/or ice, not water vapor.

Water vapor is molecules of H2O gas.

Tops of clouds reflect visible light into space, which keeps temperatures lower than without clouds.

Bottoms of clouds reflect infra red light (heat) back to earth (where it comes from), this keeps the earth warmer.

The balance is ??????, but this has nothing to do with whether CO2 helps “trap” heat at the surface.

Again, if water vapor can be a greenhouse gas, then CO2 can too. But, I’m not saying CO2 is necessarily a significant greenhouse gas.

54. Eddie The Bear - December 27, 2009

IIRC, Steamboat McGoo stated that he saw better code writing in a virus than in the stuff used in the East Anglia files.

One of the most salient points, I believe, in all of this Algoreism is the classic “cui bono” mindset. Look who stood/stands to rake in the dough if a good portion of this stuff gets enacted.

55. mockmook - December 27, 2009

The first paragraph above is Michael’s.

56. Michael - December 27, 2009

I am not sure there is such a thing as “the IPCC model”.

There is not, of course. The IPCC is just a bunch of bureaucrats. By “the IPCC model” I intended a shorthand for the amalgamation of results published by the likes of the CRU, NOAA, and NASA, and relied upon by the IPCC and AGW alarmists generally.

Sorry for the imprecision.

57. Michael - December 27, 2009

As I understand it, the underlying reality is this:

Global warming is a fact!

Erm, since the Little Ice Age. And, um, the current warming period does not appear to be unusual compared to the Medieval Warm Period, or the planet’s history over millions of years.

The globe is always warming or cooling.

So what?

Al Gore says, correctly, that the last ten years have been the warmest since we invented thermometers. Omigosh! Also, he correctly states that the recent rise in temperature coincides with industrial emissions of CO2. Omigollygosh!!!

So what?

The policy debate is focused on drastic measures to control CO2 emissions, at ruinous cost.

So, we need to focus on the science that is germane to whether CO2 can be linked with potentially damaging increases in retained solar energy. This needs to be science, where we do not dismiss inconvenient facts as “noise.”

That’s my whole point.

58. Michael - December 27, 2009

Al Gore also asks rhetorically, with a pained expression on his face — what other than CO2 could be causing this (itty bitty) rise in temperature that might get out of control??? Isn’t it obvious that man-made CO2 is the culprit?

Nope, Al, it is not obvious. Could be natural factors beyond our control, like sunspots, cosmic radiation, cloud dynamics, plate tectonics and ocean currents, volcanic activity, you name it. Or it could be those pesky CFCs we already outlawed, which means, Al, that your investments in CO2-reducing shell games are not going make you the world’s first “green billionaire,” as some periodicals have predicted.

59. Michael - December 28, 2009

If we are going to get excited about a catastrophic risk to our planet, and muster an expensive global bureaucracy to combat it, I say — pay some attention to large asteroid strikes. That is a demonstrable risk that actually happens once every few million years, and it appears that the consequences are not good. We should have an arsenal ready to detect and deflect those suckers before they get close.

The obvious way to handle this is that all nations (other than the U.S.) should pay a stiff tax, say a 10% sales tax collected by the United Nations, in order to contract with the USAF to address this risk.

60. Big Al Gore - December 28, 2009

You people need to put to bed your intelligent thoughts and listen to me. I won the prize, you didn’t. It’s an inconvientent truth that I have no idea what I am talking about, but I stand to make a bunch of money. Send me donations, I’ll tell you how you can rip people off on the Great Global Warming Scam of the Century.

61. ManekiNeko - December 28, 2009

The foundations of computer science were developed by Turing and
Von Neumann, among others, in the 1940’s and 1950’s. The first
computer science departments were founded around 1970 (maybe earlier in a few places), though there were computer science courses prior to that in math and engineering departments.

62. faith+1 - December 28, 2009

There was more evidence of WMDs in Iraq then there has been of GW. Al just “played on our fears”.

63. levi from queens - December 28, 2009

The first line of comment 39 is incorrect. CO2 is an input to photosynthesis (actually essential plant food) and not a byproduct.

64. Jason - December 28, 2009

Clouds are made from water droplets and/or ice, not water vapor.
//

Actually, clouds are made from water droplets and/or ice that forms from water vapor.

Water vapor is the very substance that forms clouds. Not only that, but Water Vapor, water, and ice are, you know, the same thing.

65. Wind Rider - December 28, 2009

Just a layman, but it seems kind of odd that no one hasn’t raked these guys over the coals for the whole ‘tree ring’ thing. As living organisms, there are quite a few more variables at work than simply temperature – and as such (it would seem to me, at any rate), claiming to be able to devine one of those variables in the absence of concrete data to confirm the others puts the whole ‘discipline’ of reading tree rings like a large average thermometer rates right up there with studying bumps on heads (phrenology) or carefully considering tea leaves or animal entrails as precursors of the future.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find these charlatans regarded as seriously as medieval alchemists concerning gold from lead, or ‘clairvoyants’ holding seances in the not to distant future.

For those of us not yet actually in the distant future, damn but these jerks are sure annoying, and dangerous.

66. Bob White - December 28, 2009

63. levi from queens
I attended a lecture by a physicist from the Oak Ridge Nuclear Facility who said just what #39 said. Plants pump it in and out.

67. GrumpyUnk - December 28, 2009

Michael, I can’t offer any meaningful comment on this because I aren’t smart enuff, but Thanks for getting this discussion going.

This whole global warming meltdown has been fascinating to follow lately.

Good on ya for laying this out so well.

68. Cathy - December 28, 2009

Kudos, Michael. Ditto what GrumpyUnk said.

69. ClimateDude - December 28, 2009

“CFCs are a problem that has already been fixed, and the ozone holes over the poles are repairing themselves.”

The dirty little secret is that the entire CFC scare and costly transition from freon was the first climate hoax. Since perverting science worked so well and fooled even people on the right, they just repeated the political model.

70. wiserbud - December 28, 2009

Kudos, Michael. Ditto what GrumpyUnk said.

brown-noser.

71. jd - December 28, 2009

I’m sorry folks.

Say what you will, Michael Mann Made Global Warming Esists!

Or to put it another way;

A Climate Scientist had fifty frogs.

He lined them up at one end of his laboratory.

He then took a Cricket Bat and created a sudden noise behind the frogs after which he carefully measured the results.

In his book he wrote: ‘Frogs when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of ten feet.’

He then randomly cut one leg off of each frog, he lined them up again and created the same noise with the Cricket Bat and observed the results again.

In his book he wrote: ‘Frogs with one leg cut off when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of seven and a half feet.’

He then randomly cut a second leg off of each frog, lined them up again and used the Cricket Bat to create the same noise again.

In his book he wrote: ‘Frogs with two legs cut off when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of five feet.’

Continuing he randomly cut a third leg off of each frog, lined them up a fourth time and using the Cricket Bat created the same noise.

In his book he wrote: ‘Frogs with three legs cut off when startled by a sudden noise tend to jump an average of two and a half feet.’

Realizing he was on to something he proceeded to cut the final leg off of each frog, he lined them up again and grasping his Cricket Bat created the same noise again.

With no reaction from the frogs he continued to slam the Cricket Bat to make his noise in progressively harder strokes.

In his book he wrote:
‘The correlation is undeniable.
You can see the deterioration with each leg being removed.
Without question the final result is that with all four legs cut off;
Frogs become completely deaf.’

72. Jerome - December 28, 2009

Wind Rider,

As you point out, the theory that tree growth rings are a useful “proxy” for temperature is plausible, but requires proof. The Warmers tried to provide that proof by comparing measurements of tree rings with temperature measurements during the period (the 20th century) where both were available. It worked out pretty well – until it didn’t. At that point, it became necessary to “hide the decline”. The “decline” was the decline in the temperature prediction from tree rings, which occurred during an increase in temperature measurements.

73. Genecis - December 28, 2009

We should build a Mayan pyramid in Tennesee for AG to sit on wearing a feathered headpiece while apprehensivly gazing at a non-mercury thermometer and waiting for the day when he could proclaim … I told you so!

74. Cathy - December 28, 2009

brown-noser

You name it. You claim it.

75. Cathy - December 28, 2009

The correlation is undeniable…

Cute story. Heard some form of it before.

Sheesh. CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION.

*slug-bug on Wiser*

76. Anonymous - December 28, 2009
77. PKO Strany - December 28, 2009

73 – but we did, in Nashville for the 1982 World’s Fair

78. PKO Strany - December 28, 2009

Sorry, mind like steel sieve:

Pyramid is in Memphis, of Egyptian design, built as sports arena, now disused. World’s Fair was in Knoxville, basically broke even.

All that’s in Nashville is the remains of Opryland.

79. wiserbud - December 28, 2009

*slug-bug on Wiser*

Heeeeey, I thought I said no punch-backs….

80. levi from queens - December 28, 2009

66– plants do pump co2 both in and out, but photosynthesis (by far the dominant process in plants) take it in. The basic photosynthesis equation is 6CO2 + 6H2O + sunlight goes to C6H12O6 (sugar). The basic respiration equation is the reverse with energy given off, but plants respire far less than they photosynthesize. The basic building blocks of wood are H2O and CO2 all of which is taken in in photosynthesis.

81. levi from queens - December 28, 2009

Tree rings measure temperature when temperature or something else driven by temperature control tree growth. IN virtually all American trees, the limiting factor is water. In fact higher temperatures will generally make for lesser growth with summer drying.

But if you find trees with a short growing season and plenty of water, you might be able to get some sort of good read of temperature. The best would be when a tree sat beneath a glacier, and higher temperatures would connote more water.

Other limiting factors (nitrates, phosphates, insect attacks, lightning bolts, etc.) will complicate any such analysis.

82. CBDenver - December 28, 2009

Regarding CO2 and warming, there is a great explanation on AGW theory from Dr. Robert Spencer here http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

As stated by others here, CO2 is a trace gas. Spencer notes

“Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)”

The AGW theory is basically that positive feedbacks will accelerate the warming to catastrophic levels. Again, from Spencer:

“BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipition systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.”

AGW alarmists posit mostly positive feedbacks, while others like Spencer claim that negative feedbacks will prevail and the net warming from CO2 will be negligible.

83. Jerome - December 28, 2009

“a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists.”

While I have considerable respect for Dr. Spencer, the fact is that NOTHING is “well understood by climate scientists.” He means that the claim is widely accepted by climate scientists. But there is no basis for the claim in any model originating with the applicable physical laws. Climate scientists speculate about what might be important, then try to find correlations. No one has ever measured any of the effects that are included in “Climate Models”. How do you measure the thermal conductivity of 100 miles of atmosphere? How do you even define it?

Consider the idea of “natural climate variability”. What dos that mean? If you took your car to a mechanic, and he said the problem was “natural automotive variability”, how much confidence would you have in his understanding of automobiles? “Natural climate variability” means “things our models don’t predict”. Like, the climate.

For this reason, a much better guide to what will happen in the future is what has happened in the past. And the past says, get ready for the next Ice Age.

84. eleven - December 28, 2009

And this weekend on the Weather Channel, I was informed that we need to prepare for all the flooding that’s coming when Global Warming melts all this record snow.

I shitteth you not.

85. mockmook - December 28, 2009

64. Jason – December 28, 2009
Actually, clouds are made from water droplets and/or ice that forms from water vapor.
Water vapor is the very substance that forms clouds. Not only that, but Water Vapor, water, and ice are, you know, the same thing.

——–

However, it is water vapor that is referred to as a greenhouse gas.

Clouds act very differently than water vapor; so in that sense, the form of H2O matters very much.

86. sandy burger - December 28, 2009

While I have considerable respect for Dr. Spencer, the fact is that NOTHING is “well understood by climate scientists.”

I think you might be missing his point.

The relevant physical properties of CO2 are well understood.

The interactions with all the other processes involved in climate are where the unknowns (and bad science) lie.

87. Michael - December 28, 2009

Hi Sandy.

The relevant physical properties of CO2 are well understood.

Agreed — including the fact that at 380 ppm we already have way more CO2 in the atmosphere than we need for virtually all of the greenhouse effect that it is capable of. It’s a logarithmic scale. The first 100 ppm generated by humans might make a difference, the additions from now on don’t.

The interactions with all the other processes involved in climate are where the unknowns (and bad science) lie.

Also agreed, meaning that the atmosphere is way too complex for us to model in any meaningful way given our current understanding. It’s likely that we don’t actually have a computer big enough to do such a model, even if we understood all the relationships.

That exact point — the tension between simple physics and complex systems, was brilliantly explained today at WUWT in an easily understandable post: The Unbearable Complexity of Climate.

Based on historical evidence, dumping CO2 in the air likely triggers offsetting effects we don’t understand, as the planet tends to move towards equilibrium in its energy budget.

AGW alarmists assume the opposite at every opportunity, i.e., that CO2 magically has properties to trigger runaway warming that the planet cannot deal with, never mind that in the past we have had much (10X) higher concentrations of CO2 which ushered in an Ice Age. In other words, CO2 appears to be effect, not cause.

88. Michael - December 28, 2009

Clouds act very differently than water vapor; so in that sense, the form of H2O matters very much.

Also agreed, mockmook. See my comment and link at #41 (which perhaps lacked clarity). I think everyone agrees that water vapor is the Big Gorilla of greenhouse gasses, but the cloud cover and thunderstorms resulting from that vapor very likely have an offsetting effect that work towards stabilizing the energy budget.

89. Jerome - December 28, 2009

sandy burger,

What are the “relevant physical properties of CO2″? The mass? Well known. The magnetic susceptibility? Well known.The gas phase absorption spectrum? Well known. The effect in trace amounts on the thermal behavior of a column of air? During the day? During the night? Over land? Over ocean? With clouds? Without? All matters of pure conjecture.

In fairness, I suppose that if we begin from the hypothesis that CO2 affects climate by absorbing IR, then the details of its’ IR absorption become “the relevant physical properties”. But that still doesn’t give us any way to connect those properties to the magnitude, or even the existence, of the hypothetical effect.

Remember, the incoming radiation from the sun has higher intensity than the outgoing radiation from the Earth, across the entire electromagnetic spectrum. So how does blocking IR heat the Earth? If you put a steak under a broiler, will it cook faster under a blanket? Somehow, you need a model that says the heat that doesn’t get out at night is more important than the heat that doesn’t get in during the day. But that is a model of a lot more than just the atmosphere.

90. Michael - December 28, 2009

Jerome, I have the impression that you and Sandy are actually saying the same thing.

But go ahead and argue if you want to. I don’t mean to complain.
:)

91. sandy burger - December 28, 2009

Michael:
Jerome, I have the impression that you and Sandy are actually saying the same thing.

I think we are. I just came off more squabbly.

But go ahead and argue if you want to.

I might have to insult his mother.

Jerome:
In fairness, I suppose that if we begin from the hypothesis that CO2 affects climate by absorbing IR, then the details of its’ IR absorption become “the relevant physical properties”.

Yes, that’s what I meant.

The effect in trace amounts on the thermal behavior of a column of air? During the day? During the night? Over land? Over ocean? With clouds? Without? All matters of pure conjecture.

Yeah. We have no idea.

The simple thought experiment which models a small amount of global warming due to CO2’s “color” cannot possibly predict what’s actually gonna happen. Which is why (non-fraudulent) data comes in handy…

And the past says, get ready for the next Ice Age.

Ruh roh.

92. wiserbud - December 29, 2009

And the past says, get ready for the next Ice Age.

Ruh roh.

Damn. I’m really not looking forward to that at all.

I thought the first two were pretty good, but the last one kinda lost my interest about halfway through.

Plus, I’ve always hated John Leguizamo

93. Dave in Texas - December 29, 2009

heh

94. lauraw - December 29, 2009

indeed

95. wiserbud - December 29, 2009

I didn’t get a harumph from that guy over there…..

96. Enas Yorl - December 29, 2009

Oh, sorry. Harumph!

97. wiserbud - December 29, 2009

You watch your ass…..

98. Dave in Texas - December 29, 2009

work work work work work work

99. wiserbud - December 29, 2009

Gentlemen, please rest your sphincters.

100. Michael - December 29, 2009

100!

101. wiserbud - December 29, 2009

100!

Proud of that, are ya, reaching 100 comments on a single thread?

Nice work.

heh.

102. geoff - December 29, 2009

Proud of that, are ya, reaching 100 comments on a single thread?

You mean on a thread with an actual post on an actual topic? A pride you’ll never know.

103. wiserbud - December 29, 2009

You mean on a thread with an actual post on an actual topic?

I see words here, but the meaning is unclear to me……

104. kevlarchick - December 29, 2009

Now boys…

105. harrison - December 29, 2009

Let ‘em fight, KC.
( I got money on Geoff…)

106. Michael - December 29, 2009

Heh. Wiser and I were fighting at Perfunction this afternoon. Cuffy got a couple of big lanches today, so we showed his visitors the kind of lowlife retards that normally visit his blog.

107. Top Posts — WordPress.com - December 29, 2009

[...] “Noise” Here’s a map showing the 877 snowfall records set last week. And that’s not all, for the week ending Dec 13th, [...] [...]

108. Elzbth - December 29, 2009

So where is Geezer?

109. geoff - December 29, 2009

Elzbth?

*jaw bounces off floor*

110. Pupster - December 29, 2009

Hiya Elzbth, long time no see.

How’s by you?

111. BrewFan - December 29, 2009

Elzbth!! *waves*

Geezer who?

112. Michael - December 29, 2009

Hi Elzbth!!! (a/k/a “Íslenska smáhestur”)

So where is Geezer?

Um, well, that’s kinda awkward and sad.

*shuffles feet*

Geezer was trampled to death by one of his horses. The beast was apparently angered by Geezer’s incessant abusive conduct.

Mrs. Geezer is fine, though.

113. Wise Old Owl - December 30, 2009

If a trend line were to be applied to the data in the graph, it would show that temperatures were increasing during the period from 1979 through 2009.

Oh, and check to see if the temperature of the Pacific ocean is increasing.

Oh, and check with Beijing to see how the Gobi dessert is doing.

Oh and check with the Antarctic to see why is it melting; something nobody had anticipated…. this early.

114. harrison - December 30, 2009

Hey, Elzbth!!

115. Retired Geezer - December 30, 2009

The beast was apparently angered by Geezer’s incessant abusive conduct.

Hey… the batteries in the cattle prod weren’t even new.

Hi Elzbth, we found a couple of vowels under the tree. Hoped you might show up.

For you people with short memories, Elzbth was one of the original Innocent Bystanders. She was immortalized in this interview by Sobek Pundit.

Welcome back.

116. Why believing in global warming is no different than believing in magic « Public Secrets - December 30, 2009

[...] Innocent Bystanders, where this is part of an excellent post covering this and other ways AGW is disproved. Overall hat-tip to Ace.) Possibly related posts: [...]

117. phaed - June 4, 2010

I like this content so much.The determined man finds the way, the other finds an excuse or alibi.Thanks.

118. Climategate Round-Up #9 « The Daily Bayonet - October 13, 2010

[...] neo-deniers try to explain away their deceit and corruption with terms like ‘noise’.  Here’s a post that takes the ‘noise’ excuse and shoves it where the Sun don’….  Take that, [...]

119. The Great Global Warming Swindle « Innocent Bystanders - December 29, 2010

[...] video presents all of the points made in my post on the global warming scam a year ago – “Noise”, and more. The key concept is the scientific principle of [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 199 other followers

%d bloggers like this: