Jesting with Adjusters

Hansen tells us that he won’t “joust with jesters”, as presumably he’s too busy adjusting to have time for jousting. We by contrast have lots of time to jest with adjusters.

180 Comments

  1. Anthony Watts
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, surely you jest, er…joust, er…adjust, but I regress…

  2. jae
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Yes, there has been a few changes since 1923, but do they affect the trend and the anomalies? I think I know what Dr. Hanson thinks, but I doubt he will joust with the the climate jesters.

  3. Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hey, someone who’s got the resources should design a “Climate Jester” T-shirt!

  4. Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    .. and we should form a secret society called simply “The Jesters”!

  5. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 6:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “Better A Jester than Adjuster”

    Hansen et al 2001 describes:
    a) the gist of the adjustment;
    b) a jest of an adjustment
    c) just an adjustment
    d) a joust with a jester

  6. Paul Linsay
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 6:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The Jesters, I like that! Here’s the theme song for UHI

  7. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 6:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jesters is a common name for touring squash teams.

  8. Lance
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Steve McIntyre,

    I have been a long time lurker on this site. (Sorry about being part of the reason that you needed more band width. I’ll hit the tip jar on the way out.)

    First let me say that I have the deepest respect for the work that you have done. I am a working aeronautical engineer pursuing my PhD in physics and have long thought that the level of data accountability and statistical rigor in climate science was suspect, to put it politely.

    I also admire your attempts to remain objective about the possibility that anthropogenic CO2 may yet prove to be a major driver in the current observed modest warming, and what some claim to be catastrophic future warming. Please link to any studies that show CO2 is responsible for the warming ascribed to it by the “team” and others. I also have no dog in this fight and would like to see evidence to back up the claimed climate senstivitiy to CO2, should it exist.

    I understand that you wish to steer clear of the political blood bath that has become attached, lamprey-like, to the scientific issue of AGW. That said I wonder if you feel that Andrew Revkin correctly characterized your views when he says, “One thing not in question, Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen agree, is the merit of shifting away from energy choices that contribute heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Mr. McIntyre said he feels ‘climate change is a serious issue.’”

    Now I’m not asking you to come out swinging Steve Millen style, but it would appear to me that you and Mr. Hansen are not in agreement on the basic issues surrounding “climate change”.

    It may be that you are the quiet and thoughtful type. I can appreciate that “discretion is the better part of valor” and that you may be “picking your battles” (I promise no more cliché expressions), but unless Mr. Revkin was talking to a different Steve McIntyre (perhaps the retired business man not the statistical scientist) I think a correction is in order.

    Am I wrong?

    Either way keep up the great work.

    Lance Harting

  9. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 7:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Climate is an important element in the plot of Shakespeare’s King Lear, the gist of which climateaudit will expound in the interests of liberal education with little jest or adjustment. (King Lear was on the curriculum of Ontario high school seniors in 1965.)

    The following is taken from here.

    King Lear, a dotty 80-year-old ruler of ancient Britain, announces that he will retire from the throne and divide his kingdom among his three daughters: Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. The foolish, self-centered old man declares (in Act I, Scene I) that the daughter who loves him the most will receive the biggest share of his property. Then he will live with each daughter in turn, one month at a time. The avaricious Goneril declares that her love for her father knows no bounds:

    …………………Sir, I love you more than words can wield the matter;
    …………………Dearer than eye-sight, space, and liberty;
    …………………Beyond what can be valued, rich or rare;
    …………………No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honour;
    …………………As much as child e’er loved, or father found;
    …………………A love that makes breath poor, and speech unable;
    …………………Beyond all manner of so much I love you.
    …………………(Act I, Scene I, Lines 56-62)

    …….Regan says Goneril comes up short, declaring “I am alone felicitate in your dear highness’ love” (Lines 77-78). Lear is much pleased.

    Goneril and her husband, the Duke of Albany, first host Lear. In time, the eccentric old man and his entourage vex her. After Lear strikes Goneril’s steward, Oswald, for scolding his jester, Goneril says,

    …………………By day and night he wrongs me; every hour
    …………………He flashes into one gross crime or other,
    …………………That sets us all at odds: I’ll not endure it:
    …………………(Act I, Scene III, Lines 3-5)

    She tells Oswald to ignore Lear and his entourage, since he is now an “idle old man” (Act I, Scene III, Line 16) who has relinquished his authority. If he does not like the treatment he receives, she says, then he can move to the castle of Regan and her husband. There, she says, he will receive similar treatment, because Regan and she are of a like mind in their view of how to deal with the pesky old man.

    Meanwhile, Kent presents himself in disguise to Lear in a room in the castle, saying he wishes to serve the king:

    …………………I can keep honest counsel, ride, run, mar a curious tale in telling it, and deliver a plain message
    …………………bluntly: that which ordinary men are fit for, I am qualified in; and the best of me is diligence.
    …………………(Act I, Scene IV, Lines 34-37)

    Moments later, a knight tells the king he is no longer regarded with affection by Goneril, Albany, and their servants. Oswald enters and Lear, apparently regarding him as a tool in Goneril’s plan to mistreat the king, insults and slaps him. For good measure, the disguised Kent trips Oswald, then pushes him out of the room. The king’s jester comes in just then and recites a little speech for Lear and Kent, a speech which seems to contain more wisdom than Lear and Kent realize:

    …………………Have more than thou showest,
    …………………Speak less than thou knowest,
    …………………Lend less than thou owest,
    …………………Ride more than thou goest,
    …………………Learn more than thou trowest,
    …………………Set less than thou throwest;
    …………………Leave thy drink and thy whore,
    …………………And keep in-a-door,
    …………………And thou shalt have more
    …………………Than two tens to a score.
    …………………(Act I, Scene IV, Lines 31-140)

  10. Nate
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    While we are having fun, I thought some of the readers of this blog might find this article interesting.

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/ark-is-built-on-mount-ararat

    Talk about a complete waste of money.

  11. TAC
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 7:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    SteveM: Post #9 reminds me of Charles Austin Beard’s comment that all of history can be reduced to four lessons:

    - The bee fertilizes the flower it robs;

    - Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad with power;

    - The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small;

    - When it is dark enough, you can see the stars.

  12. jae
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 7:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve McI: Forsooth, if you ever want to attend the Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, OR, let me know and I’ll get the tickets!

  13. BarryW
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 7:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re 10

    No, no. You missed the boat .. er point. Isn’t it all about feelings? They feel good about themselves so it’s not a waste of money. Didn’t Gavin say feelings are more important?

    Re 9

    I think the line from Macbeth is appropriate to Hansen’s rant:: “It is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing”

  14. Lance
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 8:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Fair enough my liege, but remember,

    “Nothing can come of nothing: speak again.”

    Don’t suffer the fate of poor Cordelia.

  15. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 8:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “”Portions of a radio performance of the play King Lear on BBC Radio 3 in the UK were used by John Lennon in The Beatles’ song “I Am the Walrus”, starting at about the halfway point, but most audible towards the end and during the long fadeout. Lennon added the BBC audio (live as it was being broadcast) on a whim during mixing of the track. The character Oswald’s exhortation, “bury my body”, as well as his lament, “O, untimely death!” (Act IV, Scene VI) were interpreted by fans as further pieces of evidence that band member Paul McCartney was dead.”” Wiki

  16. jae
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 8:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “Climate Jesters,” what a cool name for a band. Too bad my wife thinks my guitar playing is “OK.”

  17. Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 8:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Mr. McIntyre,
    Love your work. I got involved in a blog swarm at an AGW site that appears to be more alarmist-leaning. Since I invoked your name (indeed, the fight started when I defended you from the claim of having done nothing to forward climate science except for an “insignificant” temperature correction) I thought I should mention it to you.

    I was quite amazed how AGW alarmists will pretty much assume that one is in league with Satan and doesn’t know that CO2 impedes infrared emissions, if one says anything critical of Mann or Hansen et al, or anything supportive of a critic such as yourself. Anyway, I don’t know the etiquette of linking to an opposing site, but I am pretty sure the argument was not in their favor. I hope I have not written anything bone-headed you would not want to be associated with.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/hemispheres/

  18. nanny_govt_sucks
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There once was a man named Hansen
    Had jesters all ’round him prancin’
    The thermometer read
    his agenda was dead
    So he took to records enhancin’

  19. Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 8:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    If the skeptics are jesters, perhaps alarmists are the high priests of our time. I have come to believe that AGW alarmists take the claim of essentially stable preindustrial temperatures (and no Medieval Warm Period) as holy writ to be defended because it means the warming of the last century is such an anomaly that it must be caused by man.

    Actually the debate has moved beyond this, since most serious people agree that CO2 increases should be expected to have increased temperatures by about 0.6C, and that temperatures probably have increased by about that much.

    What is in question now (re the potential looming crisis) is instead the extent to which global temperatures are driven by positive or negative feedbacks. When AGW alarmists figure out that 1,300 years of stable pre-industrial temperatures would actually be significant evidence against the strongly positive feedbacks they need to realize their apocalyptic scenarios, they will embrace temperature reconstructions showing the MWP and other pre-industrial variations in temperature.

  20. jae
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 8:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    17: NOT BONEHEADED, just a rational thinking person. WELCOME.

  21. jae
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 9:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re: 12: SteveMcI: My apologies, my post @ 12 was not complete or gracious. I will buy the tickets and give you room and board. And my wife is a gourmet chef. Cheers!

  22. Jeff C.
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 9:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    inching up with help
    mercury trapped in a tube
    funding continues!

    My first climate haiku (and hopefully last)

  23. Steve Moore
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE #16:

    “Climate Jesters,” what a cool name for a band.

    Yep, they could open for Reverend Anthony’s Screeching Mercury Monkeys:

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/hey_im_a_reverend.html#comments

    And that’s the gist of that jest….

  24. Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 9:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My harmonica playing is pretty good. I can keep up with Mayall on “Room to Move” with practice. Be glad to join the band.

    We could do climate/weather songs. “Stormy Monday” comes to mind.

    A name? “The Weathermen” or “Climate of Change”.

    So let me say. We need an official band. Maybe the “Weather Band” or “Channeling the Weather” or “The Weather Underground”. Which might not be a bad idea since I propose measuring climate change by recording ground temperatures at 1 ft intervals to well below the frost line. Ideas and criticism (and deletions) welcome.

    Maybe “Climate Underground” or “Too Darn Hot” or “Cool Enough for You?” or if we wanted to get a little esoteric – “The Standard Deviations – Climate of Variation” well I look forward to a lot of ideas.

    Simon

  25. Ian McLeod
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 9:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Since we are having some fun tonight, I couldn’t resist.

    “Lord, what fools these mortals be!”
    From A Midsummer Night’s Dream (III, ii, 115)

    This famous line is uttered by Puck, the mischievous spirit known for household pranks, to Oberon, Puck’s master and King of the Fairies. A series of comical events have occurred in the play: Helena loves Demetrius; Demetrius loves Hermia; Hermia loves Lysander, and he loves her in return. In fact, they have run off to be married, as Hermia’s father prefers that she wed Demetrius. In an amusing twist, Oberon feels sorry for Helena and orders Puck to put a magic love oil on the eyelids of the sleeping young Athenian man, meaning Demetrius. Puck mistakenly puts the oil on Lysander’s eyelids instead, and when he wakes and sees Helena, he falls madly and passionately in love with her. Before falling to sleep, Lysander had sworn his eternal love for Hermia, stating that he would die when he stopped loving her. Now he awakes, enchanted, and immediately declares his love for Helena, and regrets all the time he spent with Hermia. As everyone goes off to chase everyone else in this confusion of love, Puck makes his famous comment on the human condition.

    More info here
    http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lord-what-fools-these-mortals

    I thought this crazy mixed up scene reflects the AGW’ers confusion as each sacred cow is demolished.

  26. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re # 11 TAC

    ad libbing,

    . the B contaminates the data with manure
    . if you make me mad with irradiance I will destroy your ideals
    . the cells of the grid get smaller, but are not exceedingly fine
    . when it gets hot enough, you can enlist the Stars

    Cheers Geoff.

  27. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    JESTING.

    Please pardon 2 consecutive posts, but we work through the night in Australia when many others are asleep and not on CA.

    Steve, you must have had Milton in mind when you started this:

    “Haste thee nymph and bring with thee
    Jest and joyful jollity,
    Quips and cranks, and wanton wiles,
    Nods and becks and wreathed smiles.”

    Makes you feel younger?

    But I fear that the present circumstances call on John Dryden 1631-1700, when we know not what the weather was like in England. There are two quotes from Absalom & Achitophel (1681):

    “A man so various that he seemed to be
    Not one, but all mankind’s epitome.
    Stiff in opinion, always in the wrong;
    Was everything by starts, and nothing long.
    But, in the course of one revolving moon,
    Was chemist, fiddler, statesman and buffoon.”

    A little after the above climatologist reference to the moon, we have another:

    “In squandering wealth was his peculiar art:
    Nothing went unrewarded, but desert.
    Beggared by fools, whom still he found too late:
    He had his jest, and they had his estate.”

    Prescient words which could be applied to several unnamed people in the current context.

    Another subject if I may? Several people in various threads are asking about Sth hemisphere land temp trends from remote places like Macquarie Island, 1500 kn SE of New Zealand. If you want this badly enough, please let me know and I’ll try to get it. Sorry to be off-thread, but trying to catch all.

    (I still maintain that “denier” is a measure of the fineness of stockings, mmmmm. Lovely.)

    Geoff.

  28. Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 11:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s been always like that.

    Adjusters don’t joust in the rhythm of jazz but rather jostle with jesters who just want to jest with adjusters and save their jaws and juice in their glasses.

    Prof Hansen explains similar facts about Nature in his new synthetic article about hell:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/hansen-all-hell-is-going-to-break-loose.html

  29. Rob
    Posted Aug 27, 2007 at 11:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #14

    “… and that my liege is how we know the world is shaped like a banana” Sir Bedivere to King Arthur, Holy Grail (M.Python).

  30. TAC
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 4:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Geof (#26) Nice! I like it!

    ==============

    Jeff C (#22)

    Climate as Haiku

    Fire and brimstone
    Enjoying jousting jesters
    Choose humanity

  31. PeterS
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 5:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

    @3 I like the T-Shirt idea. It may need a slogan too though. Can I suggest:

    LIFE’S A GAS!
    Climate Jesters

  32. MrPete
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 5:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Juicy, isn’t it, that Shakespeare is sometimes attributed to none other than Sir Francis Bacon, widely known as progenitor of modern empirical science (he introduced deduction and abstraction on the basis of negation and exclusion, long before Popper articulated falsification), and inspiration for the first modern research institute, the , Royal Society.

    Bacon might well have a joust or two as hidden jester to handsome Hansen. Googling led to some bits I found rather interesting…

    His comment on credulity (from here: “The matter of manifest truth is not be mingled or weakened with matter of doubtful credit; and yet again, rarities and reports that seem incredible are no to be suppressed or denied to the memory of men.”

    On “Anticipations” (from of the Interpretation of Nature) (foreshadowing AGW alarmists?!) “I call Anticipations the voluntary collections that the mind maketh of knowledge; which is every man’s reason…the errors of such as have descended and applied themselves to experience, and attempted to induce knowledge upon particulars…they have not had the resolution and strength of mind to free themselves wholly from Anticipations, but have made a confusion and intermixture of Anticipations and observations…if any have had the strength of mind generally to purge away and discharge all Anticipations, they have not had that greater and double strength and patience of mind, as well to repel new Anticipations after the view and search of particulars, as to reject
    old which were in their mind before; but have from particulars and history flown up to principles without the mean degrees, and so framed all the middle generalities or axioms, not by way of scale or ascension from particulars, but by way of derivation from principles; whence hath issued the infinite chaos of shadows and notions, wherewith both books and minds have been hitherto, and may be yet hereafter much more pestered.” (Essentially, promoting what so many here have argued: we too quickly jump to conclusions (“Anticipations”) based on bad historical data (“particulars”), and badly derived principles that lead to

    infinite chaos of shadows and notions, wherewith both books and minds [and governments] have been…pestered

    And finally, various references to his “History of Winds”, anticipating meteorology (and paralelled in The Tempest).

    I’ll just quit now, and summarize in the form of our lighthearted thread theme… :)

    Jesting jousts are justified when judging is enjoined by adjusters!

  33. Gary
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 7:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Following up on #24, its time to start building a play list for the “Climate Jesters” and “Rev. Anthony’s Screeching Mercury Monkeys”. Here are two suggestions:

    1. Eve of Destruction
    2. Hot Hot Hot

  34. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    You all visit Anthony’s blog.

    That little jester sneak is off at a conference ( UCAR) delivering prelim results of
    the Surfacestations.org effort.

    Good luck Anthony. I hope you wore your harlequin

  35. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Shakespeare? from a McIntyre, son of a carpenter. ( This is not a religious comment)

    While I eschew wikipedia, it has a nice entry on the jester

    In societies where the Freedom of Speech was not recognized as a right, the court jester – precisely because anything he said was by definition “a jest” and “the uttering of a fool” – could speak frankly on controversial issues in a way in which anyone else would have been severely punished for, and monarchs understood the usefulness of having such a person at their side. Still, even the jester was not entirely immune from punishment, and he needed to walk a thin line and exercise careful judgement in how far he might go – which required him to be far from a “fool” in the modern sense.

    Other things
    …..As late as 1968, however, the Canada Council awarded a $3,500 grant to Joachim Foikis of Vancouver “to revive the ancient and time-honoured tradition of town fool”.[2][3]

  36. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Only CA guys would like this

    http://eigentaste.berkeley.edu/user/index.php

  37. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “could speak frankly on controversial issues in a way in which anyone else would have been severely punished for”

    Ay, there’s the rub. That’s what makes the climate priests so angry. Mocking the clergy – blasphemy.

  38. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    When we do anomaly maps we shuld use the The Fool’s Cap World Map, anon. c.1590.

    http://www.thenoodlebowl.com/jesters/pages/legreal.html

  39. Gary
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 8:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Play list addition: “Fool on the Hill”

  40. Gary
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    And “Summer in the City”, of course.

  41. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 37.

    As a fully trained and certified deconstructionist, I find the irony of Hansen’s
    use of the figure of the jester rich and creamy.

    One of the principal tactics of deconstruction is to show how a text works to
    undermine itself. The King makes proclaimations, and upon closer examination
    his proclaimations are self indicting. So Hansen, who has whined about being silenced,
    itself a claim that self immolates upon refelection, now casts himself in the role of the King
    who cannot trifle with jesters: those who expose the king.

  42. MarkW
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 9:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Can’t forget

    “Up on the roof” and “Under the Boardwalk”.

  43. kim
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Grant the Gaia the Gorgeous the Grand
    To Know
    Is all ye need.
    =============================

  44. Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 9:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Actually Steve, you have a split personality

    As a climate auditor you are a jester

    “The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.”

    as a former businessman you are a “captain of industry”

    “The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry,”

    boy what a bag of mixed metaphors, tho I can trace the transition from royalty steering the ship of state to captain, “with ability to change our course”

  45. Dennis Gebhardt
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 9:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Steve – You are doing good work on the temperature issue(s) associated with GW. Don’t give up. There are few who have the ability to make a case such as you are doing.

    I am a consulting hydrogeologist and have been working in western N. American for 37 years. I do investigations for groundwater, surface water, and have been an expert witness in state and federal courts many times.

    I knew something was up with the GW crowd quite some time ago. I lived and worked in Alaska during the early 1980′s. In 2003 I read a news article by Seth Borenstein for Knight Ridder which tried to give the impression that Alaska was suddenly warming. The writer used some different sources as proof of warming, in particular, assertions that all the glaciers were in retreat and that the yearly avg. temps rose 5 degrees since 1960.

    One of the experts cited (so-called) was Deborah Williams–formerly the “Chief Interior Department Official for Alaska” (whatever that signifies) during the Clinton Administration. Ms Williams was quoted as saying “Alaska is the melting tip of the iceberg, the panting canary.” Presumeably she knew this from looking at the terminus of a few glaciers.

    Eventually, the Alaskan Climate Research Center (ACRC) provided data that showed no such increase took place. There was a 2.4 degree jump in 1976-77 which they thought was due to a circulation realignment in the Pacific Ocean. If you look at the temperature record for Fairbanks Alasks from 1980 it looks like serious cooling is going on now.

    Traveling around AK I could see examples of glaciers which were rapidly moving forward, receeding, or just stagnant within a matter of a day’s travel. As to the idea that one warm year could cause all kinds of response from the State’s glaciers is preposterous. However the media sure ate it up with gusto.

    That kind of set the pattern for GW advocates who had a little scientific claim. They go to somewhere kind of exotic like Alaska or the N. Pole and after seeing a glacier that is receeding or open water at the pole at midsummer, rush breathlessly to inform the world that “sure enough” we have seen “GW.” This is lapped up by the new media and fed to the public. This kind of drivel should be seen for the weak evidence that it is but alas, the lack of scientific understanding is a disgrace which allows anybody to make almost any claim and have it repeated until it is taken as a fact from repetition.

    In my work I have occasion to establish climate records in support of hydrogeolgic investigations. From my experience, the government weather stations are unreliable for anything but broad trends due to urban heating, inaccurate equipment, incorrect elevation information, gaps in the record, and other factors. Multiplying these problems by the existing stations throughout the world you have a world temperature which cannot be interpreted to plus or minus 5 degrees if even that good. The third world stations would not be useful at all. Certainly they couldn’t be mixed in with the other stations which have a higher quality of record-keeping. Probably there are only 5-10% of records outside N. America and Europe which are reliable.

    And the heat island effect is most pronounced in the urbanizing areas of N. American and Europe. These growth areas have had the most disturbed and relocated weather site locations too.

    If I had to give expert testimony about the reliability of world temperature records, or a selection of them, I would have to use a very wide parameter to avoid being laughed out of the court.

    If you would like some information about the actual versus perceived recession for Nisqually Glacier let me know. This is a Mt Rainier glacier which GW devotees love to drive by and lament how horrible the effect of GW on glaciers is. There has been extensive scientific study from the 1880′s of this glacier though, which indicates it is just a normal glacier for the area in which it is located.

    Well, I’ve rambled on too long. Keep up the good work. Dennis G.

  46. Jack
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 9:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    DW Pittelli wrote:

    When AGW alarmists figure out that 1,300 years of stable pre-industrial temperatures would actually be significant evidence against the strongly positive feedbacks they need to realize their apocalyptic scenarios,

    1,300 years or roughly 10,000 years — both have been quite stable. And CO2 concentrations rarely varied more than 10 ppm up or down in either period. So based on the expectations of the CO2 greenhouse effect, temperatures should have been stable. You can’t initiate feedbacks very well unless they get a factor to get them started — well, humans are nicely supplying such a factor. I hope that the negative feedbacks turn out to be stronger than the positive feedbacks, but they haven’t seemed to kick in hard enough yet.

  47. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    RE: #45 – Here are some of my favorites:
    - Going to a relatively recent road / grade cut, or excavation, to take footage of “permafrost melting”
    - Similarly, footage of undermining / subsidence / heaving due to development over permafrost – depicted as “due to AGW”
    - Portrayal of sea ice surface ponds as “open water” (my favorite one of this genre is the UK swimmer who went into one of these near the NP, in order to claim “I swam at the NP due to GW”)
    - Supposedly neutral accounts spoken by Innuit who claim “the climate has changed” – similar situation with residents of Churchill on Hudson’s Bay – no profit motive in the more marginal, struggling, impoverished Arctic communities (typically ones that did not get the luck of the draw in terms of resources) in telling people from the lower 48 media orgs what they want to hear …. none whatsoever /sarc
    - Here’s one here in Cali that should have ski operators up in arms – the media’s constant harping to the effect that “the ski season has gotten shorter” (even though it has not) which has resulted in most skiers prematurely ending their season each year. If you don’t bother to check conditions, you won’t know there is still snowpack. The ski operators cannot afford to put up “we still have snow” billboards in Spring, so, they simply struggle painfully in silence, as their business diminishes. Great for me – no crowds – but very sad.

  48. Jack
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dennis G.

    Have you read this article?

    PHENOLOGY:
    Responses to a Warming World

  49. Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I have seen Global Warming… a Primrose in November!
    Actually,I kept temperature records on our island for twelve years and I have nothing to report.

  50. Richard deSousa
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #24 – Hansen’s Folly seems appropriate for the band’s name.

  51. Richard deSousa
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #37: “Laugh, it drives them crazy.” David Wojick

  52. David
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This site and Anthony’s site are doing a lot to actually prove man made global warming. UHI induced warming rather than CO2. It seems to me that if people really did care about a few degrees warming, they would have been calling for reducing UHI by using certain building materials, etc. Even if it is only a local warming, warming is warming right?

    #48: So CO2 causes global warming, which causes increased plant growth, which takes more CO2 out of the atmosphere, which poisons the soil with too much carbon? Don’t worry, ‘evil man’ will clear cut some more rain forest to make up for it. Gee whiz people!

  53. MarkW
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Leon,

    Can you present any proof that these so called tipping points exist?

  54. MarkW
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack,

    Do you honestly believe that the only thing that affects the climate is CO2?

    As to your claim that there are positive feedbacks kicking in.

    Where? The amount of warming that we have seen to date is less than would be expected from a world with zero feedbacks, of any kind.
    No evidence for positive feedbacks there.

  55. Earle Williams
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #53

    MarkW,

    You should check your irony detector mate. Leon was quoting our favorite climatologist for context. Nothing to see here…

  56. Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

    for his adjustments
    a seat beside Gaia made
    Hansen should be fired

    honestly folks, this is your science [for at least some of you, or so i gather]not his
    or Mann’s, et.al. – All silliness aside, when will there be a convention to have the “Adjuster”
    canned!

  57. Frank K.
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #45

    Dennis G. – Thanks so much for your post. It is good to hear from knowledgeable people such as yourself. I for one would love to hear more about the history of the Nisqually Glacier.

    “From my experience, the government weather stations are unreliable for anything but broad trends due to urban heating, inaccurate equipment, incorrect elevation information, gaps in the record, and other factors.”

    You hit the nail on the head here. It amazes me that the folks over at NASA/NOAA appear to have little interest in the quality of the climate monitoring stations, outside of asking the government for more money to fund more research. At some point, it would be interesting to see how much money gets poured into the U.S. climate research and monitoring infrastructure every year versus what we actually get for that money…

  58. Ian McLeod
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #48, Jack,

    I am sure you are decent fellow who believes strongly and passionately that AGW is a scientific fact. You will be hard-pressed convincing few on this blog if that is your aim, but if that is your aim, why not head over to Unthreaded #18 and give us your best shot.

    On this blog, Steve McIntyre et al are auditing the so-called scientific facts of AGW, primarily because few others have bothered. What are the facts? Is human activity causing global warming? There are many who believe this and back it up with arguments. I am sure you could ream off a whole litany of circumstantial evidence, but in the end, that is all it will be, circumstantial. The fact is, AGW, is as mysterious now, as it ever was. Join us in unraveling the mystery and open your mind to new ideas without fear.

    Ian

  59. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Since I cannot say better what Shakespeare and his following rewriters have said already, I will take an analytical tact to what Hansen hath wrought as he speaketh about jesters.

    What I find here is a failure to appreciate the true aim of Hansen in his joust with jesters. Surely a man with his reputation and learning would be aware of the role that the jester played in times past and thus we must search deeper for the true meaning of his comments. We contrarians, deniers, nit pickers, just plain puzzle solvers and others who tend to overreact to the raw output of climate science must allow for the “adjustments”. Some of you do appreciate the immediacy of the AGW problem while others of you will never see it, but nonetheless you all are tending to look for perfection on the first go round and forgetting that getting the, or at least a, message out is important and that the refining “adjustment” can always be made later and/or in due time. Right now we need the lessons of the tragedy as told by the climate bard, Hansen.

    What I see from Hansen on “adjustment” is that he gives the doubters full value and credit for making their points in classical jester form. What we have overlooked is his references to the profit-for-the-moment motives of the greedy energy executives, and here is the kicker, with their all consuming control over the doubters and assorted fellow travelers. We are controlled to the extent that our jestering is not to the truth, although we see it as such, but to fossil fuel powers and gods.

    In attempting to understand the “adjusted” message of Hansen, I see, as I saw the overreactions to communism (as an anti-communist myself) in the past and that was the urge to blame most of our ills on anything connected even remotely to the bad effects of communism and give it a power that it did not or could not possess. So on further analyses perhaps Hansen’s “adjustments” will need still further “adjustments”, but I suspect that, at least, my “adjusted” version of Hansen’s jousting with the jesters will play better with his choir.

  60. Jack
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Do you honestly believe that the only thing that affects the climate is CO2?

    No.

    As to your claim that there are positive feedbacks kicking in. Where?

    I actually didn’t claim that positive feedbacks are kicking in; my point acknowledged that there are both, and that I hope the negative ones end up being stronger than the positive ones. Because the globe is warming, the positive feedbakcs would seem to have the upper hand currently. Best example: Arctic sea ice retreat = loss of albedo and increased absorption of solar radiation by dark seawater compared to bright ice. Causes warmer Arctic waters, warmer SSTs adjacent to Greenland, increased precip on the Greenland ice sheet and enhanced melting at the edges, more freshwater in the North Atlantic, decreased (but unlikely cessation I note) deep water formation, hence warmer winter polar temperatures, less winter freezing in the Arctic, less first-year ice, enhance melting of multi-year ice in the next summer, return to Arctic sea ice retreat… how’s that?

  61. Jack
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I am sure you are decent fellow who believes strongly and passionately that AGW is a scientific fact. You will be hard-pressed convincing few on this blog if that is your aim,

    but if that is your aim,

    It’s not. I occasionally visit here and respond here when I see errors in reasoning and opinions which seem to be based on a limited knowledge base. I know what I know, and what I know probably won’t influence others who think they know more than me, whether or not that’s true. It has just struck me that the contretemps caused by Steve’s discovery of the NASA error has a lot of people logically miscontruing and mistakenly extrapolating, and also not seeing the forest for the trees.

  62. Derek Tipp
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    For those climate realists who like a good read here is a most interesting contribution by Professor Segalstad. To access it click here

  63. windansea
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    when AGW meets real estate values:

    Los Angeles Times published an article explaining why the city council of Santa Barbara has been prevented from painting a blue line across the city to mark how high the water will be if you believe Al Gore’s prediction that global warming will make the oceans rise by 23 feet. The idea was not defeated because people realize that Gore’s prediction is silly and wrong, but because a realtor threatened a law suit based on the argument that property values below the line would fall.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-blueline26aug26,1,5947765.story?ctrack=5&cset=true

  64. fFreddy
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 1:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #47, SteveSadlov

    The ski operators cannot afford to put up “we still have snow” billboards in Spring, so, they simply struggle painfully in silence, as their business diminishes.

    I keep thinking that this nonsense is going to carry on until someone ends up in court. Why don’t these ski operators start suing the media for blatant interference with their lawful business ? Surely there are some lawyers who would do it on a success fee basis ?

  65. windansea
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I occasionally visit here and respond here when I see errors in reasoning and opinions which seem to be based on a limited knowledge base.

    old chinese proverb “man who brag about his knowledge base usually not well endowed”

    also not seeing the forest for the trees

    insert Hockey Stick joke here

    .

  66. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 1:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 61.

    You don’t know jack. That was a fun game.

    Anyway, welcome back jack,
    you came on attack
    with some tact
    unafraid of flack
    or assaults upon your sack
    ( despite its lack)
    Take nothing back
    you are no hack
    but some of what you say is WACK.
    I suspect you’re blond with a nice big Rack.

  67. Don.W
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re:66

    Wow. This thread began with highbrow haiku’s and degraded to mediocre rap pretty quickly.

    I’ll give it a 7 Steve because it’s got a good beat and I think I can dance to it!

    Word

  68. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE: #63 and 64 – Indeed, takings law may apply to both the case of the SB blue line and the ski areas.

  69. Jo Calder
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    As this is a jesting thread, the thought crosses my mind, is the temperature record usufruct?

    It might be worth plotting the positions of the major players on the flow chart. Bonus points for using miracle get out in good faith.

  70. MarkW
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack,

    The fact that it is warming is not evidence that positive feedbacks have the upper hand. It is merely evidence that there is a factor causing warming. Nobody has ever denied that CO2 will cause some warming. In fact before either negative or positive feedbacks can kick in, there has to be some change in the base temperature.

    I notice that you did not attempt to deal with my arguments as to why I believe that negative feedbacks dominate, you just reaserted your claim that positive feedbacks must dominate.

  71. Severian
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This site and Anthony’s site are doing a lot to actually prove man made global warming. UHI induced warming rather than CO2. It seems to me that if people really did care about a few degrees warming, they would have been calling for reducing UHI by using certain building materials, etc. Even if it is only a local warming, warming is warming right?

    Bingo, I’ve been of this opinion for some time now. CO2 driven global warming is not the main problem, it’s an insignificant, uncontrollable distraction from what we should be concentrating on. UHI effects have been demonstrated to be real, and can definitely alter local microclimates (and in this case the size of that “micro” climate can be large, just think of the increasing industrialization and urbanization of the US Southeast). You can’t pour concrete and plant air conditioners like daiseys and not have an effect on how hot it feels around you. And finding ways to moderate that effect, to improve the livability of heavily urbanized areas wrt temperature seems a very valid and useful area of investigation to me. More trees, changes in regional land use, and such are all excellent subjects for investigation to help moderate local temperature islands.

    Unfortunately, all of this concentration on a trace atmospheric gas and focusing on global reorganization and carbon trading ponzi schemes is distracting from real issues like UHI and sucking up funding that would be better spent elsewhere. Unfortunately for us, though, addressing regional and local climate issues is not conducive to reorganizing the world, supporting anti-capitalist and socialist principles, and punishing wealthy Western cultures, which seems to be more important to many of the AGW crowd than either science or sound environmental policy.

    So, we waste time and effort on things we have no control over and ignore things which we might be able to have a real, beneficial, cost effective impact on. I believe that, with respect to the climate, the goal should be to think and act locally.

  72. MarkW
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 4:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    As to the artic, it would help if you kept up with the research.
    NASA has found that decreased ice cover causes an increase in evaporation that results in more clouds.
    As a result, there is little to no change in albedo.

  73. Jack
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The fact that it is warming is not evidence that positive feedbacks have the upper hand. It is merely evidence that there is a factor causing warming. Nobody has ever denied that CO2 will cause some warming. In fact before either negative or positive feedbacks can kick in, there has to be some change in the base temperature.

    Which there is (a change in the base temperature), or do you have another explanation for the current melting trend of the Arctic sea ice?

    I notice that you did not attempt to deal with my arguments as to why I believe that negative feedbacks dominate, you just reaserted your claim that positive feedbacks must dominate.

    I didn’t see an argument. All I saw was this:

    The amount of warming that we have seen to date is less than would be expected from a world with zero feedbacks, of any kind.

    There is already a demonstrated and observed feedback of water vapor caused by global warming. Minschwaner and Dessler 2004, notably, and a couple others. As I described, melting Arctic sea ice is another positive feedback. So this is not a world with zero feedbacks.

  74. Jack
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I suspect you’re blond with a nice big Rack.

    Nailed me; I’m actually Miss Teen South Carolina.

  75. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 4:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    SteveS,

    If you like to Ski and if they ever open Dyer Mountain

    http://www.dyermtn.com/

    You can use my cabin there, I’ll give you the CA discount

  76. Steve Moore
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    or do you have another explanation for the current melting trend of the Arctic sea ice?

    ….it’s August?

  77. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 74.

    What the heck what she talking about south africa for?

    They should have thrown her in rehab based on blond baysian bimbo priors.

    I’d say she was dumb as rocks, but…. finish the joke.

  78. Steve Moore
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    All this talk about feedbacks brings the same question to mind:

    The claim is that an increase in mean temperature of 2, 3, or 5 degrees will set off a series of positive feedbacksthat will doom us all.

    I’m sitting in Aloha, Oregon, where the current mean is about 20 degrees higher than it was 8 months ago. No feedbacks visible here. In fact, people are wondering where the Summer went: usually by now we’ve had a dozen or so days of 90+ temps. So far, we’ve seen 8.

  79. jae
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    73, Jack: Then please explain to me why the average July temperatures in low-elevation locations in the desert southwest are about 3 degrees C higher than southeast locations at the same latitude. Where is that water vapor feedback? I think water in all its forms exerts an overall NEGATIVE feedback and buffers changes in insolation (and radiation from CO2, if it is significant).

  80. KDT
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 5:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Warming will cause the deaths of a great many people. A simple demonstration:

    FACT: Each year, many people relocate from cooler regions of the US (Minnesota, Michigan, etc) to Florida.

    FACT: These people experience a change from a cooler climate to a warmer climate.

    FACT: Many of these people are dead within a decade, most are dead within two decades.

    Therefore, if Minnesota warms to approximate a Florida climate, there will likely not be enough people left to bury the dead.

    Okay, the real reason I’m posting here is that I’ve been reading this site quietly for a couple of years and I find it entertaining and educational, and saying so is long overdue. Many thanks to Steve and the regulars. Cheers!

  81. jae
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 5:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    62, Derek: that IS a good read.

  82. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 5:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 78.

    I’d just like them to explain what kind of controller they anticipate will
    allow the “pilot” to control the system.

    Bode plots dr. Hansen?

  83. jae
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    46, Jack: please read the article linked in 62.

  84. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 5:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE: #80 – that brings to mind a few places, of which, it’s been said, appeal to the newly wed and the nearly dead ….. LOL! (Rhyme intended) ….

  85. windansea
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 6:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Nailed me; I’m actually Miss Teen South Carolina.

    so that’s where you hide that knowledge base

    actually she’s quite pretty, but not much of a rack to store a knowledge base

    small rack, small sack same dif

    do you have another explanation for the current melting trend of the Arctic sea ice?

    do you have another explanation for the current increasing trend for Antartic sea ice?

    http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html

    the trend in Artic sea ice melting is based on less than 30 years of satelite coverage, climate science is based on at least 30 year increments.

    there is anecdotal evidence of previous actic ice meltdowns
    in recent history.

    and then there’s that pesky medieval warming period

  86. MarkW
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 6:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack,

    There are many explanations for the fact that there is less sea ice in the artic.
    There’s the fact that we are in the warm phase of the AO and ending the warm phase of the PDO.
    There’s the fact that coverage does not equal total ice. IE, the winds can push the ice around causing it to pile up.
    There’s the fact that the amount of ice depends on which direction the wind is blowing. When the wind pushes the ice against Canada or Russia, it stays in the artic, when the wind pushes the ice out towards iceland, the ice goes out into the atlantic and melts.

    I’m not surprised that you aren’t able to detect arguments that go against your belief system. It remains a fact that the amount of warming seen so far (even if 100% of the warming seen to date comes from CO2) indicate that negative feedbacks predominate. Nobody has ever said that more water vapor equals increased warming, but the world is not as simple as you want to believe. More water vapor also equals more clouds which cool the earth, and water vapor also means more storms, which take water vapor out of the atmosphere.

  87. MarkW
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 6:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack,

    You do a very good job of ignoring what other people write, no wonder you believe in AGW.
    I pointed out to you a known fact, that being, melting ice in the arctic is NOT a strong positive feedback, it may not even be a positive feedback because of increased cloud cover, yet you continue to spout your mantra that melting ice is a positive feedback. You don’t even acknowledge the argument I presented, you just keep repeating your mantra as if it were some kind of mystical phrase that can change reality to match your beliefs.

  88. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Mosh pit notes AGAIN.

    When they are challenged the Warmists run for the ICE.

    Now jack, you need not respond to this. This is not an observation about the world
    This is an observation about rhetorical strategy, about tropes, about patterns of
    defense and attack. ( sorry I worked in operations research, threat analysis)

    1. When you attack the land record, the warmist will run for the ICE.

    a. the ice connects with a common sense notion that ice melts when it gets warm.
    b. Artic ice exists in a place where man doesnt go. If our influence shows up
    there we are a powerful destructive force.
    c. The Ice sports cute creatures. Penguins, seals, polar bears, and walrii with large winkies.

    2. Be prepared to chop holes in the ice.

    a and b can be answered. Item c is exotic cuisine.

  89. windansea
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack should take the advice upthread and head over to unthreaded #19 with his knowledge base

    this is just a jester thread

    unthreaded has killer whales that don’t just slap you around with their tails

    if your numbers are wrong you get crunched

  90. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 28, 2007 at 7:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 89..

    I’m sure my reference to walrii and great winkies will be the clue by 4 that
    wakes jack up. Otherwise Subdue him with your bauble.

    (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bauble)

  91. PeterS
    Posted Aug 29, 2007 at 4:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    @ 59 Kenneth Fritsch

    Since I cannot say better what Shakespeare and his following rewriters have said already, I will take an analytical tact to what Hansen hath wrought as he speaketh about jesters.

    Forsooth, what intemperate analytics of our climate bard are these?
    Jousters jest that he, in adjusting, doth add injusting?
    And, in trying to get his gist, we find we cannot ingest?
    Why, ’tis easy to deduce the gist of his well-chartered lines . . .
    - Our lord doth adjust, and by his adjusting shall our unfair clime be known.

  92. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 29, 2007 at 8:36 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Ice melts. A poem.

    When humid warm air blows in, the ice may melt
    When soot covers the ice, the ice may melt
    If the ice absorbing more sunlight
    When the water is warmer or the flow changes
    Flow changes
    Or the salt in the sea moves around
    The ice may melt if a ship goes by
    Or if it’s August and it just wants to try
    The air can get warmer and make that ice fry
    Or people can chop it
    Just try and stop it

    77 steven mosher says: “I’d say she was dumb as rocks, but…”

    …if you go to bed with her you’ll have to take off your socks!!!

    80 KDT says: “Warming will cause the deaths of a great many people.” Of course! Those Florida temps are HOT! How about these:

    FACT: When it’s warmer, you breathe more often.

    FACT: Breathing kills you.

    Or

    One of the most dangerous places in the world is the hospital, do you know how many people die in them?

    lol

    88 steven mosher says: “Item c is exotic cuisine.”

    And they taste better if you give them names.

  93. Bob Meyer
    Posted Aug 29, 2007 at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just got back this thread and I can’t believe that the play list is missing “Hot Stuff” (Donna Summer), “Fever” (Peggy Lee) and “Great Balls of Fire” (Jerry Lee Lewis). I included the original artists because some younger people may not know the classics.

  94. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 29, 2007 at 6:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    If somebody will send (or re-send instructions) on how to include music on WordPress sites, I’ll experiment with some music.

  95. RomanM
    Posted Aug 30, 2007 at 5:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

    …and one more for the play list: A Hot Time in the Old Town Tonight. Even in 1896, they were already aware of UHI effects!

  96. MrPete
    Posted Aug 30, 2007 at 5:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, see here for wordpress mp3 player.

  97. TAC
    Posted Aug 30, 2007 at 6:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Blinded by the Light” (M. Mann’s Earth Band). It is not the greatest song — way too loud, too much repetition, incomprehensible lyrics — but kids love it and perhaps some of its lyrics will appeal to us CA folk, like:

    Mama always told me not to look into the eye’s of the sun

    followed by

    But mama, that’s where the fun is

    ;-)

  98. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Aug 30, 2007 at 6:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From Australia

    He’s not a jester in the classical role, but certainly a comic author. Australians are lining up to pay money to hear the original Al-Gore-ithm in person.

    To show how tolerant we are, we did not refuse a Visa to this confused USA person, nor did we deny him free speech. We did not even calculate the economic balance of tons of jet fuel used per ounce of dispensed wisdom. However, it is possible that some serious lampooning is in preparation.

    Tee hee.

    Horses here have started catching equine influenza, a serious and highly contagious disease. Many of the important Spring horse-race meetings for some months have been, or others might be, cancelled, including the famous Melbourne Cup.

    We wonder how it got past Quarantine. The influenza, I mean.

  99. PaddikJ
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 1:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack/Jacqueline,

    Keep repeating “There is a positive feedback in the Arctic Ocean, there is a . . .” and maybe it will come true. But whatever you do, don’t apply or think about any basic thermodynamics, or worse, actually crunch numbers. That might interrupt your train of (wishful) thought and allow reality to leak in, and with it some unsettling notions like “Hmm . . . do a few fractions of a degree either way in lower TS temps really indicate enough total heat to cause the changes in sea-ice cover we’ve been seeing? And since the Arctic is cloudy so much of the summer, maybe soot or more polar bear poop on the ice don’t really have much to do with it either. Gosh, maybe it takes ocean currents to transport that much heat, and . . . hmm . . . Hey! Shouldn’t someone be looking into this?”

    My Jest:

    Me-thinks the Goracle doth ingest too much (and surely not in jest)

    Ugh. Pretty lame, but it’s late & I’m tired.

    ‘Night all.

  100. Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #60 Jack

    “It has just struck me that the contretemps caused by Steve’s discovery of the NASA error has a lot of people logically miscontruing and mistakenly extrapolating, and also not seeing the forest for the trees.

    So you mean just as happened after the IPCC TAR with the ‘smoking gun’ hockey stick!

    Thanks to Steve and Ross that one has been put straight (literally), pretty much no more flat handle and barely a blade.

    I’m sorry mate but the AGW camp of which you are clearly a member based on your posts in this thread are well and truly rattled. It’s pretty clear to me that its now only a matter of time before the primary evidence for ‘unprecented warming’ in the latter part of the twentieth century is shown to be a complete artefact of the Jones/Hansen adjustments.

    Once this is all out in the public domain and the MSM change sides (as IMO they have no loyalty to either side of the debate and they love a good scandal) then eco-theologically inspired AGWers like yourself will look well and truly stupid. The game will well and truly be up and the taxpayers of the world will get to see their hard-earned taxes spent on real global issues like poverty, famine and disease.

    KevinUK

  101. Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #92 Sam

    “One of the most dangerous places in the world is the hospital, do you know how many people die in them?”

    You must be a regular visitor to Numberwatch as thats just the kind of quote JEB would use.

    KevinUK

  102. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m sorry mate but the AGW camp of which you are clearly a member based on your posts in this thread are well and truly rattled. It’s pretty clear to me that its now only a matter of time before the primary evidence for ‘unprecented warming’ in the latter part of the twentieth century is shown to be a complete artefact of the Jones/Hansen adjustments.

    You need to read the link in#48, friend. Ecosystems don’t have any reason to do anything but respond to changes that they are forced to respond to. And the changed that they are responding to is warming.

    A quote from the paper to rattle your brain:

    “Phenological changes differ from species to species (2-12), but some are substantial. In Mediterranean ecosystems, the leaves of most deciduous plant species now unfold on average 16 days earlier and fall on average 13 days later than they did 50 years ago (7). In Western Canada, Populus tremuloides shows a 26-day shift to earlier blooming over the past century (9). Other shifts are smaller but go in the same direction. A 6-day shift to earlier leaf unfolding and a 5-day delay in autumn leaf coloring over 30 years have been described from Scandinavia to Macedonia (4). An earlier onset of biological spring by about 8 days has also been reported across Europe for 1969-98 (10, 11) and by about 6 days in North America for 1959-93 (12). In marine ecosystems, substantial positive linear trends in phytoplankton season length and abundance have been described in areas of the North Atlantic with warming waters for 1948-95 (13).

    Remote sensing data validate these ground observations on larger scales. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), which is derived from infrared and red Earth surface reflectance, scales with green biomass. NDVI satellite data between 45ºN and 70ºN for 1982-90 showed an 8-day shift to an earlier start of the growing season and a delay of 4 days for the declining phase (14). New NDVI data suggest that the growing season has become nearly 18 days longer during the past two decades in Eurasia and 12 days longer in North America (15). The data also show a gradual greening of the northern latitudes above 40ºN: Plants have been growing more vigorously since 1981, especially in Eurasia.

    This lengthening of the plant growing season is likely to contribute to the global increase in biospheric activity, which has been inferred from the increasing amplitude of annual oscillations in the atmospheric CO2 between 1960 and 1994 (16). The atmospheric data also suggest an extension of the growing season by about 7 days in the Northern Hemisphere between the 1960s and the early 1990s, mostly after 1980. Accelerated tree growth across Europe, previously attributed to fertilization by nitrogen compounds and increased CO2 (17), may be driven at least partly by this extended growing season. The lengthening of the growing season thus plays a key role in global carbon fixation, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and related global water and nutrient cycles.

    Data on shifts in flowering dates are abundant and show similar trends. Shifts to earlier flowering by about 1 week have been reported in Mediterranean species for 1952 to 2000 (7), in Hungary for 1851 to 1994 (3), in Wisconsin for 1936-98 (5), and in Washington, DC, for 1970-99 (6). These observations agree with model results, which indicate that the time of maximum olive pollen concentrations advances by about 6 days per degree Celsius in the western Mediterranean (18).

    All these plant phenological changes are highly correlated with temperature changes, especially in the months before seasonal life cycle events. Temperature (1) as well as phenology has changed most noticeably after the mid-1970s. This correlation does not necessarily imply a causal connection. However, available data and current knowledge of plant phenology, including numerous experimental studies (4, 19, 20), indicate that the observed changes are mostly due to the increased temperatures. Moreover, at most sites, the number of freezing days has decreased substantially in recent years (1, 7), decreasing the probability of frost damage to young leaves and flowers (21).

    Animal life cycles also depend on climate. For example, insects are expected to pass through their larval stages faster and become adults earlier in response to warming. Aphid species in the United Kingdom have shown a 3- to 6-day advance in the timing of different phases in their life cycle over the past 25 years (22). The date on which the maximum numbers of individuals of the most common Microlepidoptera in the Netherlands were counted shifted forward by 12 days on average between 1975 and 1994 (23). Butterflies now appear 11 days earlier than in 1952 in northeast Spain (7). British butterflies have not only appeared earlier but have also shown longer flight periods, that is, enhanced activity, over the past two decades (24). In other animal groups, frog calling has been reported to occur about 10 days earlier between 1990 and 1999 than between 1900 and 1912 in New York state (25), and bird species surveyed in the United Kingdom from 1971 to 1995 showed 9-day shifts toward earlier egg laying (2).

    Hey, MOSH PIT — is this what you meant by “running to the ICE”?

    MarkW and PaddikJ, ingest this:

    “According to CU-Boulder scientist Ted Scambos, sea-ice melting in response to rising temperatures creates a positive feedback loop. “Melting ice means more of the dark ocean is exposed, allowing it to absorb more of the sun’s energy, further increasing air temperatures, ocean temperatures, and ice melt,” he said. “It seems that this feedback, which is a major reason for the pronounced effects of greenhouse warming in the arctic, is really starting to kick in.”

    and

    http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/publications/jclim04/Papers/PCWG1.pdf

    “Arguably the most important positive sea ice feedback is that associated with changes in the surface albedo. Reductions in sea ice cover result in increased absorption of solar radiation which
    acts to further reduce the sea ice cover. The efficiency by which an increased ice melt rate results in open water formation and a large change in surface albedo modifies the strength of this feedback.”

    To think that minor adjustments to monitoring data alters at all the actual nature (emphasis on the word nature)of what is happening is the height of hubris. To his credit, Steve appears to know this, but the denizens of this blog rarely do. In the long run, Steve’s efforts will actually strengthen the case for anthropogenic global warming — how inconvenient that will be for many of you.

  103. jae
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack: Most people here believe there has been some warming. Hope you have not forgotten that we still may simply be coming out of the Little Ice Age. It could be AGW, or it could be natural. What caused the Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warm Period?

  104. D. Patterson
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #102

    So, Jack, are we to understand that you mean to say that any increased warmth in the present climate is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2?

  105. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #102. JAck, one of the worst defences of MAnn’s hockey stick that I’ve heard is the common one: if Mann’s hockey stick is wrong, the situation is actually much worse than people think. In that case, people who are worried about AGW should be even more angry with Mann. If the situation’s worse, then we should know about it.

    Personally, I think that one of the difficulties in presenting AGW in a policy sense is that IPCC and others get involved in too many extraneous arguments and never focus on their “best” argument – whatever that is.

    BTW, Jack, if you can provide me with a clear exposition of how to get to 2.5 deg C form doubled CO2, I’d appreciate it. I mean this quite literally – I’m looking for a good reference, not denying that one exists or saying that one is impossible.

  106. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Most people here believe there has been some warming.

    I detect a lot of hopefulness that the assessment effort will make the whole signal go away. The “butterfly effect” makes me think that won’t happen.

    Hope you have not forgotten that we still may simply be coming out of the Little Ice Age.

    Considering that the initiation of the Industrial Age coincided with the generally-accepted end of the LIA, I admit the difficulty of full decoupling. My reading of solar data indicates essentially that stability was established by mid-century, probably earlier. Since the LIA appears to have induced by a reduction in solar output, if the subsequent increase was over by mid-century, then another mechanism(s) would be necessary to cause subsequent warming. (I’m aware that there could be massive rehash over the solar data. Count me out.

    What caused the Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warm Period?

    Natural variability. Subsequent discussion would clearly be on the topic of distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic. That’s been done elsewhere, and it’s not useful for me to jump in.

    My response after a couple of days break was to those who think that refining the global temperature record and the data on which it is based will make the warming signal go away. That won’t happen. And I also wanted to respond to those who think declining sea ice area is the only notable effect of warming being observed — it’s not — and whether or not declining sea ice area would have a positive feedback on warming — it will. Other effects could reduce the strength of that positive feedback, but they will not change the fact that declining sea ice extent has to feedback on itself.

  107. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    So, Jack, are we to understand that you mean to say that any increased warmth in the present climate is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2?

    No.

  108. D. Patterson
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #107 Jack

    Are we to understand that you mean to say that some increased warmth in the present climate is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2?

  109. MarkW
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack,

    When was that statment taken, was it before or after the NASA study that found that increasing cloud cover almost completely compensated for the decrease in ice coverage?

  110. MarkW
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I detect a lot of hopefulness that the assessment effort will make the whole signal go away.

    You psychic sensors are in serious need of adjusting.

    Of all the people who post here, I have only seen one who is willing to say that there may no man induced warming.

    The only question remaining is, how much of the incredibly small 0.6C warming over the last century, is CO2 responsible for.

    ALL of the data coming in shows, that this number is pretty small. In my opinion, less than a third, possibly even less than a fifth.

  111. MarkW
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Let’s see if I have this right.

    We have no idea what caused the Minoan, Roman, or Mideival warm spells.

    But since the current warming, which is still less than any of these three coincides with a rise in CO2. CO2 MUST be responsible for most if not all of the current warming.

    DOes that pretty much sum up your position?

  112. MarkW
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The Mideival warm period was about 1000 years ago.
    The Roman warm period was about 2000 years ago.
    The Minoan warm period was about 3000 years ago.

    I think I am beginning to detect a pattern here.

  113. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    one of the worst defences of MAnn’s hockey stick that I’ve heard is the common one: if Mann’s hockey stick is wrong, the situation is actually much worse than people think. In that case, people who are worried about AGW should be even more angry with Mann. If the situation’s worse, then we should know about it.

    I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Certainly I’m concerned by how errors (which happen in any human endeavor, not just science) that had to be fixed distracted from the improving scientific understanding of the issue. Unnecessary defenses of prior methodologies slowed down the refinement process and provided more fodder for doubters to exploit. In other words, admit mistake(s) were made and do it better the next time. But there was also an amplification effect from some sectors regarding the actual impact of the errors on the overall understanding.

    I think that one of the difficulties in presenting AGW in a policy sense is that IPCC and others get involved in too many extraneous arguments and never focus on their “best” argument – whatever that is.

    Do you mean surface station siting? (Sorry.)

    In a complex system, like Earth’s climate, it’s clearly difficult to clearly distinguish the important from the extraneous. In my mind, the best argument is the Keeling curve and radiative physics. But it’s a complex system: first-order effects get modified by 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-order responses to those effects.

    if you can provide me with a clear exposition of how to get to 2.5 deg C form doubled CO2, I’d appreciate it. I mean this quite literally – I’m looking for a good reference, not denying that one exists or saying that one is impossible.

    Who do I look like, the Wizard of Oz? As far as my limited knowledge goes, the direct effect of doubling CO2 is around 0.8-1.2 degrees Centigrade. The rest is acquired via positive feedback, most notably from increased relative humidity. I don’t think the main picture has changed a lot from Manabe and Wetherald 1975. They got 3.5 C with a very, very, very… simple model.

    Quote from Weart: “The model with increased CO2 had more moisture in the air, with an intensified hydrological cycle of evaporation and precipitation. That was what physicists might have expected for a warmer atmosphere on elementary physical grounds (if they had thought about it, which few had). Actually, with so many complex interactions between soil moisture, cloudiness, and so forth, a simple argument could be in error. It took the model computation to show that this accelerated cycle really could happen, as hot soil dried out in one region and more rain came down elsewhere. The Manabe-Wetherald model also showed greater warming in the Arctic than in the tropics. This too could be predicted from simple reasoning. Not only did a more active circulation carry more heat poleward, but less snow and ice meant more absorption of sunlight by ground and sea.”

    Fast-forward to 2007, and the estimates are still between 1.5 and 4.5 C, with 2-3 C the common midrange.

  114. Ian McLeod
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack,

    [snip -too much dogma.]

    Show us the mechanism of how a doubling of CO2 gives us a climate sensitivity of 2-3 C as Steve M. suggested. That would be exciting.

    Ian

    Steve: I’m not interested in how Jack derives this or in the opinions of people who think that Jack is wrong. I’m interested in a reference to a good mainstream derivation.

  115. Bob Meyer
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Paul Lindsay,

    Sorry, I missed your link to “Hot Stuff”. You’re right, it should be the theme song!

  116. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #113. Jack, I’m familiar with the argument and I’m familiar with Manabe and Wetherald. I’m also aware that most recent estimates are in this range.

    I’m interested in a step-by-step accounting and derivation of the type that one would see in an engineering study for even modest capital investments. Surely there is a more salient reference than MAnabe and Wetherald.

  117. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 1:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    KevinUK, I’ve been there to numberwatch, but just a couple of times (from links).

    Jack, #106 if the signal goes away, it goes away. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other. Some do. That’s great. Any direction, as long as it’s not all the way to the end of the line. Helps us all think and understand.

    Steve, 116: I don’t think anyone can give you a step by step on this. I think somebody would have. All you’re going to get is “the models say” would be my opinion. Mainstream derivation or not.

  118. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 1:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 102. This is the jester thread right??

    HI jackSTER

    You want the mosh pit? You ran for the ice and fell through. Now you run for the woods.
    Much simplier just to defend the case in front of you. Anyhoo, I’ll have a look see.

    You mumbled:

    ” Ecosystems don’t have any reason to do anything but respond to changes that they are forced
    to respond to. And the changed that they are responding to is warming.”

    1. if an ecosystem is a stable system, this might be true.
    2. The issue is NOT WARMING the issue is.

    a. How much warming
    b. How accurate is our estimate
    c. Is the warming unprecidented?
    d. Is there a cause(s)
    e. What are the cause(s)
    f. How do we test this?
    g. Do we need to do something about it?
    h. What to do? if anything?
    i. Who decides?
    j. How do we test the efficacy of that decision?

    JACK, we are on question A. Looking at the data. Many things point to ( ugg ugg) warming
    So, we proceed methodically. Measuring the temperature of the air ought to be a pretty
    gosh darn simple thing…. you might think, maybe NASA could even do it.

    You Go on:

    “Phenological changes differ from species to species (2-12), but some are substantial.
    In Mediterranean ecosystems, the leaves of most deciduous plant species now unfold on average
    16 days earlier and fall on average 13 days later than they did 50 years ago (7). ”

    Lets see. 50 years ago. 2007-50 = 1957.1 ( note the homage to hansen rounding)
    How about a comparison to the 1930s?

    Further, how about explaining the other causes of leaf unfolding…
    soil nutrients, precipitation, genetic changes, etc etc etc.

    “In Western Canada, Populus tremuloides shows a 26-day shift to earlier blooming over the past century (9).
    Other shifts are smaller but go in the same direction.
    A 6-day shift to earlier leaf unfolding and a 5-day delay in autumn leaf c
    oloring over 30 years have been described from Scandinavia to Macedonia (4).
    An earlier onset of biological spring by about 8 days has also been reported
    across Europe for 1969-98 (10, 11) and by about 6 days in North America for 1959-93 (12).
    In marine ecosystems, substantial positive linear trends in phytoplankton season length
    and abundance have been described in areas of the North Atlantic with warming waters for 1948-95 (13).”

    Jack… CLUE BY 4. see the dates? The issue isnt warming. The issue is how much,since when, and is it unprecedented.

    Cue the music for the Guys from CA who want to talk about MWP wine harvesting in England…

    HOWEVER the best line is the one you left in.

    “This correlation does not necessarily imply a causal connection.”

    I hereby grant you a John Kerry version of the purple heart for shooting yourself in the foot.
    3 feet higher and you would have protected the gene pool.

    “Hey, MOSH PIT — is this what you meant by “running to the ICE”? ”

    First you ran for the ice, now you are prancing in the daisies. Get a grip jack.. a firm grip.

  119. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I am deeply suspicious of various claims by certain ecologists and biologists regarding changes in onset of spring. I am a careful observer of the land I own, including its flora. Generally speaking, coming to leaf varies significantly across a given individual, let alone multiple individuals. Depending on how you take your data, and what criteria one uses for “onset of spring” you could get dates all over the map. This would be a classical case for doing Gage R & R / MSA, in this case, focussed on differences in observer technique. It is highly doubtful that year after year the same observers have been used for such studies. Huge cherry picking opportunities abound. Also, there are some outright “gotchas.” Allow me one example. In my neck of the woods, about every 10 years or so we will get a really obvious “false spring” where a warm spell mid winter tricks plants into behaving like it’s spring. Typically, such incidents are followed by a disaster wherein there is a frost and die back. Would one still count that as “onset of spring?” I wouldn’t. I’d throw such years out. But let’s say, as I imagine is the case here, such years are counted. In a short period such as a few decades, you could pick things in such as way that your time frame has maybe one more “false spring” in its second half. Crunch the numbers and voilla! “Earlier onset of spring recorded in Podunk Region over 50 year period.”

  120. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 1:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    No need to argue about it. Here:

    http://www.maweb.org/

  121. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve Mosher:

    If you want to discuss methodologies, then you have to look at the papers. The paper referenced was a compilation of a variety of studies that all show a similar ecological response (in the expected direction) to the same proposed cause. I.e. warming. “Unprecedentedness” here is not the issue, the ecological trends consistent with the proposed active causative mechanism are the issue.

    Let’s lay the cards on the table. Is the world warming, or not?

    “This correlation does not necessarily imply a causal connection.”

    And careful scientists always say something to that effect for studies like these. But let’s say this in brief.

    1. You propose that something is happening, and have data to indicate that it probably is.
    2. You then propose 50 different effects that would probably happen in response — if the “something” is indeed happening.
    3. You then go out and observe all 50 different effects are actually happening.

    Your next step (emphasis on your) is to propose an alternative cause that would also induce all 50 observed effects which has equal or better explanatory power than the initially proposed cause. This step is, of course, fundamental to hypothesis testing — try to refute your premises.

    Go ahead — find a better cause. Make my day. (Labor Day, actually.)

  122. scp
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    105:

    BTW, Jack, if you can provide me with a clear exposition of how to get to 2.5 deg C form doubled CO2, I’d appreciate it. I mean this quite literally – I’m looking for a good reference, not denying that one exists or saying that one is impossible.

    I wouldn’t call it a good reference, but maybe it’s a starting point? Hansen gives this function for CO2 forcing in table 1… f( c ) = 4.996 * log(c + 0.005 * c^2). I think that gives something like 3.5 deg C from doubled CO2 at current levels (and somewhere around 30.5 deg C for total atmospheric CO2 forcing at 380 ppm).

    It says

    … The present results (Table 1) are based on calculations of adjusted radiative forcing (5) using the SI2000 version of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional climate model (8, 13), with the absorption coefficients fit to line-by-line current radiative transfer calculations, using current HITRAN (18) absorption line data. …”

  123. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I am deeply suspicious of various claims by certain ecologists and biologists regarding changes in onset of spring.

    And if remote sensing of earlier spring greening (link) and later reddening (link) is consistent with earlier thaws and later freezes (link), what then?

  124. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Then you cook and eat spagetti! With garlic bread of course.

    (I hear Waldo likes it)

  125. jae
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Your next step (emphasis on your) is to propose an alternative cause that would also induce all 50 observed effects which has equal or better explanatory power than the initially proposed cause. This step is, of course, fundamental to hypothesis testing — try to refute your premises.

    Can’t resist.

    Uh, the SUN? It has at least “equal or better explanatory power than the initially proposed cause.” Face it, Jack, we just don’t know. As Steve McI noted, we seem to be lacking a good physical explanation. Thus, we are left with only a bunch of computer models, which in my mind have been falsified by the lack of a rise in temperature in the past 9 years.

  126. scp
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    122:
    s/log/ln/
    f( c ) = 4.996 * ln(c + 0.005 * c^2).

    Sorry.

  127. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #106 What caused the Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warm Period? Natural variability

    That’s suspiciously vague. It’s like “what caused him to die”, answer: end of life. Unless you can be more specific, you really have no idea of what the answer is. Care to elaborate?

    #110 I have only seen one who is willing to say that there may no man induced warming

    It’s not me. Everyone who maintains 98.6 as a body temperature warms the atmosphere.

    #112 I think I am beginning to detect a pattern here.

    It looks like about every 1000 years, Man messes the environment up. Man also warms the environment up every 11 years.

  128. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    >> induce all 50 observed effects which has equal or better explanatory power than the initially proposed cause. This step is, of course, fundamental to hypothesis testing — try to refute your premises.

    Except that AGW has not presented a clearly defined hypothesis. Listing those 50 effects would be interesting. Can you narrow it down to those effects that could not be produced by increased solar activity?

  129. Larry
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    121, the logical error you’re making is assuming that there a cause. There might be a cause, there might be 2 causes, there might be 23 causes. The fact that you have a theory constructed of duct tape that when stretched enough ways with models with too many adjustable parameters that have been shown to be inconsistent kinda sorta fits data that’s of questionable accuracy doesn’t demand an alternative neat, pat answer.

    It’s juvenile to expect a neat, pat answer. And it’s certainly not required.

  130. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack’s off on another misdirection

    “If you want to discuss methodologies, then you have to look at the papers.
    The paper referenced was a compilation of a variety of studies that all show
    a similar ecological response (in the expected direction) to the same proposed cause.
    I.e. warming. “Unprecedentedness” here is not the issue,
    the ecological trends consistent with the proposed active causative mechanism are the issue. ”

    1.No, I don’t. The papers cite periods of time that are cherry picked. They are beside the point.
    Leaf opening is a proxy. Thermometer is direct. If the direct measurements are FUBAR why
    on gods green earth would I look at a proxy? Ahhh. if the thermmeter measurements are screwed
    up, and the SST measurements are screwed up, and the satillite measurements are screwed up,
    WE CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON THE LEAF OPENING INDEX!
    Today in Phoenix, expect the leaves to open. Film at 11.

    Seriously jack. When the BEST CASE ( thermometers) failed you ran for the ice ( forgetting
    about salinity changes and wind and black soot and polar bear turds) and now you are
    waving daisies at me. I know I’m cute, but chill cupcake.

    2.Unprecedented IS the point. Have a long random walk off a short pier.

    3. This is a jester thread, fred. enough said?

    “Let’s lay the cards on the table. Is the world warming, or not?”

    Yes. Somewhere, sometime, it is warming. The opposite is also true. It’s always warming.
    its always cooling. I had frost on my nuts this morning.

    Seriously. there are multiple lines of evidence showing a warming trend. SO.

    1. examine the evidence line by line.
    2. See if it matters.

    oh, and pants any doofus who runs around like chicken little.

  131. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Please stop the jibing. If you want to comment on a specific study or ask Jack for references, then do so. But please don’t argue like on usenet.

  132. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 2:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Gunnar,

    Have you read this?

    http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf

  133. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #122. I know this function, but that doesn’t discuss feedbacks and isn’t a top-to-bottom detailed derivation.

  134. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m interested in a step-by-step accounting and derivation of the type that one would see in an engineering study for even modest capital investments. Surely there is a more salient reference than MAnabe and Wetherald.

    This is well beyond any experience I have. I’d suspect that the functions in the models are the best you’d get with regards to step-by-step. Presumably in an analytical model you could then determine how much each function contributed to the final result. But that is very speculative.

  135. Larry
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    He said right there that it was simply a curve-fit to the model. The formula is a way to condense the model results into a closed form. Not an unusual method, but impossible to audit.

    Except for the quadratic term, it’s Arrhenius’ formula, which is 100 years old. The 4.996 number is different.

  136. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #136. Jack, again, I’m not asking or expecting that you personally write up a derivation. I’m just asking for a reference that does so – textbook, article, whatever. (Just don’t say IPCC report because it isn’t in there to the shame of the scientists involved.)

  137. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    When was that statment taken, was it before or after the NASA study that found that increasing cloud cover almost completely compensated for the decrease in ice coverage?

    Compensation is NOT the same as a positive feedback mechanism. If you can reference the study I can look at it.

  138. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    But since the current warming, which is still less than any of these three coincides with a rise in CO2. CO2 MUST be responsible for most if not all of the current warming.

    How do you know that the current warming TREND is less than the three? And I thought the whole point of breaking the hockey stick was that no quantitative comparisons of temperatures more than 400 years ago could be made realistically, so do you know that the Medieval and Roman warm periods were warmer than now?

  139. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Uh, the SUN? It has at least “equal or better explanatory power than the initially proposed cause.”

    See the full response starting “Considering…” in #106.

  140. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack, again, I’m not asking or expecting that you personally write up a derivation. I’m just asking for a reference that does so – textbook, article, whatever. (Just don’t say IPCC report because it isn’t in there to the shame of the scientists involved.)

    I don’t know if what you’re asking for has ever been formulated, Steve. I am only familiar with the statements of what you get directly from CO2 (which you can use HITRAN or MODTRAN to calculate) and what the positive feedbacks could account for.

  141. D. Patterson
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #122, #134

    Does anyone have references to claims about what the temperature results are supposed to be on each of the increases beyond the first doubling of CO2: example, 380ppm + 380ppm + 380ppm + 380ppm + 380ppm + 380ppm + 380ppm + 380ppm + 380ppm + 380ppm? Are the temperatures supposed to result in a linear, logarithmic, exponential, or irregular increase?

  142. Jack
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 3:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Responding to Steve Mosher in #130:

    Ecological/environmental proxies integrate what observational measurements measure more directly. For a great example of an integrating climate response system, look up “glacier”. (And you may think that I’m running to the ICE. But I use a glacier here because it’s the perfect example: a glacier integrates both precipitation and temperature in its region, and the way it responds is a function of the regional climate. It can be a complicated integral, of course.)

    Ponder that whilst I take another break for a few days. The dogpile aspect of this is tiring and stressful.

  143. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    [snip - too argumentative and offtopic]

  144. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Okay, got it.

  145. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    [snip - nope]

  146. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 142.

    Jack, I wrongly assumed that this thread was a jest. So, you didnt get adequate responses.
    ( I trust you had a good laugh, though)

    Let me summarize my observation about RHETORICAL strategies. Please see 88.

    As I said, My observation was not about the “facts” but rather about rhetorical strategies.

    1. The warmists put the case on the best evidence first. The temp record. It’s getting warmer.
    2. Then supplementary facts are brought to bear. Like so.
    A. if its getting warmer ( see#1), then Ice will melt. Ice melts, therefore its getting warmer
    B. if its getting warmer ( see 1), then spring will come early. Spring comes early, therefore….
    C. If its getting warmer ( see 1), then Hurricanes will be aweful hooorible bad…..
    D…..Z

    Now, This is how science proceeds. #1 is “accepted” as a grounding or foundation, and then other
    observations “build” on that. Lean on that. Depend on that.

    Simple question. If the temperature were FLAT over the past 30 years, and the ICE were melting
    What would you conclude? which evidence would have primacy?

    Anyway. As I said in 88. MY observation is about the strategy of rhetorical retreat.

    Simply.

    The temp record was taken as GROUND TRUTH. This foundation supports many timbers.
    When that foundation is attacked, supporters tend to cite secondary evidence without comprehending
    the implications of that.

    So, When the best evidence is under attack, and you point to secondary evidence, I think that is
    a diversion. I won’t play. Issue on the table is the temperature record. Not ice. Not migration.
    Not great lakes ice break ups. not flowers. First we see how you defend the best evidence.
    First we see the data behind the best evidence. First we see the methods behind the best evidence.

    Then, if we can settle that issue, we go on to ice and flowers.

  147. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 4:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #140. Jack, I am famliar with Modtran and Hitran calculations. Can you tell me where, for example, how they show that lapse rates don’t change under increased CO2?

    An engineer wouldn’t say – go look at Modtran. So I guess the answer is that you don’t know. Don’t worry – I haven’t gotten a good answer from anybody yet.

    What is particuarly annoying for me is that in the scoping of AR4 I suggested that they include a proper derivation of CO2 impact.

    I’m beginning to think that one of the main divides is that climate scientists have no idea what an engineering study looks like. They are only familiar with little articles in journals (or literature reviews.)

    This thing cries out for an engineering study.

  148. PaddikJ
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack August 31st, 2007 at 11:30 am, ca: 102

    “Phenological changes” . . . (yawn) . . eh? Wha. .?! Did someone just go off about Macadamia nuts ripening too early, or “lengthening of the plant growing season is likely to contribute to the global increase in biospheric activity” somehow being a bad thing? British butterflies bugging out earlier & earlier; same for froggies goin’ courtin’, maybe cats and dogs consortin’. What next – British Viniculture? Lief Ericsson reincarnated and laying claim to Vinland the Good? Newfoundlanders, arm yourselves – The Vikings are Coming! The Vikings are Coming!

    Get a grip, Jacqui; Global Warming is old news. What we’d like to know is how much, and what’s causing.

    Looks like CU-Boulder scientist Ted Scambos didn’t get the NASA report about negative feedback balancing positive feedback either – maybe you could ping him on that. Wonder if he put pencil to paper, or was just getting his exercise like everyone else (arm-waving calisthentics). I’d guess the latter, based on the “seems likes” and Arguments from Assumption (“. . . pronounced effects of greenhouse warming in the arctic . . .” – if it’s greenhouse warming in the Arctic, what is it in the Antarctic – greenhouse cooling?).

    The paper does look interesting, though. I’ve forwarded home and will peruse this weekend. I assume you’ve read it and can answer a simple question: Does it appear that Holland, et al, asked themselves about basic thermodynamics – roughly how much ice has been lost, how many joules that represents, and what does it take to transport that much heat? – before revving up their simulations? (assume you noticed that “simulation” appears 4 times in the abstract alone). They do mention ocean circulation, but for the southern hemisphere, so I’m a little fuzzy on how that affects the Arctic.

    Oh, and maybe you can tell us (or maybe the paper does) how they know about ice thickness. I thought all the moaning & groaning was about extents – mass/volume almost completely unkown (seems the US & Russian Navies are the only ones who know that, and they’re not talking).

  149. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 5:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    148 PaddikJ Very similar to a 1 year ice melting a month early trend. OMG, run! Yeah.

    Steve, your 147 probably does some to explain why you (and others) get so much pushback. This is a very complicated, multi-discipline issue, where in order to get anywhere, everyone has to row the boat together. No room for egos, territory, unclear or inexact language or concepts, etc. But people have chosen sides, not understanding what they don’t understand. I usually have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about when you get into the deep math. I don’t let it bother me. Some people no doubt think this is some sort of contest, or that they know how to do everything.

  150. Bob Meyer
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 8:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This thing cries out for an engineering study.

    Yes, Steve it certainly does.

    And when it’s over the author(s) have to stand a critical review. If this ever happens they will be able to pay for the project by selling tickets. I know that I’d pay $100 to watch from the balcony and more for good seats.

    Hansen, et al constantly accuse others of being paid by Exxon to “sow uncertainty”. Wait until they have to face people who really are being paid to take them apart the way engineers do all the time. They won’t be calling anyone jesters ever again.

  151. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 9:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    >> They won’t be calling anyone jesters ever again.

    Yes, but will they return their grant money and pay back the people who got soaked for 1 billion dollars for Kyoto? What did Hansen know and when did he know it?

  152. Scott-in-WA
    Posted Aug 31, 2007 at 10:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Mr. McIntyre, I repeat here what I suggested about a month ago in another thread: The kind of reference paper you are seeking probably doesn’t exist.

    However, you yourself probably know enough about the subject of AGW to write a topical outline as a starting framework for what such a paper should look like.

    Adding a further stipulation that the paper be structured in the same manner as an engineering study makes it even more likely that no paper which meets or exceeds your expectations currently exists.

    I suggest that if you want to see such a paper come into existence, you should build the topical outline as you think it should be structured, and then challenge those in the pro-AGW community to flesh out the details in as clear and as concise a fashion as they can.

    I’m sure Dr. Curry and/or Dr. Pielke could find someone — or some team of people — within their respective institutions to take up this challenge.

  153. Gunnar
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 12:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    >> then challenge those in the pro-AGW community

    Let’s not be so naive. And you think they haven’t done so in all this time because… why?

  154. Jack
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 12:18 AM | Permalink | Reply

    When the best evidence is under attack,

    Your premise is that the surface station data is the best evidence. I might disagree. I think that the Levitus et al. 2000 water column data is better evidence.

  155. Jack
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 12:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

    So I guess the answer is that you don’t know.

    I agree.

    I’m beginning to think that one of the main divides is that climate scientists have no idea what an engineering study looks like. They are only familiar with little articles in journals (or literature reviews.)

    I agree.

  156. Jack
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 12:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Does it appear that Holland, et al, asked themselves about basic thermodynamics – roughly how much ice has been lost, how many joules that represents, and what does it take to transport that much heat?

    I haven’t read it in detail because I’m not a climate modeler. But you might examine the f factor in Equation 1 and the section beginning “Vertical growth and melting…”

  157. Jack
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 12:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, and maybe you can tell us (or maybe the paper does) how they know about ice thickness.

    I don’t think they know. The paper concerns the positive feedback of melting sea ice in the Arctic. The result is the effect on sea ice thickness; after getting a prediction from the model, then they could check it against measurements, if any can be found.

  158. Jack
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 12:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I suggest that if you want to see such a paper come into existence, you should build the topical outline as you think it should be structured, and then challenge those in the pro-AGW community to flesh out the details in as clear and as concise a fashion as they can.

    And if this was done, then maybe we’d all have a better understanding of the feedbacks, positive and negative. Despite the fact that clouds are apparently a b…. (rhymes with witch).

  159. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 6:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #158. There’s no point trying to tell the AGWers how to become engineers. That’s not how it works in building a mine or refinery or an automobile. People who are trained as engineers – people who don’t turn their noses up at details – examine what the scientists did. Engineers know how to write engineering reports. IT makes a lot more sense to hire qualified people to write engineering reports than unqualified people like Hansen, Mann, Schmidt or whoever. In a company situation, the scientists would be obliged to assist the engineers in whatever way possible, rather than flouncing off in a snit when scrutinized.

  160. MrPete
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 6:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve M said,

    In a company situation, the scientists would be obliged to assist the engineers in whatever way possible, rather than flouncing off in a snit when scrutinized.

    Exactly. Right now, even if I had the funding to do a proper engineering study, the necessary background information is not available, from anywhere. Just a bunch of hacked-together speculative models, based on what increasingly appears to be an absolutely horrendous mishmash of badly processed data. (I still have some hope that good data methodologies have been practiced somewhere, but that hope continues to fade…)

    You’d never get an experienced VC (Venture Capitalist) to invest in this arena.

    More on-topic:

    Just jesting because otherwise I’d be in tears. At least we’re seeing an end to serious peer jeers. :-)

  161. jae
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 7:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

    152:

    I’m sure Dr. Curry and/or Dr. Pielke could find someone — or some team of people — within their respective institutions to take up this challenge.

    I wouldn’t be so sure…

  162. jae
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 7:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    161, cont. But I agree with the first part of your post. It’s appears that the basic explanation resides in computer codes which can’t be translated to normal language.

  163. Scott-in-WA
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    161 / 162

    It’s appears that the basic explanation resides in computer codes which can’t be translated to normal language.

    Not so. The people who wrote those codes have concepts in mind which are constructed upon AGW theory and upon AGW implementing processes, e.g. C02 and forcings.

    The problem for those trying to understand what was done in the models is that the theories and the implementing processes were ytanslated directly from the code writer’s mental thoughts into computer code without the all-important step of being documented and reviewed up front in a theoretical -basis requirements document and a software application design document.

    Putting your requirements and your designs down on paper before you start constructing your car or your airplane or your wind farm or your nuclear power plant is the first key component of the engineering life cycle process. This is no less so for well-engineered software. You start with requirements and concepts and move on from there fleshing out the details as you go, with proper review and input along the way from the subject matter experts.

    The first step here is to outline the requirements. As the customer who is asking for the paper, Mr. McIntyre is the one whose job it is to specify his expectations for the paper. To do so in a way that improves his chances of getting the product he wants, he has to have some more-or-less comphrehensive understanding of the overall topic himself, to some adequate level of depth, and he has to be willing to lay out his specifications for what he wants in some adequate level of detail.

    Creating a topical framework outline would be the proper first starting point for implementing an engineering philosophy and approach in producing the desired reference paper. The ball is in Mr. McIntyre’s court to do so,

  164. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The ball is in Mr. McIntyre’s court to do so

    Give me a break. I’m one person doing this as recreation. I cannot believe that nobody else in the world is capable of doing this. I’d be happy to comment on any proposed specs, but it’s not my job to produce them. I’m not an engineer either though I know what engineering studies can look like.

  165. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s appears that the basic explanation resides in computer codes which can’t be translated to normal language.

    The issue, as I’ve discussed in replication posts, is that short verbal descriptions are seldom adequate to represent what code actually does, and in the case of Team climate science, thus far never adequate. The purpose of archiving source code, as discussed by Gary King or McCullough and Vinod, is to document all the details that otherwise are a total of waste of time trying to guess and make replication far more difficult than it should be.

  166. Gunnar
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 9:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    >> The ball is in Mr. McIntyre’s court to do so

    On the surface, this seems like a ridiculous attempt to “turn the tables” on Mr. McIntyre. It’s not Steve’s job to investigate this. The proponents of hypothesis X have the responsibility of following the scientific method, ie specify their hypothesis, attempt to falsify it themselves, and if they can’t, provide their hypothesis and results to scientific community so that other can attempt confirmation and falsification. This is the ONLY way for the idea to graduate from hypothesis to theory.

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”

  167. PaddikJ
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Jack says on September 1st, 2007 at 12:29 am, ca. 157

    I don’t think they know. The paper concerns the positive feedback of melting sea ice in the Arctic. The result is the effect on sea ice thickness; after getting a prediction from the model, then they could check it against measurements, if any can be found.

    Could anyone say it better?

    If you don’t know volume/mass, you don’t, to coin a phrase, know Jack.

  168. Stephen Richards
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The ball is in Mr. McIntyre’s court to do so

    The basic engineering process/project as outlined is ‘OK’ but the assumption that Steve should write the spec is very misguided. Projects have interested parties, controlling parties and production teams. Where would Steve fit into this process? possibly interested party. Production team does the strategy, tactics, design, spec, end product list. Controllers monitor, test and generally control ( provide money?). Interested parties review the products at each delivery point and after delivery and may have no formal input channel into the main project team. Steve could, I suppose, contribute significantly to the control process through audit.

  169. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 163.

    Fine. The requirements for the software and documentation including final reports shall conform
    to Mil-std 2167A/T

    That will do.

  170. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Not for the faint of heart

    http://www2.umassd.edu/SWPI/DOD/MIL-STD-2167A/DOD2167A.html

  171. Scott-in-WA
    Posted Sep 1, 2007 at 5:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Give me a break. I’m one person doing this as recreation. I cannot believe that nobody else in the world is capable of doing this.

    Mr. McIntyre, your bio indicates you are a former mining man. Having spent twelve years myself as an engineer in the mining industry before moving into nuclear, I should think that a mining man would possess sufficient gumption to write a concise topical outline which should at most cover about three pages, two for the topical outline itself with a third page describing the critical review criteria and the quality assurance standards to be applied.

    I’d be happy to comment on any proposed specs, but it’s not my job to produce them. I’m not an engineer either though I know what engineering studies can look like.

    Unless you describe in at least some limited detail what it is you are expecting — three pages should suffice — then your requests for an up to date reference paper are essentially equivalent to “Bring me a rock.”

  172. Jack
    Posted Sep 2, 2007 at 6:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I cannot believe that nobody else in the world is capable of doing this. I’d be happy to comment on any proposed specs, but it’s not my job to produce them.

    As I understand it, you want an engineering study of how direct warming from CO2 and positive feedbacks “add up” to 2.5 C (?) warming in a doubled CO2 scenario world.

    Are there examples of what an engineering study looks like — the various components of a good study — online, so I can have a better idea of what would constitute one? I’m not trying to turn the tables, but if I had an example, MAYBE (but still unlikely, I believe) I’d think of something.

  173. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 2, 2007 at 7:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #172. I don’t know of any off hand. Companies usually keep engineering reports private. But I’m sure that there are some somewhere. An engineering study for a problem of this consequence would probably be at least 1000 pages and look very different than IPCC literature review. My original query is for something that is not even as substantial as an engineering study – something about 30-100 pages that contains and vouches for the relevant calculations.

  174. welikerocks
    Posted Sep 2, 2007 at 7:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    SteveM,

    this was on my apple.com home page for “Top Stories” pertaining to Mac stuff:

    August 31, 2007
    Xsan offers Scientists Ideal Research Environment
    The research scientists at Columbia University’s International Research Institute for Climate and Society keep way ahead of the global warming curve. Thanks, that is, to the Xsan that hosts their data library. A powerful and freely accessible online tool, the data library lets researcher “view, manipulate, and download more than 400 climate-related data sets. At least 60,000 users from more than 120 countries use the library each year, and they can depend on Apple’s solution to help them quickly locate and download the data they need.”

    Just thought I’d put it out there FYI Sorry, there’s no link provided.

  175. Larry
    Posted Sep 2, 2007 at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    173, they’re usually not very sophisticated, but public utilities very regularly commission engineering studies which end up in the public domain. Perhaps some sort of study on a major city’s wastewater system, or something along those lines. The Army corps may also have something that may be a template.

    Admittedly not the same level of sophistication and rigor as they would do for the private sector (although they probably charge a lot more for it).

  176. BarryW
    Posted Sep 2, 2007 at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #174

    Actuall I found a link there: for the Columbia web page link

  177. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 2, 2007 at 5:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Here is hansens FIRST attempt at sensitivity

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

  178. Hans Erren
    Posted Sep 3, 2007 at 4:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

    so no progress whatsoever in climate science since 1981!

  179. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 18, 2008 at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hansen tells us that he won’t “joust with jesters”, as presumably he’s too busy adjusting to have time for jousting. We by contrast have lots of time to jest with adjusters.

    It appears that Hansen was not simply busy adjusting and I apologize for any misunderstanding. It turns out that, in addition to his adjustment activities, he was also busy wining, dining and answering “niggling” questions from Lehman Bros. Maybe he gave them some tips on adjusting. Or maybe on GAAP.

  180. Posted Dec 23, 2010 at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    A TOAST to the Fools!
    Pierrot, Pantaloon,
    Harlequin, Clown,
    Merry-Andrew, Buffoon–
    Touchstone and Triboulet–all of the tribe.–
    Dancer and adjuster and singer and scribe.
    We sigh over Hansen-(unfortunate fool,
    Ten thousand Hamlets have fumbled his skull!)–

    And few of us now have the courage to sing
    That their whimsies made life a more livable
    thing–
    We, that are left of the line,
    Let us drink to the adjusters–in gooseberry wine!

3 Trackbacks

  1. [...] pointed out by bloggers, and pronouncements from the man himself that such people are “jesters” and that vandals in England should be defended and energy company executives should be put [...]

  2. [...] the past, Hansen said that he was too busy to joust with jesters – see here. At the time, I observed: presumably he’s too busy adjusting to have time for jousting. We by [...]

  3. [...] the past, Hansen said that he was too busy to joust with jesters – see here. At the time, I observed: presumably he’s too busy adjusting to have time for jousting. We by [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,882 other followers

%d bloggers like this: