Friday, October 31, 2014

Random Stuff Since I'm Too Busy to Blog Properly

"Tim Wigley, president of the Western Energy Alliance, drew groans from the crowd when he mentioned U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Boulder, who is bankrolling two ballot measures opposed by a broad coalition of Coloradans for fears of what they will do to the state's oil and gas industry.

"'There are forces that are coming to Colorado who want to gut the oil and gas industry in this state," he said. "They are big out-of-state interests ...'

"Wigley elicited nervous laughter when he borrowed a line from Rush Limbaugh to describe those collecting signatures to put the [anti-fracking] measures on the ballot as "long-haired, maggot-infested hippie freaks.''

-- Denver Post
"Caring for the poor does not make you a communist."

-- Pope Francis
"One day the AIs will look back on us the same way we look at fossils."

-- trailer for Ex Machina
"Texas has been a conservative state since dinosaurs roamed it 6,000 years ago."

-- Jon Stewart

Monday, October 27, 2014

Ebola No Longer Growing Exponentially

Though the Ebola virus is still devastating Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, from a global view it's actually starting to look like the efforts to control it are working -- neither cases or deaths are rising exponentially any more, and perhaps not linearly either:

Except people have thought this before. 99.7% of these cases are (or have been) in Liberia, Guinea and Sierre Leone.

Now, sadly, the very few cases in the U.S. are the overwhelming focus of the media, at the expense of West Africa. I can't look at pictures like this and not think that the human project is a complete failure:

with responses like this the icing on the cake.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Steve Goddard Now Just Outright Lying

Tony Heller (@SteveSGoddard) isn't even trying very hard to cover his lies anymore.

He has a headline, "US Having Its Coolest Year On Record." It even got pickup up by another climate liar, Drudge.

Click to Enlarge
NOAA's USA48 data says the US isn't even close to its coolest year on record -- in fact, through September the year-to-date average for 2014 is very average: the 57th-warmest since 1895 (120 years).

On what basis does Goddard build his lie? That
"the percentage of US HCN stations to reach 90 degrees was the smallest on record this year..."
which is, of course, isn't even how monkeys define the "coolest year." They (and the higher primates) define it as a real, actual average, not the percentage of stations below or above some arbitrary value.
"USA48 in tie for warmest year -- highest percentage of US HCN stations above 52 degrees!"
To that lie Heller adds

...with four of the five coolest years occurring above 350 PPM CO2.

which, of course, isn't right either -- 2014 is 63rd-coolest out of 120 years.

Besides, doesn't Heller claim (falsely) that the surface station data are manipulated or something? Yes, he does.

I'm seeing more and more deniers doing this -- simply lying, without any care about their credibility. Even they seem to know they have none left. Still, how do you counter outright lying when those lies are what some people want to hear?

And I'm seeing more about how the data are manipulated on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but the show the Pause on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

On the weekends, all bets are off and all lies are on.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Today's Partial Eclipse

From Portland, OR (maximum was at 3:04 pm PDT). Taken with my iPhone 5c through a solar filter. Not nearly as good as I hoped, but my 7-year old niece said "I see it!" when she first saw the curvature of the Moon on the Sun, so it was all worth it. The upcoming total eclipse on August 21, 2017 should be much better -- likely few-to-no clouds here in Oregon during August, and it will be total rather than partial.

Monday, October 20, 2014

No Doubt About it, the Strangest Animal I've Even Seen

Discovery News says it's a basket star -- a group of brittle relatives of the starfish.

Via the Huffington Post

Friday, October 17, 2014

Falcon in the Infared

This is really cool -- a video of the launch and descent of SpaceX's Falcon 1, filmed in the infrared. It was taken in September, but only released today by Elon Musk on Twitter. One thing I never realized was how on ascent the released first stage flies in the plume of the second stage rockets for a good while. That makes sense -- when the first stage is released it's traveling at the same speed as the rocket, except for (I'm guessing) a couple of booster rockets to give it a little push. But in the movies and TV shows you only ever see a few seconds of the first stage release, and from close up it looks like it's falling away fast.

Be sure to see the descent, a picture of which is the cover screen.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Shorter Mark Steyn

Shorter Mark Steyn: It's OK for me to defame him because Michael Mann is a public figure. And what's worse, he doesn't behave like the "real man" that I am.


A) Anyone that has to call himself a "real man," isn't one.

B) Is it really true that Mann's lawyer says "Ca Ching!" every time Steyn rants online?

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

2014 Non-El Niño Year Much Warmer Than 1997 Monster-El Niño Year

This year -- with no El Niño (so far) -- is noticeably warmer than the big El Niño year of 1997, with global temperatures and sea-surface temperatures at record highs. It's almost like the planet has warmed up since then.

Red is 1997-98. Blue is 2014. Nino3.4 anomalies on left-hand axis; GISS anomalies on the right.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Guess How High the GISS Temperature Was in September

(Please remove your hats.)

First, let us pay homage to The Pause.
Giver of posts.
Sustainer of temps.
Antagonist of catastrophic alarmists everywhere.
Remember The Pause,
Keep faithful to The Pause,
Be steadfast with The Pause,
and, no matter what, keep pushing The Pause.

(You may now replace your hats.)

GISS's number for September's global temperature anomaly is +0.77 C -- the warmest September in their records, which begin in 1895.

Of course, it may have been five times as warm in 1894, for all we know.

August of this year was also #1 among all Augusts everywhere. That's just an astronomically rare coincidence.

But September 2014 was only the 7th-warmest of any month in their dataset. The southern hemisphere was 4th, and the northern hemisphere a paltry 61st (of 1,616 months). Notice the three 6's there -- that clearly means it's soon going to be as cold as Hell. Or something.

The last 60 months (5 years) are the warmest in GISS's archive, as are the last 120 months, but that always happens right before a temperatures plunge.

The trend from 00:00:01 UTC October 1, 2001 to 23:59:59 UTC Sept 30, 2014 is still negative. which can only mean one thing:

The Pause continues. 

   Go to Graphs page              Go to Maps page

Added 10/16:

Hadley SST: Warmest September in Their Records

The Hadley Centre's sea-surface temperature anomaly for September is the highest September since their records started in 1850. 

It's the second-highest anomaly for any month, excepting only last month. 

The last four months have ranked 3-4-1-2 among all months since 1850. 

It's been the warmest 60-month (5 yrs) period in their dataset, the warmest 10 yrs, and the warmest 30 yrs. 

The last 120 months are +0.07 C warmer than the previous 120 months.

The Pause, as they say, continues.

Map of sea-surface temperature anomalies from HadSST3 for latest month

The Irony of Bob Tisdale

1) Cites my work in an open letter to Jon Stewart*, and in an open letter to Lewis Black and George Clooney**, and then again in one to Pope Francis***.

2) Blocks me on his blog.

(*) Yes, that Jon Stewart.
(**) Yes, that Lewis Black, and yes, that George Clooney.
(***) Just kidding about the Pope****.
(****) For now.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Judith Curry's Sneaky Sentence

Judith Curry had an op-ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about her recent paper [PDF] with Nic Lewis -- it's paywalled, but the full text is on her blog.

It's titled, "The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown: Mounting evidence suggests that basic assumptions about climate change are mistaken: The numbers don’t add up." It begins
At the recent United Nations Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever.” Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent.
and concludes
This slower rate of warming—relative to climate model projections—means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now, and more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably. It also allows us the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available.
which is, of course, exactly what the WSJ wants to hear.

As you probably know by now, that paper uses a simple model for temperature change and finds that
...median estimates are derived for ECS of 1.64 K and for TCR of 1.33 K. ECS 17–83% and 5–95% uncertainty ranges are 1.25–2.45 K and 1.05–4.05 K; the corresponding TCR ranges are 1.05–1.80 K and 0.90–2.50 K.
where ECS is the equilibrium climate sensitivity and TCR is the transient climate response.

The Lewis & Curry numbers are significantly lower than the IPCC 5AR's numbers (ECS: 1.5°C to 4.5°C, TCR: 1.0°C to 2.5°C), especially for ECS.

The paper has been criticized because it didn't use the latest data for ocean heat content, surface temperatures (Cowtan & Way), or aerosols. These are easily understood points that seem difficult to dispute. Hence, on RealClimate, Nic Lewis flatly refused to address these issues:
I will not waste time arguing in this venue about the validity and/or relevance, or lack of it, of Shindell (2014), Cowtan and Way (2013) or the Allen and Stocker TCR/TCRE relationship.
On Twitter Gavin Schmidt said a preliminary calculate of ECS using Lewis and Curry's method but with the most recent ocean heat data (Durack et al) raises their ECS upper limit to 6.1 C -- much higher than the 5AR upper limit (which also did not use data that came out after the 5AR cutoff date of 5/15/13, so the upper limit will likely increase). (Added 10/10: a commenter says this has been revised to 4.7 C.)

But, in her WSJ op-ed, Judith Curry wrote:
Using an observation-based energy-balance approach, our calculations used the same data for the effects on the Earth’s energy balance of changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change given by the IPCC’s latest report.
This is sneaky. It's technically true, and makes her paper look like something on equivalent grounds as the IPCC, and something the IPCC missed. But it fails to mention that the Lewis & Curry method doesn't use the most recent data available. It doesn't even acknowledge that they exist, which is at least worth a caveat in the article. Without that, it misleads the reader.

Judith Curry is fond of criticizing others on ethical grounds. I wonder what she would say about the ethics of an IPCC-ish scientist who wrote an article without using the best and most recent data available -- and who even ignored its existence.

I think we all know the answer to that.

PS: The Durack et al changes to ocean heat content (OHC) are indeed significant. Their study found a large addition to the 0-700 meter OHC numbers of (2.2 to 7.1) x 1022 J/35 years. This works out to an average of 20 to 64 terawatts. The existing NOAA OHC numbers for the 35-year change for the 0-700 m region gives 140 TW. So the Durack addition is another 14-46%. That's why their abstract ends with "These adjustments...have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments." (Emphasis mine.)

Thursday, October 09, 2014

Lumpish Climate Remark of the Day

"The climate may be changing, but I don’t think man is contributing to it. It's just the
natural course of things. There is no scientific evidence that shows any of that."

- Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI), who has a BS in biology and was a general surgeon for 30 years. He added, "Well, I am a scientist. You know, I believe in peer-reviewed science. But, I don’t see any peer-reviewed science that proves that there is man-made catastrophic climate change."

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

Dumb Climate Remark of the Day

“Is the climate changing? Yes it’s changing, it changes all the time, we heard it raining out there.”

-- Rep Shelley Moore, Capito (R-WV), after a debate for a West Virginia Senate seat.
She did add, “I’m sure humans are contributing to it,” though in the debate she said “I don’t necessarily think the climate’s changing, no." (After the debate, she said she mispoke.)

Still, concerning West Virginia, this could be labeled "progress."

So Who's Really the Alarmist?

Via the backwaters of Skeptical Science.

Monday, October 06, 2014

Progress: GOP Senate Candidate Asks About the Price of Carbon

The Huffington Post says that with the primaries over, a few Republican candidates are singing a different tune on climate change,
 Republican Senate candidates Scott Brown and Cory Gardner on Monday embraced the notion that climate change is caused in part by human activity, despite previously expressing skepticism that man-made climate change is real.
They quote Cory Gardner, a Republican running for the Senate seat from Colorado:
There is no doubt that pollution contributes to the climate changing around us, but what I refuse to do is support a climate tax bill like Waxman/Markey put in place, that would have cost farmers and ranchers in the state, that would cost small business the opportunity to grow, that would increase that bills that families pay, $1,700 a year.
Not sure if that number is right, but Gardner went on:
We hear people talk about putting a price on carbon, but they won't talk about how much that price of carbon is. Let's just have an answer: What is the price?
which is an excellent question. But then he asks:
Is it $5 a month, is $10 a month, is it $20 a month? 
Um, it's by the ton, and it depends on how much you use. That's the point.

But this definitely looks like progress -- a debate for a Senate seat in which someone -- and a Republican! -- actually asked about the appropriate price of carbon.

P.S.: "Democrats were quick to point out that in January of this year, Gardner voted against an amendment that would have explicitly stated that climate change is real." That was right before the vote on whether π = 3.

But Who Gets All the Cash?

Media preview

Sunday, October 05, 2014

Anthony Watts Gets Shamed With Decency

Anthony Watts -- who seems to be having a tough time of it lately -- did his usual number on the Santer et al 17-year paper, concluding with his typical taunting:

Except this time Santer replied, pointing out Watts got the science wrong (no surprise there), then asking why Watts couldn't return the decency Santer showed him at a California meeting a few years ago:
The fallacy in your argument, Mr. Watts, is that you have applied the “17 year” statement made in our 2011 JGR paper (a statement based solely on estimates of internal variability) to the post-1998 “warming hiatus” – a phenomenon that is due to the combined effects of internal variability and external forcing. You are misrepresenting our findings.

In our 2011 interaction at Cal State Chico, I treated you with courtesy and respect, even though you filmed my entire Rawlins lecture without my permission, while holding your videocamera several feet from my face. Although our scientific positions on the subject of anthropogenic climate change are very different, I had hoped that you would treat me with equal respect and courtesy. Your recent post shows that my hope was misplaced.
Watts didn't have the decency to apologize, or AFAIK tell, even respond.

The other piece of dishonesty is again ignoring the UAH dataset on the lower troposphere. It now differs signficantly from RSS (this month UAH was 0.18°C higher than RSS, once you bring them to a common baseline), and the difference between them (UAH - RSS) seems to be increasing:

You can't just pretend that isn't happening.... I like to see it acknowledged, just once.

Thursday, October 02, 2014

Distinguished Professor Harassed by Fulks, Monckton, Wiese et al

Image result for jeffrey bada
Jeffrey Bada
It's come to my attention that the usual suspects have also been harassing Distinguished Professor of Marine Chemistry Jeffrey Bada of the University of California at San Diego, over his views on manmade climate change.

Bada wrote me to say he's had the same problems with this Fulks et al crowd, who hangout at their Google group "global-warming-realists" clubhouse, but he's had it worse.

Bada has had several letters about climate change published in the San Diego Union Tribune, and usually after each of these, he says, he gets "dumped on" by these syncophants and their cohorts, among them Gordon Fulks, Christopher Monckton, Chuck Wiese, Jim Karlock, and Irving Forbing .

It got so bad Bada wrote a commentary about the harassment for the Union Tribune, saying he'd received more than 170 heckling emails, with examples.

One called Bada “woefully ignorant of climate science and even the basics of how science works.”

Bada -- whose long and eminent career includes, among other accomplishments, a reassessment and expansion of the famous Miller-Urey experiments on the chemical origins of life -- suggested a debate via an organization like the National Academy of Science, which seemed to have scared the intimidator off:
The response: the academy could not “be relied upon to provide a neutral setting or neutral format,” and I was asked, “Has science now evolved into the telling of ‘tall tales,’ where logic and evidence are no longer required?” A follow-up email stated, “The climate cult does not want to get it right. Climate science is solo corrupt.”
Like most scientists, Bada first tried to convince them with science. But this gang doesn't go for that kind of thing:
I next sent the announcement of the XIV Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture at Scripps, “Melting Ice: What ss happening to Arctic sea ice and what does it mean to us,” presented on May 8 by John Walsh from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. A response: “How can this be considered ‘science’ if (as I assume) no questioning of the paradigm is allowed and patented Democratic Party political language (e.g., “unprecedented”) is used to promote the lecture?”
He also suggested a free, online course,“Climate change in four dimensions: Scientific, policy, international, and social,” sponsored by Scripps and UC San Diego.. But the GW-realist's syndicate already has all the answers it needs:
The emails this time were even more vituperative: “Since we would not agree with those who put this course on, we all would get an ‘F’ unless you would allow your university to teach kids the entire story”; “That reminds me of a religion, not science”; “If you consider any of the above to be evidence supporting your case for CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) then you have my sympathies, and I suggest you start with a freshman course in logic, particularly cause and effect, coincidence”; “Scripps’ total or near total support of climate hysteria is clearly self-serving and amply rewarded”; and “conflicts of interest abound among alarmists, with many tied to a gravy train far more lucrative than the oil companies: the feds.” One email called me a “scientific pretender.”
Once again the method of these thugs is clear: pretend to care about the science, while demonstrating no interest in or respect for it whatsoever. They just want to get their rage on.

Bada says Gordon Fulks has continued to harass him with "nutty" stuff, as does the retired dentist Dr. Irvin Forbing, who employs more than the usual number of denier talking points than the average writer at the Heartland Institute.

Fake-Lord Christopher Monckton writes Bada too, out of the blue, sometimes claiming ocean acidification is fake because the ocean's pH is controlled by deep ocean rocks and sediments (which only applies in geologic time and not on the decadal scale).

Because Chris Monckton obviously knows more about ocean acidification than a distinguished professor of marine chemistry, right? (Snort.)

Bada decided to organize a special seminar at UCSD's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, titled "Global Warming Denialism: What science has to say". He was concerned about the GWrealists crowd crashing the seminar, and SIO asked UCSD Police for guidance, and they sent an undercover agent to the first seminar. But no thugs showed up and the seminar went off without a hitch, though Bada had to change rooms twice because so many people attended the seminar.

Does the global-warming-realists Google group exist as a planning space for these attacks? Is Gordon Fulks their ringleader? He sure does get around, but on who's behalf? If no one's, he sure has a pretty sad retirement going.

A Ton of CO2

Via: Ricky Rood

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Hadley Sea-Surface Temperature Anomaly Warmest Ever

The Hadley Centre's sea-surface temperature anomaly for August, +0.649°C, is the highest in their records, which start in 1850.

The months in 2nd- and 3rd-place are June 2014 and July 2014, respectively.

Map of sea-surface temperature anomalies from HadSST3 for latest month

This makes more work for Bob Tisdale -- who, guaranteed, will find a way to dice up the numbers and toss around endless graphs to show this is all completely natural. It's all due to La Ninas, don't ya know:

Figure 12
and anyway, there's trends a-goin' every which way!

Figure 20