No ill wind can pass unnoticed by the nose of the Lincolnshire Sniffer Dog!
Continuing his historical romp through alternative energy sources, LibertyGibbert’s Leonardo of lampoon, Fenbeagle, this week zeroes in on the Tudor era, and one man’s relentless alchemic quest to extract energy from thin air…
Fen’s done it again. Love the books.
Another good one Fen well done.
Absolutely brilliant Fen, as always.
Spot on again Fen, Thank you.
Well done fen ……..You work and humour are of the highest order.
Nice to see a lively anti AGW article from Chis booker …. well worth a read and comment.
Also I think we must congratulate JD on returning to form, since in spite of the limitations of DISQUS the number of posts and return of some of he ‘old faithfuls’ has made for some lively discussions.
The pity remains that it is so painfully easy to miss important posts, which get pushed to the back pages.
Fen, I love the ‘beef heater’.
Looking at your pictures makes me wish I’d spent more time drawing in art class and less time making paper airplanes!
I think that you have a great talent and that, now your depictions are clearer and smarter, nice one D.O.G!
I think that your ancestors can be traced through Talbots to ancient Greece, so your line is long and proud, therefore you use your experience and inherited knowledge and canine nous – to be and remain on, the scent – never to fail and with a stout heart!
Indeed a noble D.O.G.
BTW Fen, Thank you!
When I went to College,to do Art the first two weeks project was to make something that would fly (unaided), for a set distance. EG. paper airoplanes, (among other ideas)
…..I cheated and bought some rockets, which I attached to a machine made from meccano, inspired I think by Jules Vern. (I didn’t consider the problems involved in lighting them all at exactly the same time though)…Although it was entertaining.
….You would have been perfect for art college
Nice of you to say so!
I’ve met many people who can draw better with their feet than I can with my hands!
I picked up this little nugget on the beeb web site from a piece in biased bbc blog.
It is so ridiculous, that I had to share it, this is the type of gloop that is being fed to kids…………along with, “we’re all gonna boil soon – tomorrow or the next day whatever cos of CAGW??!!”
As they say in the biased blog, the life expectancy of ‘peasants’ wasn’t much past their thirtieth birthday – if they were extremely lucky, they did not have varied and rich diets the ate what they could scavenge and glean on a day to day basis.
If life in the country was so good, why the rush for the towns and cities, as Britain commenced industrialisation?
on September 5, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Wonderful, wonderful work, Fen – Bravissimo ! Encore, encore ! (grin)
/// When I went to College,to do Art the first two weeks project was to make something that would fly (unaided), for a set distance. ///
(wide grin) Brings back memories, indeed.
Back in the early 1960s, at any serious university in California, there were always “course requirements” outside of one’s “major”: foreign language(s), history, English, sports, and so forth, necessary to graduate.
In the institution in which Amerloque was enrolled, freshmen students had a mandatory choice (three units) of classes like “Appreciation of Modern Art”, “Introduction to the Ancient World”, “Introduction to the Medieval World”, “Introduction to Enlightenment Philosophy”, “Thinking and Speaking in Ancient Greece”, “Introduction to Political Thinking in the West”, “Arts in the Italian Renaissance”, “Modern Historical Trends”, and other such subjects, all designed for “non-majors”.
Amerloque was fortunate enough to be able to enroll in “Introduction to Design in Architecture”, which was, essentially, a weekly lecture by a “heavyweight” in a 600-seat lecture hall. There were one or two “sections” per week, but most of the learning was carried out at home. (grin)
On the first day, the heavyweight walked to the lectern and spent all of 10 minutes describing his class and what we were expected to learn.
He then said: “Your homework this week is easy: you must make up three-person teams. Each team will go to “section” in exactly one week, go to the top of this building – yes, that’s ten floors – and drop an egg from the roof to the ground below.
If the egg lands without breaking, you pass the first week’s assignment. If the egg breaks, you fail.”
He then left the room.
We all thought this fella was a flash in the pan, but the next homework task was:
“Using at least six but no more that ten boxes of kitchen matches, thread, and glue, build a bridge which will span a distance of one foot between two tables and bear a load of at least one kilogram for at least one hour.”
(Amerloque’s team did fine with the egg, constructed a pretty neat bridge, but screwed up the next project royally: a one-foot pyramid using glue and no more than 100 sheets of typing paper …). (grin)
A fascinating course! Every week we had a new task … he pulled it all together the week before the final exam, naturally … (grin)
I wonder if that course is still given …
Again, great work, Fen: a pleasure indeed !
Amerloque 20100905 18h20 Paris time (CET)
Particularly liked the dark hovering ‘Moonbat’.
Here’s something else the courageous Fenbeagle might like to cock a leg at – so to speak: I was Googling the phrase “Death of the MSM” and came across this wonderful quote – “If The Tree of Global Warming Fell In The Living Rooms of The American Press And No One Reported It Would It Make A Sound?”
G-Day All, bit quiet in the Bar today? We must be missing MV & Blackswan.
Sorry I’m a bit occasional myself – September brings a trail of visitors so I’ll be popping in and out. Back to normal mid-October, Thank Heavens!
@- Suffoklboy –
Here’s another source of information on the history of the science of AGW, tracking it back to Fourier in Napolionic, revolutionary France.
It also covers Pouillet, Tyndall, Arrhenius and Ekholm and has a good article on Callendar, the UK scientist who first tried to put explicit figures on the qualitatative argument that CO2 increases would cause warming.
This may be a an easier approach than the Weart discussion of the science history, as it follows the Murdochian, dumbing-down approach of reducing ideas and events to stories of the people that created or experienced them.
I gather personalising the issue is easier for non-scientists to grasp.
It also raises the question for all those here that assert that the science is wrong or a scam/fraud.
WHEN did the mistake/scam/fraud start?
Was it Fourier in the 1830s, Tyndall in the 1860s or Callendar in the 1930s?
I can’t speak about the Science itself. But using ‘Science’ (or something that passed for it) to maintain personal power, is at least as old as the earliest civilizations, and probably a great deal older than that. It is not necessarily a big consideration, to those that desire that power, that the science be correct.
Yesterday 05:53 PM
Methinks I must have got too close to the truth with that one, GOODY. kind of proves my point, can’t fault the content so press “report” seems the only line of defence left open to the falling numbers of AGW supporters still haunting the DT blogs.
The best laugh I’ve had in ages.
and what was the offending post? I think what wrongfooted the resident warmists was the opening few words, “Having contacted Working Group 1 for confirmation” Why, because there is little point in posting calculations without first checking if ones figures are correct.
So, for posterity and a poke in the eye to all who would engage in the “Post Modern Mamba” (adding extra sugar to an already sweetened cup of tea etc.) here is the offending post.
///Having contacted Working Group 1 for confirmation of an observation, I received a reply that “the numbers you quote are more or less correct”, (Post Normal science “Newspeak”, meaning my observations were spot on) I had simply calculated that over the last 260 years the TOTAL Global atmospheric CO2 increase was in reality only ~1/100th of 1%.
YES IT WAS, and it still is,
The importance of this observation is that the scaremonger’s touted 39% increase in CO2 levels since the begining of the industrial age, alleged to have been caused by human burning of fossil fuels, is fabricated nonsense included in (but NOT added to) the ~1/100th of 1%, therefore, if we had not burned any fossil fuels, then the total Global atmospheric increase in CO2 levels would be reduced by 39% of ~1/100th of 1%, Right?
Err, NO, not exactly,because Wikipedia (and many other sources) state that 95% of all CO2 emissions are “natural” so therefore only a maximum of 5% of ~1/100th of 1% could possibly be down to human activity. Rather than the touted increase of 39%.
This is the glaring error in the scaremongers calculation, and I admit it is a “goody” because by this smoke and mirrors calculation a 39% Man-Made contribution can be used for scaremongering and propaganda purposes.
Question, if the whole Atmospheric CO2 concentration has only increased by ~1/100th of 1% over the last 260 years, how in the name of sanity can Post Normal science claim that it has increased by 39% since the start of the industrial revolution?
(figures shown with a ~symbol are rounded to the nearest whole number, figures without are accurate, ie. 389.60 is shown as ~390)
CO2 concentration in 1750 = ~280ppmv parts per million by volume of the atmosphere, 280 over one million = 0.0280, less than ~3/100ths of 1%
(source IPCC AR4), see: http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/anthropogenic-climate-change.html
Today it stands at 389.60ppmv, ~390 parts per million by volume of the atmosphere, 390 over one million = 0.0390, less than ~4/100ths of 1%
OK so far? clearly the CO2 increase is only ~1/100th of 1% over the last 260 years, so how do they manage to lever in an alleged human caused 39% increase since the begining of the industrial revolution?
OK, Here is the fiddle, to fabricate a 39% increase, forget that CO2 is measured in parts per million by volume of the whole atmosphere, simply subtract 280 from 390 to find the increase = 110, hang that on a hook for now,
Next calculate the % increase between 280 and 390, remember we are now in low numbers NO LONGER IN PARTS PER MILLION.
280 PLUS 39.28% = 389.984,(~390) and there you have a ~39% increase, NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with parts per million by volume of the atmosphere, but handy for propaganda purposes.
Wikipedia states: “Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are natural” (so only 5% can be Man-Made if that is the case, NOT 39%)
So to find the Wiki. Man-Made addition, take the 110 actual increase of the hook and convert it back to reality, 110 parts per million by volume, so the ~1/100th of 1% increase is now known to be 110 over one million = 0.0110%, of which 5% is Man-Made according to Wiki, so 5% of 0.0110% = 0.00055% NOT 39%
therefore the ‘natural’ increase over 260 years is 0.01045%, adding Wiki’s 5% Man-Made contribution, 0.00055% brings us back to the original 0.0110% that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by since 1750, ~1/100th of 1%, and this is the Post Normal reasoning behind Carbon Trading, Windmills and Draconian tax increases to combat this non-existent “threat”?
Armed with my ‘more or less correct’ “numbers” I thought to engage politicians for their views, only to find myself embroiled in “The Post Modern Mamba”.
After many nonsense replies from various lickspittles, on behalf of the actual politicians I contacted (who were either too stupid or clever enough not to reply in person) it would appear that what I fail to grasp, is that some things in Heaven and Earth cannot be explained by simple logic, eg.( from one Patronising Pillock), was I aware that “although CO2 levels may “seem” minute to those not directly involved in “Climate Science”, the evidence is “unequivocal” that failure to cut carbon emissions will lead to catastrophy?” (note, NONE of the “unequivocal” evidence was presented).
Another Horse’s backside came up with this jem, “a minute quantity of saxitoxin is enough to kill”, It probably will, but when did CO2 plant food become a deadly toxin?
Not one of the replies attempted to address my “more or less correct” ‘numbers’, one Lib Dem oaf even suggested that “if I want to learn about the science, I should watch Al Gore’s cartoon”. I think we fell out when I called him an incompetent ladies’ front bottom.
As the warmists keep saying that “deniers” fail to grasp the danger of Man-Made warming, let’s check out the current “state of play” re. the Anthropogenic Climate Change scam in “unequivocal” terms to assess the “danger”.
The “warmest on record” nonsense seems to be in trouble as Global temperatures will not behave as the Models predicted/projected/fabricated?
While temperatures Jan.-June. were indeed a few 10ths of a Fahrenheit degree warmer than last year, temperatures since 10th June have been lower, eg, Global average SST at 15th August was 0.30 F cooler than the same day last year.(NOAA-15)
While reports of “record” warm temperatures from the NOAA-16 satellite, (of which the entire data set NOAA has confirmed as “faulty” and has removed from public view), may remain a source of debate for those who WANT to believe in Man-Made warming, the truth of the matter is that there may be FIVE key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously compromised.
Nomatter how hard they try to cover this up, faulty data with incorrect high temperature readings have been used to fabricate alarmist propaganda and as an excuse to continue Carbon Trading scams. Carbon Trading which, as recently reported by JD, seems to be suffering from NO trading, with reported layoffs due to a general apathy and lack of interest.
But, back to the dodgy data, it’s not only satellite data that is faulty, Anthony Watts clearly demonstrates that terrestrial data that should show a minus degree level (cold) have been used with the minus sign omitted (hot) and that this nonsense has been prevalent for some time from worldwide data sites.
To give just one example: “When errors in weather data are pointed out and acknowledged by the reporting agency, and NOAA declined to fix the issue in the records,as was demonstrated last year in Honolulu, HI International Airport, when a string of new high temperature records were set by a faulty ASOS reporting station, it calls into question the reliability of the whole system”.
and now it is reported that the Australian records are also in doubt.
Click to access australian_big_picture.pdf
Clearly, rumours of “dangerous” warming have been greatly “extrapolated”.
The recent Russian heatwave and the floods in Pakistan, were NOT caused by Global Warming, but were the result of a known NATURAL jet stream “blocking” event as the Earth moves into a Natural cooling cycle. see:
also NOAA’s statement:
“…greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave”.
“It is not known whether, or to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900. The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988).”
Let me highlight the important words from the statement:
“greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain” (again?)
“natural process of atmospheric blocking…….are the principal cause for this heat wave”
“observations reveal no trend since 1948”
“nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights since1900”
“The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region,…….”
So anyone who wishes to link the Russian heatwave or Pakistan floods to AGW (now ACC) better contact NOAA and explain where they have got it wrong as the Moonbat will be cross if he can’t use this as propaganda. There again, why let simple things like facts get in the way of a good scare story?
These events, touted as “unprecedented” are natural weather events that have happened before, therefore are NOT unprecedented, YES, more people are now affected, because there are MORE people, D’oh.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”
The lack of recent warming is explained by the ending of the ~30 year warming phase of a ~60 year oscillation, as the climate moves into the cooling phase of this known natural ~60 year oscillation,
However, if the ~900 year oscillation is also due for a phase change,(ie. from Present Warm Period to next LIA), while the gullible are being brainwashed to anticipate some sort of Carboniferous warming future, NOTHING is being done to cope with the impacts if something quite different occurs. We are very, very exposed, and the chances of getting the leaders of government, industry or academia to even look at this and to have a contingency plan, given all the warming hype, is zero, There are too many snouts in the trough. It is quite possible that what we are doing Worldwide vis a vis “climate prediction” verges on the actions of the mentally unstable. Everything is being geared up for a continued temperature rise and we will be utterly unprepared if things start moving in the opposite direction.
So, do I predict the next ice age? NO I do not, however, as there is clearly more than one “cooling” event at present in play, (at least FOUR if the findings of Project Astrometria are included) a return to another Maunder or Dalton Minimum is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility.
As others have previously observed, further debate on the science is futile, debate on the size of the holes in the Ozone, Moonbat’s sox, or by how much the Sun’s temperature is increased by returned electromagnetic radiation from Earth will achieve nothing. (Quick debunk of this nonsense, Radiation dissipates with the square of the distance, ~93 million miles, so by the time solar energy reaches the Earth it is reduced by this factor, any small amount of returned radiation from Earth, (after entropy change), is subject to the same law so the photon has “shot it’s energy bolt” by the time it gets back to the Sun.What little (if any) energy remains, when it meets temperatures of several million degrees, gets it’s butt kicked into oblivion).
Such debates, like how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin, are simply the “Post Modern Mamba” serving no purpose other than to steer the debate down a path which “at best only has some passing association with the actual debated subject. Often it has no bearing at all and by sleight of hand is actually about something entirely different”. (hat tip MemoryVault) see: “The Fallacy of Debating “Post-Modern” Science With Cultists”
@- fenbeagle says: September 6, 2010 at 11:37 pm
“…using ‘Science’ (or something that passed for it) to maintain personal power, is at least as old as the earliest civilizations, and probably a great deal older than that. It is not necessarily a big consideration, to those that desire that power, that the science be correct.”
I can think of several instances of religious absolutes used to maintain personal power, and the use of nationalistic/patriotic ideology.
But I’m having a real difficulty thinking of any rulers who used science (correct or fake) to maintain personal power.
Perhaps you had an example in mind ?
Izn’t, old sod. So accommodating of you to stop by for your weekly bludgeoning just at the moment you presence is so required. It’s always nice to have a toad-textured, slimey ooze encrusted troll to flail with spiked maces on the end of chains, with 2-in aluminium rods with sharpened scythes attached, and to spray with purple piles of percolating putrescence from 6″ calibre compressed splurge guns.
As an example, from 1917 onwards, does the notion of “SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM” ring a teeny, tiny bell in the echoing cavern of the batwing-flapping lightless abyss of your faeces stinking brain?
More happy news. How sad shall be the communitard redwarriors to have made the tactical error of forcing chemical engineers’ attention to the address the more insignificant aspects of hydrocarbon engineering:
This makes around 15 clear methods of pedigrees at least 75 years old which neatly process CO2 into economic byproduct cost-effectively that I have so far identified. I am sure there are another 50 or so.
Marvelous work as always, fenbeagle. Many thanks.
The ability to build a Pyramid, to line it up correctly to the points of the compass. To build anything monumental. The ability to use or produce impressive light effects at appropriate times of the year. by tricks of architecture. Anything that produces smoke, noise or spectacular effect. The ability to build henge’s, the centrally organised use of measurements (like the megalithic yard, if that theory is correct) The ability to predict eclipses, and planetary movements. The ability to predict the outcome of future events, or at least have people believe you can. The knowledge of correct dates for planting and harvesting. The ability to predict the correct dates for river flooding, (of the Nile, for instance.) To understand, or claim an understanding, of any natural calamity. The science of ‘letters’ and glyphs.
Any of the many, discoveries made my man, by observation and experiment, which can be used to impress the population (particularly if you keep it a secret, as to how it is done) Or to impress ones neighbouring populations, if they are troublesome. Matters related to medicine. To horticulture. To hunting. But most of all perhaps, matters related to success in armed conflict. (Although, in the case of armed conflict the science behind the technology really does have to be correct.)
All of these things have been employed by rulers, to maintain or assist, their personal power. And for individuals to gain personal power,in other ways, (not necessarily by ‘ruling’.)
Outstanding Fen….Get you a case of beer for that one!
The nice thing about a true believer or a true scientist is, they don’t do politics. This is very convenient for them because as all grown-ups know, in the end politics is about the consequences of decisions on real human beings. This is how all the population controllers, racists, eugenicists and ecomaniacs can not only sleep at night but sleep well. Do all the denial you want to do but your hands are stained with blood.
Walt O’Bruin says: September 7, 2010 at 2:36 am
“As an example, from 1917 onwards, does the notion of “SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM” ring a teeny, tiny bell in the echoing cavern of the batwing-flapping lightless abyss of your faeces stinking brain?”
Love the purple prose –
Yes, I have heard the term ‘scientific socialism’ and regard it as on a parr with ‘Christian scientist’.
Like the rest of sociology and economics it has the same relationship to science as the pigeon has to statues.
@-fenbeagle says: September 7, 2010 at 3:51 am
“The ability to build a Pyramid, to line it up correctly to the points of the compass. To build anything monumental. ….Matters related to medicine. To horticulture. To hunting. But most of all perhaps, matters related to success in armed conflict. (Although, in the case of armed conflict the science behind the technology really does have to be correct.)
All of these things have been employed by rulers, to maintain or assist, their personal power. ”
Leaving aside for the moment the rather wide definition of ‘science’ your list seems to encompass…
I would point out that it is not just armed conflict where the ‘science’ has to be correct, in fact all of the things you list have to be correct to work as a means to maintain power. The hint is in the word ‘ability’ that precedes all the things you list.
Reality gets the final vote, if stuff works, it is scientifically correct, then it will get used for its utility.
The same goes for AGW. If its wrong the warming climate wont happen and no policy or actions predicated upon it will be effective. On the other hand, the first major commercial use was made this year of the ice-free navigation of the arctic ocean –
Lot of personal power and wealth tied up in that shipping route being available – not something that could be faked!
Any news on the ‘belief’ front, young Izen or is this another inconvenient question …?
Ah, you’ve been working hard offline. We’ve certainly improved you. You started off as a simple dishonest copy and paste artist. Now you have to do a bit of work. Still no answers though …
But there are plusses. Instead of us following your broken links, we’re forcing you to read and reply to our posts (or the ones you can answer, no matter how evasively). An imitation of intelligence. It’s a sort of progress I suppose …
Come on Izen. I know you’re out there awaiting a reply to your ‘grown up’ rebuttals. Speak or out damn’d spot, out I say!
I agree, it is better if things do actually work, and most of the things I listed above do, but the ability to convince other people that you can do things, is enough to hold a power over them. This seems to be especially true when forecasting future events.
I am not using this as an argument against AGW science though. How would I know about AGW science, I am not a scientist. And its not for me to define science….I can’t even define art.
This man is a scientist though, and he speaks on the subject…
September 7, 2010 at 6:30 am
Science is all about approximations, the dyslexic cousin of art. The closest it’ll ever get there is pure mathematics and that’s a rigged game too.
And you don’t have to be a scientist to recognize a rigged game.
I agree, you don’t have to be a scientist to recognize a rigged game.
September 7, 2010 at 8:41 am
Fen, do you not find it interesting that so many of the heavyweight scientists turn their gaze on art at the end of their career. They all do it despite the entreaties of their admirers. Leo Szilard and his dolphins and Richard Feinmann and his paintings. I’ve seen the latter.
Dave,Edinburgh says: September 7, 2010 at 12:06 am
“So to find the Wiki. Man-Made addition, take the 110 actual increase of the hook and convert it back to reality, 110 parts per million by volume, so the ~1/100th of 1% increase is now known to be 110 over one million = 0.0110%, of which 5% is Man-Made according to Wiki, so 5% of 0.0110% = 0.00055% NOT 39%
therefore the ‘natural’ increase over 260 years is 0.01045%, adding Wiki’s 5% Man-Made contribution, 0.00055% brings us back to the original 0.0110% that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by since 1750, ~1/100th of 1%, and this is the Post Normal reasoning behind Carbon Trading, Windmills and Draconian tax increases to combat this non-existent “threat”? ”
No, its nonsense.
Mathematical garbage that fails to even be wrong.
Take a different situation, but with similar features.
Average blood sugar levels are around 4 Nm/L.
That works out to about 700 parts per million in the blood.
When you have a meal it rises by ~50% to above 1000ppm.
Or if you wanted to use your method, the sugar which is 0.07% of the blood rises to 0.1%, a rise of around 0.03%.
If your blood sugar is consistently more than 0.04% above the average, then it is likely you will be diagnosed diabetic.
Because this would be a 60+% rise of the ACTIVE INGREDIENT.
And it is that change in the active factor, not its change as part of the neutral total, 0.04% – that is significant.
The other mistake you make is in taking the 95% of CO2 emissions are natural without taking its necessary compliment as it is a carbon CYCLE we are talking about.
100% of CO2 absorption is natural.
With very small and slow contributions from geological processes all the carbon in the atmosphere (as CO2), in the biosphere and dissolved in the oceans (CO2 and HCO3) just cycles round.
Until recently when an extra amount of carbon was introduced into this cycle at the rate of an additional 5% per year.
If you eat 5% more sugar than your metabolism can burn, you will get fat.
Quote-“The lack of recent warming is explained by the ending of the ~30 year warming phase of a ~60 year oscillation, as the climate moves into the cooling phase of this known natural ~60 year oscillation, ”
So how far back can you track this ~60year cycle… what evidence have you for it?
Bristle cone pine dendro records perhaps… the same ones that give a ‘hockey stick’..!
Quote-“However, if the ~900 year oscillation is also due for a phase change,(ie. from Present Warm Period to next LIA), while the gullible are being brainwashed to anticipate some sort of Carboniferous warming future, NOTHING is being done to cope with the impacts if something quite different occurs. ”
As for 900 year cycles, there is only room for about 8 since the end of the ice-age, care to date the peaks or troughs, or provide a evidence from some sort of climate proxy record for their existence?
You CAN find ~1000+ year D-O cooling events, but only during the ice-age before around 10,000 years ago.
But if this is a ‘natural’ return to the LIA what makes you think we NEED to do anything to cope with the effects. That was a period when European society grew and prospered, starting with the age of enlightenment and finishing with the industrial revolution. Hardly a sign that present society is too fragile to survive such a climate regime when it failed to stop the success of our ancestors.
You seem to be saying that a potential warming in climate that is unprecedented in the history of human civilisation need not be addressed because of its uncertainty, while a natural cycle that humans have prospered through before is a greater, unrecognised, threat, although equally uncertain.
September 7, 2010 at 8:22 am
“…And you don’t have to be a scientist to recognize a rigged game.”
But it helps…
If you believe the ‘game’ is rigged, when did it start, with Fourier, Tyndall or Callendar?
Or did they all get it right and its just the recent stuff thats wrong….
Will you behave, I’ve had enough laughs on the Telegraph, where I admit I laid it on “a bit much” as an answer to a question by a pain in the neck from previous encounters.
I’m happy that there is no need for a “Post Modern Mamba” as I note that while you seem to agree with Working Group 1 as far as “the numbers I quote are more or less correct”, So while an increase of ~1/100th of 1% is accurate, it does not apply in this instance for the reasons you provide. eg. the example of blood sugar levels etc.
At the time of writing to WG 1, they intimated that the carbon cycle was the topic of much debate in the science at that time (2007) and drew attention to the fact that the yearly TOTAL increase in atmos. CO2 levels had risen from 1.2 ppmv to 2 ppmv, 2ppmv continuing to be the quoted annual increase.
The only problem I have with that is a steady increase of 2 ppmv can hardly be described as “rising exponentially”
re. the ~900 year oscillation:
There is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could simply be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP. And the ~900 year oscillation could be the chaotic climate system seeking its attractor(s). If so, then all global climate models and attribution studies utilized by the IPCC are based on the false premise that there is a force or process causing climate to change when no such force or process exists.
Warming or Cooling?
Here is an excerpt from an article by Dr. David Whitehouse:
“…Hansen claims that, according to his Gisstemp database, the year from April 2009 to April 2010 has a temperature anomaly of 0.65 deg C (based on a 1951 – 1980 average) making it the warmest year since modern records began. It is a fractionally warmer than 2005 he says, although an important point to be made is that statistically speaking, taking into account the error of measurement and the scatter of previous datapoints, it is not a significant increase…”
Here is the simple rebuttal to Hansen.
1) The satellite measurements he is using now did not start until 1978.. so he is comparing two different ways of measuring temperatures. You had no way of knowing what temperatures were like in the 1930s and 1940s like you do now, and have no way of knowing that your measurement techniques now with satellite would yield your reconstructed results that you are comparing them to. It’s deception, pure and simple, when you don’t reveal that. 2) The PDO was cold from 1951-1978… just what did you think was going to happen when the Pacific was cold? (The Atlantic turned cold in the ’60s and ’70s, so you had the planet grooved to be cold before the satellite era started.) 3) The PDO went warm in 1978, the AMO in the early 90s… therefore, these warm years are occurring when both oceans were warm in tandem… you couldn’t ask for a better natural set up to to warm the Earth!!!! Warm the oceans next to the continents and what do you think happens to the continents? They warm. And what happens to the ice cap that is surrounded by the continents? It decreases. If we are warming so much, how do you explain the Southern Hemisphere on its way to a record high sea ice level this year? 4) The fact remains, the temperature is well under the IPCC forecast spread and the Hansen forecast. Warm or not, they are busting. 5) There has been no stratospheric cooling, nor hot spots over the tropics in the mid- and upper troposphere, quite the opposite. It may be warming in the stratopshere, which is a precursor to the cooling that I think is coming the next 20-30 years. Wet bulb temperatures over the tropics may have fallen over the past few years (lower specific humidity), which may be the reason that GLOBAL ACE indices are so low. 6) The global temperatures, and this is why they are so desperate to spread this stuff, are about to crash over the next 12 to 18 months. He has acknowledged that, but won’t acknowledge the PDO switching could lead to the more permanent cool down, because it would destroy the whole agenda-driven ideas on co2. 7) The OBJECTIVE SOLUTION… see what happens over the coming years with the change in PDO an then AMO. If you are so sure, what are you afraid of? The Earth is not going to blow up by NATURAL means over the next 30 years, and there is no tipping point. 8) Lastly, I am not afraid of the right answer. Obviously, they are as they continue to try manipulate the data.
Since this article, evidence indicates that all satellite and terrestrial temperature data is in effect FUBAR
Therefore the whole AGW theory cannot be used as a reason for wasting $trillions on what is simply an unproven hypothesis.
Here’s an article from the Washington Post:
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
The article is dated November 2, 1922.
Now is not the time to let up !
George Monbiot admits he was wrong about something, is this the start of a trend?
Ozboy et al… looks like Gillard has managed a minority Goverment… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11209560
Look for new elections real soon.
G’day Crown – yeah, we’re watching it on TV right now. Julia the Red will tomorrow morning be ordering mandatory health checks on her whole parliamentary party, as she’s one by-election away from losing office – Oz
I have had a look at the links you kindly provided for Fourier and Callender, from them I learnt a few interesting things.
So, what did Fourier contribute to the foundations of the science of global warming?
In my opinion, nothing, Fourier was a scientist, and a realist.
If we ask what did Fourier contribute to math’s and science?
Then the answer is a great deal.
When I looked at what Fourier is supposed to have said I found…
“.. . we conclude that, from the Greek school at Alexandria, till the present time, the temperature of the surface has not diminished, on this account, the three hundredth part of a degree. Here again we find that stability which the great phenomena of the universe every where present.”
Here we find Fourier in realist fashion stating that he had found no COOLING since the time of the ancient Greeks, and that stability was found.
I found the fifth statement by Fourier that the author of the page found “slightly cryptic” to actually be a remarkable accurate description of the Urban Heat Island Effect.
“The establishment and progress of human society, and the action of natural powers, may, in extensive regions, produce remarkable changes in the state of the surface, the distribution of the waters, and the great movements of the air. Such effects, in the course of some centuries, must produce variation in the mean temperature for such places; for the analytical expressions contain coefficients which are related to the state of the surface, and have a great influence on the temperature.”
Fourier also noted…
“… but the application of these laws to very complicated effects, requires a long course of accurate observations.”
Accurate observations have of course been prevented from being taken (in the USA) since the introduction of the Manual in 1989 and the change over to electronic gauges and the always be rounding up instructions found within.
In conclusion Fourier was no melon, he was a scientist and mathematician that today’s jokers could learn a lot from.
Callender, it appears, is most famous for being wrong.
“And partly it is because he did not anticipate the temperature declines experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. Thus, at the end of his life, he was wrong about the most central of his conclusions: that he had actually detected the human fingerprint on Earth’s climate.”
Callender was also aware of the UHIE, however, in his day the effect was described as a little higher near the centre of large towns, these days the effect is large and noticeable, often as much as 2C warmer in London than surrounding areas.
“It is well known that temperatures, especially the night minimum, are a little higher near the centre of a large town than they are in the surrounding country districts; if, therefore, a large number of buildings have accumulated in the vicinity of a station during the period under consideration, the departures at that station would be influenced thereby and a rising trend would be expected.”
It seems that Callender was not a Carbon hating alarmist. His paper concludes:
“. . . the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905). In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.
As regards the reserves of fuel these would be sufficient to give at least ten times as much carbon dioxide as there is in the air at present.”
If Callender was wrong in thinking that the warming trend of his day was due to human emissions and he did not predict the cooling trend of the post-war years, and was at a loss to specifically account for it, then why would we believe his prediction that the increase in CO2 will fend off “the return of the deadly glaciers”?
In answer to your question “If you believe the ‘game’ is rigged, when did it start, with Fourier, Tyndall or Callendar?” Fourier was a scientist not a melon, it seems Callender was mistaken or wrong, but the rigging started to be noticeable IMO in 1989 with the losing of thousands of weather station volunteers, the Manual no2 and the adjustments to all records ever upwards.
Do you have a link for Tyndall?
Very good article by Ambrose, on China, here:
Noidea, don’t hurt Izn’t! He’s the only troll we’ve got! Boo hoo hoo
September 7, 2010 at 5:57 am
My point exactly. And YOUR science doesn’t ?! Bwahahahahaha. Surely thou jesteth, Earthling dorkazoid.
Nice one NI!
New post here: something a bit different.
I’ll leave this thread open, you can continue the AGW debate here.
@- Noidea –
There are opposing requirements from weather station measurements when it comes to accuracy and consistancy.
The operation of weather stations has been directed towards obtaining the best accuracy of measurement of the conditions at that location at that time. As a result instruments and observation methodologies have changed.
But this compromises the requirement of consistancy that is needed to determine long-term small trends.
Accuracy is less important in detecting a small trend than consistancy of instruments and method. Averaging of the measurements will reduce the ‘noise’ and random error in measurements that are less accurate and still enable an unequivical trend to be detected.
But changes in instuments and observation technique will introoduce step-changes in the data record that are more difficult to compensate for.
The result is the quibbles over the ability to derive robust trend data from any and all measurment sources that have changed the instrument/observation methods over time. The resulting alterations in the data are close to the magnitude of the trend that is detected, reducing the certainty of the detection at the statistical level.
It is impossible, and an exercise in mathemtical futility to try and determine if a weather station data series shows a robust trend or if that trend is an artifact of the changes in measuremnt procedure and instrumentation. The rational way to try and validate any trend changes in the weather station data is to compare it with alternative independent measures of climate trend and see if they confirm or refute the trends detected by weather stations, satellite and SST measurement.
There are several options to do just this. The number of frost-free days recorded for agricultural purposes provides an unequivical measure of trend, the fact that water freezes at 0degC makes the identification of a frost/frost-free day immune to instrumental or observer error. Similarly the record of ice break-up in rivers and ports which are navigationaly important gives a long-term measure of trendsin temperature.
If the weather station records are wrong, and there is no significant long-term (century) trend in temperature, then the Arctic ice, glacier mass balance, growing season changes, poleward migration of plants and animals that require warmer temperatures and several other physical chnages that do NOT rely on changeing instrumentation or observational methods to determine would seem not tohave got the memo…
The links to the other sections are at the bottom of the Callendar article, the Tyndall essay is the ‘AGW in the Victorian age’ one.
Dave,Edinburgh says: September 7, 2010 at 2:51 pm
“At the time of writing to WG 1, they intimated that the carbon cycle was the topic of much debate in the science at that time (2007) and drew attention to the fact that the yearly TOTAL increase in atmos. CO2 levels had risen from 1.2 ppmv to 2 ppmv, 2ppmv continuing to be the quoted annual increase.
The only problem I have with that is a steady increase of 2 ppmv can hardly be described as “rising exponentially”
Sorry about the delay in replying, and at the risk that everyone else has migrated to the ‘prepared-ness’ thread reducing this to a monolouge….
It can hardly be described as a linear rise when the rate has increased from 1.2ppm/yr to 2ppm/yr either.
But attempting curve-fitting is a bit of a red-herring unless you have a physical process that justifies a particular pattern of change.
The rise in atmospheric CO2 is affected by two main factors;
1)- The amount of extra CO2 introduced into the carbon cycle from fossil fuel burning.
2) -The amount of the extra CO2 that is incorperated into the non-atmospheric sinks of the biopshere and oceans.
The amount of extra anthropogenic CO2 is quite well known because the use of fossil fuels is tracked finacialy. There has been some increase in emissions, although as oil production has been stable for several years and coal production in the developing world has been offset by recent economic recessions in the advanced nations the rise in emissions is insufficient to explain the magnitude of the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 1.2ppm/yr to 2ppm/yr.
However as you may be aware the measured rise in Atmospheric CO2 requires only ~half the human emissions, the rest has been absorbed by the non-atmospheric portion of the carbon cycle. The magnitude of the recent rate of increase may indicate that the ability of the carbon sinks to absorb ~half the extra 5% per year we are adding to the cycle may be diminishing.
Quote-“re. the ~900 year oscillation:
There is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could simply be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP.”
What evidence are you relying on for your claim that there is an ‘APPARENT’ ~900 year oscillation ?
While the LIA was demonstrably global, the MWP was demonstrably NOT global. The wonderful map of all the evidence for a MWP that can be seen here-
clearly shows that the peak warmth happened in different centuries in different localities.
I await with interest your data that show global DACP and Roman warm periods.
Presumably such data would rely on on proxies just as the ‘hockey stick paleoclimate reconstruction does.
Are there ‘good’ proxies and ‘bad’ proxies…?
One clear result from the various data on paleoclimate is that there are North/South shifts in hemispheric temperatures. When the N.H. is warm the S.H. is cold and vica versa at several times during the Holocene. Such hemispheric redistributions of thermal energy require no change in the GLOBAL energy balance and therefore no physical process to either provide a change in solar input or terrestrial output.
As has also been pointed out before, the greater any past global changes are, the greater the climate sensitivity must be to the present change in the energy balance.
Quote-“…If so, then all global climate models and attribution studies utilized by the IPCC are based on the false premise that there is a force or process causing climate to change when no such force or process exists. ”
Except it is not a premise, it a measured change in the outgoing radiation from the tropopause and the downwelling (sky)radiation measured by ground instruments in the relevant IR spectra.
Quote-“Since this article, evidence indicates that all satellite and terrestrial temperature data is in effect FUBAR
Therefore the whole AGW theory cannot be used as a reason for wasting $trillions on what is simply an unproven hypothesis.”
I have discussed this issue of the instrumental record in my previous post to Noidea.
It is true that changes in instruments and observational methods could introduce errors of similar magnitude to the trends that are claimed for surface weather stations, satellite data and SST records.
It is impossible to determine from those data whether there are confounding factors that do, or do not, ‘fubar’ the conclusions about trends. But the solution is to compare with other sources of data that indicate temperature trends that are NOT subject to those limitations.
If the instrumental record is wrong and there has been no significant warming… then the arctic ice, glacier mass balance, borehole data, frost-free days, migration of plants and animals, agricultural growing times and regional type shifts and most significantly the rise because of thermal expansion in sea levels, have all failed to get the memo…
As I have pointed out before the use of the AGW theory to justify a particular POLITICAL program is a matter of political choice and has no relevence to the scientific accuracy of AGW.
Given the high probability of the accuracy of AGW, at least as a Baysian a prior, what choices that implies is a political judgement rather than a scientific one.
Thank you for your reasoned reply,
re. the 900 year oscillation, I chose the word “APPARENT” because it is apparent that it fits well with the observations.
As for the rest of it, I feel that it is correct to presume that NONE of us are directly involved in Post Normal Climate science, therefore we have only two choices, 1) we swallow whole the theory of AGW, or 2) we keep an open mind and listen to the findings of scientists who’s jobs don’t depend on keeping the scare alive.
I for instance chose the latter, because I have yet to see one piece of empirical evidence that links CO2, either natural or Man-Made, to any warming, past or present.
Although I know that the calculations I provided are correct as can be easily verified by anyone simply using the windows calculator, I do however, feel it would be wrong to presume that human activities do not have “some effect”, but I have yet to see convincing evidence that any human effect is more than trivial.
MIT’s Dr. Lindzen puts it rather well: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic…over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
The data compiled by Post Normal science shows nothing particularly dramatic over the last few decades, only fluctuations well within the range of normal variability, and absolutely NOTHING that correlates with human emission of CO2.
“Whatever truth “Climate Change” may contain it has surely been damaged beyond redemption by its association with this disreputable and vile “Man-Made” concept which brazenly casts aside the need for any factual basis and declares in the most unambiguous terms that whatever values it chooses to promote constitutes a truth unimpeachable by reality and a set of values that none dare challenge”.
The arguments of an unproven hypothesis are worthless in science, only Empirical evidence counts, guided by real data, NOT by the anecdotal clap-trap of scare-mongering, environmental propagandists.
In summary, my efforts to debunk the theory, and your efforts to defend it, are both examples of “The Post Modern Mamba” as previously explained by MemoryVault. I’m sure we both have better things to do and for me at least “Circulus in Probando” has lost it’s appeal.
Of this however I am certain, and that is if there was any evidence to support the theory of AGW, there would be no cause for debate, the scientists, politicians and all believers would simply point to the evidence.The fact that they can provide no evidence and the fact that the IPCC is NOT a “scientific” body, but is simply a “political” body formed for the sole purpose to link human contributions of CO2 to global warming, is the beginning, middle and end of the matter.
Thanks, Dave Edinburgh. I also might add that regardless of any findings to one effect or the effect respecting AGW, the coal fired power community is marshaling its expertise along the lines described at my site on a scale far beyond my imaginings in Nov 2009, which goes to show, I suppose, the power of the Web more so than my feeble industrial bear’s mind. I am also profoundly humbled from going through the IP addresses associated with its search engine hits at my site and who has downloaded what using the CPanel option my ISP has provided.
There shall be a deluge of affordable nitrogen fertilizers to meet ALL the Third World’s needs not five years from now, and cheap plastics, and affordable synfuels, alll from processing this CO2, be carbon dioxide either bugbear demon or Pomona the goddess of the cornucopia in our respective views.
I can only refer you to a tiny part of this effort underway in the space allotted, but going to http://www.powermag.com or http://www.carboncapturejournal.com are the places to start.
All blessings on the houses of the chemical engineers, the hydrocarbon engineers, and the coal fired power community for their ability to turn lemons into lemonade.
Midnight Rambler Bear,
Thank you for the links, I enjoyed the Power Mag. item on the Langage plant, good to see something being built in the UK using British technology that does not require bits imported from China.
My next read is to settle down and explore Carbon Capture Journal, which is of particular interest here in Scotland, Where Alex “Braveheart” Salmond, figurehead ornament in the Wee Scots’ Senate, where Scottish politics are run by “The Green Group of Scottish MPs”, announced that “No new Coal or Nuclear power stations would ever be built in Scotland”. Windmills and a nonsense tidal effort in Shetland being the only acceptable power sources.
Carbon Capture has been rejected by Scottish MPs because “Our very sobering conclusion is that underground carbon dioxide sequestration via bulk injection is not feasible at any cost.”
As Scotland and the rest of the UK used to run on coal and coal gas, and we are sitting on top of hundreds of years supplies of coal, guaranteeing low cost energy independence, it’s time for the eco-mentalists to wake up to reality. If it’s ok for India and China to burn coal, it’s ok for us as well.
“All blessings on the houses of the chemical engineers, the hydrocarbon engineers, and the coal fired power community for their ability to turn lemons into lemonade.”
With that statement I am in complete agreement.
Izen @ September 8, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Apologies for the tardiness of my reply, I have been somewhat busy.
I have been looking for evidence of the shifting seasons, there seems to be a variety of information, much of it however seems low grade stuff that does nothing to inform or educate.
I found a site that will tell you when the first and last frosts are for your area…
It predicts for me “YOUR LAST SPRING FROST WILL BE IN late April”
When I matched up what actually happened with the weather this year…
I found this chilling news from May 2000 showing frosts still happening.
I find that the predictions for shifting seasons seem to be moving faster than the seasons themselves.
Looking at the paper at…
Click to access mtt-afs-v18n3-4p171.pdf
The sentence I found on page 183 summed up the attitude of this study.
“This was also demonstrated in an earlier study of Saarikko (2000), where modeled yields were considerably higher than those observed at regional level, probably because of insufficient inputs by Finnish farmers.”
In other words, our model is fine; it is reality that is flawed.
While I do agree with you that the weather does seem to vary from year to year, I find myself cleaving to the notion that the seasons are controlled by the axial tilt of our planet in relation to the sun and the increase and decrease in day and nighttime respectively.
I remember making a note of a spring frost we had in a reply I made to yaosxx on May 12th, 2010 at 11:56 am and I quote
“We had a frost last night”
I also mentioned the frost to you in my reply on the 13th of May.
Looking at the prediction from the gardenaction site for the first frost I got “YOUR FIRST AUTUMN FROST WILL BE IN mid November” Well I am predicting late October.
Looking at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2009/october.html
I found the first mention of frost in England on the 8th to 14th of October 2009.
So the weather in England does not seem to be following the predictions that there are longer growing periods due to warming.
Do you have any links to any non biased reports on any of the phenomena you mention that are actually happening?
Please excuse the error in the sentence “I found this chilling news from May 2000 showing frosts still happening.” This should have read… I found this chilling news from May 2010 showing frosts still happening.
Hello Everyone !
Earlier today (Saturday 20100911) realityreturns posted the entry below on the current JD blog (in res O’Leary).
Thanks to the skulk of trolls now infesting the DT, messages rapidly disappear far too rapidly from the first screen and are consigned to Disquus purgatory. (sigh)
I feel the posting is important enough to save here chez Ozboy. (grin)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(beginning of post by realityreturns)
Hi Guys….This link may be of interest – UN AGENDA EXPOSED
The Glorious UN Empire Strikes Back
After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.
Details concerning the two-day, closed-door sessions in the comfortable village of Alpbach were closely guarded. Nonetheless, position papers for the meeting obtained by Fox News indicate that the topics included:
— how to restore “climate change” as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit;
— how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”;
— how to keep growing U.N. peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife-torn countries;
— how to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”;
— how to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the U.N. calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas.
As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top U.N. bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the pesky issue of national sovereignty, which — according to the position papers, anyway — continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of “global governance.”…………………..”
(end of post by realityreturns)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hi All !
You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. Must be Hollywood. (grin)
USA Today reports:
“School named after Al Gore was built on toxic soil
Al Gore’s series of misfortunate events continues. This year, his 40-year marriage hit the skids and he was accused of sexual assault (charges dismissed.) Now, what would seem a great honor — having a school named after him — has turned into a punch line for critics.
The $75.5 million Carson-Gore Academy of Environmental Sciences, also named after pioneering environmentalist Rachel Carson, was built on apparently contaminated soil, reports the Los Angeles Times. The story says workers have worked feverishly to clean up the site so the Los Angeles area school can open Monday, as slated.
Environmentalists are appalled. “Renaming this terribly contaminated school after famous environmental advocates is an affront to the great work that these individuals have done to protect the public’s health from harm,” an environmental coalition wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District, the Times reports.
Yet conservative critics see delicious irony in the former vice president, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental work, having such a school named after him.
‘Putting Al Gore’s name on a contaminated school is just about the most intellectually honest thing to come from any educational institution in the history of the United States,” writes Doug Powers on the Michelle Malkin blog. The school’s “toxic fumes…might create an army of zombies which will destroy Los Angeles,” joked Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly, according to Greenwire, an online news site. …/… ”
I just a had comment on the Louise Gray cuddly polar bear log deleted, the first time I have ever had a comment deleted. I have reposted it in the following form which I archive here:
“Sea ice in the Arctic fell to its lowest level since records began in 2007”
The NORSEX records show that the sea ice extent in 2009 was greater than that in 2008, which was greater than 2007, which was the first record. Additionally, the last reading taken, on 29th March 2010, was the highest since records began. Are you holding the graph upside down?
AFAIR, the only difference is that I started it with “Dear Ms Gray” and put the top quote in … quotes, and positioned it as a reply to “bertiedugger” at 0830 on 14/Sep/2010. I am fairly certain it appeared when I submitted it, but two minutes later it had gone. Does the DT delete comments from LG’s blogs, or did I imagine it?
(Archive posting in case DT mods strike)
Curiouser and curiouser! The mods have now removed (0919) my SECOND comment, but re-instated the FIRST, which consequently appears hanging off Bertiedugger’s posting, hence rapidly being shifted into oblivion. I found this when I posted a THIRD comment, this time in the main thread, as follows (in case it is excised from DT:) in response to jobrighton:
“Currently Arctic ice stations now show the 3rd lowest September levels on record”
What? The link you posted ( http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ ) refers to a satellite record, which started in 2007 and the data you gave refers to the end of summer, so you are reporting that the September extent dropped in THREE successive years:
“Arctic sea ice generally reaches its annual minimum extent in mid-September. This August, ice extent was the second lowest in the satellite record, after 2007. On September 3, ice extent dropped below the seasonal minimum for 2009 to become the third lowest in the satellite record.”
It is worth going back a few summers:
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
Or you might look at the complete 2007-2010 satellite data which shows nothing unusual; in fact, the March 2010 extent is within one standard deviation of the pre-satellite estimates 1979-2006.
Also, for the DT-proof archive, this one posted at 10:47 GMT 14th Sep 2010.
@jobrighton: “Hardly stable?”
The March 2010 maximum ice extent (end of winter) was the highest of the records between 2005 and 2010.
The August 2010 minimum ice extent (late summer) is bang in the middle, being on track to repeat 2007.
Compared to 2007, the Arctic areas of increase in ice area (green below) well outpaces the areas of decrease (red below) :