the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Archive for June, 2010

Pollarizing the discussion

Posted by Jeff Id on June 10, 2010

Sorry folks, no time to play today — again.  Has anyone paid any attention to the idiotic climate poles lately?

Stanford survey finds more doubt global warming

And from more leftists at Grist.

New poll shows (again) that public likes clean energy, doesn’t like taxes

Posted in Uncategorized | 16 Comments »

Natural Warming

Posted by Jeff Id on June 8, 2010

Roy Spencer has another interesting post where he uses PDO, AMO and SOI to predict the warming post 1978. He used the 3 factors and temperature to calculate a weighting factor in pre-1960 and it resulted in a prediction of warming in the post 1978 timeframe.  Recently Eric Steig challenged us to be skeptical of Dr, Spencer’s last article but few of us spent any time with it, this time I think the answers are a little easier to see and are therefore less work.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | 225 Comments »

No more free speech, Obama thinks it should cost

Posted by Jeff Id on June 4, 2010

We have to get these corrupt liberals out of office asap.  This is as evil as anything any government can do, and is nothing less than a full takeover of the media. A link to the official documents is here.

new-staff-discussion[1]

It’s bad enough that our extremist in chief doesn’t need to answer difficult questions and is surrounded by friendly leftists, but this is way too much.   Bullet points as presented by Fox News are below:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | 123 Comments »

A little truth would be nice

Posted by Jeff Id on June 4, 2010

Ok, Climate Audit has a post on a reply from Ronald Oxburgh (of the Oxburg coverup of climategate) to a request from Steve McIntyre for documentation of papers and procedures in the investigation.  Steve did a fine job venting on it – it turns out that Canadians do get wound up on occasion, but the quote which sent me up a  wall was in response to this request by SteveM.

Is there a document setting out the terms of reference of the inquiry? If so, could you please provide me with a copy of this document? Did the terms of reference specifically precluded from considering one of the most important CRU activities – Lead Authorship in IPCC reports – or was this omission your own decision?

The Report states that the eleven papers were “selected on the advice of the Royal Society” and that “CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit.” Can you provide me with copies of the documents evidencing the Royal Society providing this advice and the CRU agreeing that they were a “fair sample”. Did you carry out any due diligence of your own to verify that the articles were in fact a “fair sample”?

Which was followed by this reply:

I am afraid that I am not able to be very helpful as none of the documents about which you inquire exists.

Which I am stunned to say is exactly the issue which led to the FOI’s in the first place. The reveiw was such a joke that not even a list of ‘sample’ papers was provided.  Just what the hell do they expect for a reaction when their own review is so closed to the public and so baseless  THAT THE MOST BASIC DOCUMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CHAIRMAN!!

Is it irony or bovine scatology.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

Cloud Driven Temperature Variation

Posted by Jeff Id on June 3, 2010

Roy Spencer had what I consider an interesting post on a model with negative feedback – copied below.  He was able to demonstrate that warming of a magnitude we measure in a modeled climate system with strong negative feedbacks to CO2 rather than the strong positive feedbacks which lead to global doom IPCC style.  IOW, we don’t need aerosols and high CO2 forcing to achieve a match to what has been measured, we only need natural climate variation.  In addition, were this model to be more correct, it would indicate that CO2 cannot cause the kind of warming predicted by the other pro’s.  The second interesting point is that this negative feedback matches their interpretation of some recently obtained satellite cloud data.

———–

Millennial Climate Cycles Driven by Random Cloud Variations

June 2nd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’ve been having an e-mail discussion with another researcher who publishes on the subject of climate feedbacks, and who remains unconvinced of my ideas regarding the ability of clouds to cause climate change. Since I am using the simple forcing-feedback model as evidence of my claims, I thought I would show some model results for a 1,000 year integration period.

What I want to demonstrate is one of the issues that is almost totally forgotten in the global warming debate: long-term climate changes can be caused by short-term random cloud variations.

The main reason this counter-intuitive mechanism is possible is that the large heat capacity of the ocean retains a memory of past temperature change, and so it experiences a “random-walk” like behavior. It is not a true random walk because the temperature excursions from the average climate state are somewhat constrained by the temperature-dependent emission of infrared radiation to space.

A 1,000 Year Model Run

The temperature variability in this model experiment is entirely driven by a 1,000 year time series of monthly random numbers, which is then smoothed with a 30-year filter to mimic multi-decadal variability in cloud cover.

I’ve run the model with a 700 m deep ocean, and strong negative feeedback (6 Watts per sq. meter of extra loss of energy to space per degree of warming, which is equivalent to only 0.5 deg. C of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is what we observed in satellite data for month-to-month global average temperature variations.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | 67 Comments »

Science Blogging

Posted by Jeff Id on June 1, 2010

I really should be playing with some data today, but there isn’t much time again.  Having an extended break from blogging has given me a few chances to introspect on the subject – Kayaking with my son in my lap,  up and down the Muskegon river looking at heron’s, snakes, fish, turtles etc. gave me a lot of time to think quietly.

What is the goal of the Air Vent after all?  So many say it’s a denier blog but I see it as the opposite.  There is no truth that I or this crowd would intentionally deny and I would love to see someone try it.  Perhaps Tamino could write a  fake denier article and publish it here to see the response.  He’d be slaughtered.  Accepting bad arguments is just not in our making.  That is one of my favorite reasons to read your comments BTW, nobody get’s a free pass here, including me. From my perspective the blog post is something I already know or believe or have figured out, from your perspective it’s something to critique, agree with or expand on.  In the end, blogging is superior to so many forms of media for developing understanding. We can consider our thoughts for hours before replying if we like, as I’ve become more familiar with the medium my own consideration sometimes extends to days.

Blogging or more particularly, science blogging, is a thinking persons communication.  It really is. Who knew that reviled skeptics would increase the land temperature trend here while at the same time reducing the Antarctic trend publications. I didn’t, until we checked.  Where else can you write your opinions behind an anonymous moniker with only minimal fear of repercussion.   Writing on line is so different from radio and television, which cannot support thoughtful discussion of any kind.  Blog comments are an interesting dynamic, although the blog owner is given too much automatic credibility (at other blogs :) ).  Honestly, I’ve learned more than written.  Strong personalities blog, and comment on blogs, and in my view concerning a certain personality type, the credibility the blog owner’s credibility is far too often enforced with comment moderation. After all, who is qualified to have an opinion and who is qualified to determine who can talk.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers