the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Grumpy Blogger

Posted by Jeff Id on January 3, 2012

It is hard to have any emotion about climate these days. It is like I’ve reached the end of the road and can see over the edge of the cliff. All is in view as far as you can see. They call it green but after Climategate 2.0, all I see is brown.

Pound on more Mannian style math or random proxies, sure -can do, but why? Beat up on a little more Berkeley surface temperature studies, sure, can do. The data dicing is fantastic low hanging fodder. Again, why? Even Judith Curry has not responded to me on the simpler topic of CI. Not even a sentence. What is the point of wasting my limited time on these adventures if the geniuses won’t listen to reason. Beat up on the IPCC for reposting extremist crap? Sure, again easy fodder. How about “renewable” energy – the big anti-entropy lie. Fun stuff, but again why?

Tough times for a technical climate blogger. ;) Lots of the same crap, trees ain’t thermometers, ice ain’t melting, sea level ain’t rising from CO2, no more hurricanes, Antarctic and Arctic ice will still be there, on and on and on. Why not shut down industry!?

There we go.


68 Responses to “Grumpy Blogger”

  1. Hi jeff,

    Here are a few facts to compare with AGW dogma:

    1. Earth orbits a massive star.

    2. Heat flows from the the Sun to the Earth.

    3. Mass(Sun)/Mass(Earth) = Three hundred thousand (300,000)

    4. Mass(Sun)/Mass(Earth’s atmosphere) = One million (1,200,000)

    5. Mass(Sun)/Mass(CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere) = 2,000,000,000

    Tonight’s results from Iowa that will show if ordinary citizens have seen through the “smoke and mirrors” of world leaders and their armies of consensus scientists:

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/02/on-the-dangerous-naivete-of-uncritical-acceptance-of-scientific-consensus/#comment-155266

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/02/beyond-smoke-and-mirrors-the-middle-ground/#comment-154862

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/02/beyond-smoke-and-mirrors-the-middle-ground/#comment-154982

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/02/beyond-smoke-and-mirrors-the-middle-ground/#comment-155145

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/02/beyond-smoke-and-mirrors-the-middle-ground/#comment-155176

    The only caveat is unconfirmed reports of plans to count votes at secret sites – where the public cannot observe the tallying.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/199157/more-outrageous-corruption-in-the-iowa-gop

    Best wishes for 2012!

    All is well today,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. PJB said

    Because we deserve better and you have, continue to and hopefully, will continue to provide it.
    As an angel of our better natures, we need all the help that you can give us.

  3. Graham Dunton said

    You do sound a bit pissed off Jeff, understandably so, it is much like hitting your head against a wall of that CO2! As an Aussie I can see a funny side to your comment, about all I see is brown! That’s all we have been seeing lately, he, our Bob Brown, is the Greens leader, currently running our labor Government, by the nose of course!
    The day this climate hype ends, and we get back to real science, the media reports current facts and not fiction, will be the day for all to rejoice! But alas, until that day happens, it will take the army of the concerned, who will still hang in, and try and change things for the better.
    So, a Happy New Year to all!

  4. Genghis said

    I sense that the momentum has shifted, and that the environmentalists (politicians) are simply going to declare victory (pronouncements of doom) and join another cause, leaving the bureaucrats with more power and authority. Most will suffer from a case of mass amnesia and forget that AGW was ever the Gold standard of Science, just like the aftermath of Eugenics.

    AGW was never anything but a tool to be used to accumulate power and divert attention. The perps were going to walk away laughing to the bank, but because of you and your fellow bloggers efforts, history will not judge them kindly. I wonder what would have happened without the internet.

  5. Frank K. said

    Tough times for a technical climate blogger. ;) Lots of the same crap, trees ain’t thermometers, ice ain’t melting, sea level ain’t rising from CO2, no more hurricanes, Antarctic and Arctic ice will still be there, on and on and on. Why not shut down industry!?

    This is what I find so repugnant about mainstream climate scientists and their eco-activist allies in government and the media. They can sit in judgement of pipelines, coal mines, domestic energy production, manufacturing industries, etc. (and the thousands upon thousands of jobs they represent) while gobbling up billions of dollars of our tax money for themselves! They are hypocrites who, on the one hand decry coal, oil, and nuclear power, but then build themselves huge power-sucking computer servers to run their climate models!

    US citizens – please, please remember this in November. My vote will be firmly in favor of those who will strike a blow for the average American worker and consumer by once and for all dismantling the government-funded climate industry…

  6. gallopingcamel said

    You seem to have a touch of the “Blahs” and that is understandable given that there is no visible result from all your efforts. You, Anthony Watts and a rag tag army of volunteers have defeated the well funded CAGW hordes. They may not know it yet but their cause is lost.

    The big lie (that Carbon dioxide drives global climate) is at last getting the scorn it deserves from every quarter. It is now understood how Kyoto style emissions reductions hurt economic activity. In the face of hard times few nations are achieving their Kyoto targets; in any case it won’t matter and nobody will care.

    Steve Goddard thinks that 2012 is the year to kill the big lie. He may be onto something:

    http://www.real-science.com/2012-global-warming-report-card

  7. gallopingcamel said

    Frank K says:
    “US citizens – please, please remember this in November. My vote will be firmly in favor of those who will strike a blow for the average American worker and consumer by once and for all dismantling the government-funded climate industry…”

    You nailed it but where is the presidential candidate making that promise? If there is such a candidate does he/she have a prayer of being nominated?

    Don’t look for salvation from the Oval office or the elites who fly Gulf Stream IVs while telling us to ride bicycles.

  8. Joe Prins said

    Jeff, hang in there. The blah’s usu happen to me before Jan. 1. And then, oddly enough, a brand new year of challenges and new knowledge gained loom ahead. We do live in exciting times, thanks to spirited man like you who are willing to pound the ice with a hockey stick of knowledge and truth.
    Take a break and come back refreshed. In the meantime, thanks for your efforts. Knowledge gained for the pure joy of knowing is the payment received. If you happen to pound a Mann into the boards with it at the same time, that is icing.

  9. tallbloke said

    Take heart Jeff, the writing is on the wall for the radiative greenhouse effect.

    Nilolov and Zeller’s Unified Theory of Climate has legs.

    Once their papers are published, the game is up for the co2 driven climate theory.

    Then we can start too push back the accreted piles of policy doo.

    Pitchforks may be required. There’s a lot of mannure to shift. :)

  10. Anonymous said

    hey jeff, hang in there. maybe you are unaware of how many people count on ur blog that are just crazy about the real science behind this agw stuff. we need you. i am a dentist in nj and rely on sites like urs and watts, steve m etc for the truth and it gives me plenty of ammo in my daily fight vs. maybe just a few , yes, but hopefully many like me convince the masses one at a time. i remember the night when the first emails hit this board and the initial discussion was if they were for real or not.. couldnt wait to read what you had to say. sounds like you need a break is all. shut it down for a bit and come back refreshed…cause we count on you. sincerely, rum

  11. Peter Whale said

    I agree with Tallbloke truth will eventually be recognized by more scientists speaking out on the flawed science. More and more papers are making it through the teams pal review by being put on the internet first.

    How many new papers supporting the AGW scam will be in the next IPCC report? Who now treats them seriously?

    If you keep reminding people like Judith Curry of their obligation to science they will eventually come down on the side of real science and make it open as is its fundamental principle. Nothing like a convert.

    Politicians are known liars they also go with the flow just like the MSM.

    The daily papers are in major decline, don’t buy them. Remind them in their online versions of their cosy bias towards the politicians while treating their customers with contempt. Some will go this year.

    On the whole I think one more year of picking holes in the CO2 scam will finish it, Hopefully with the disclosure of the last tranche of Climategate e-mails.

    Jeff I do not comment here much because I do not have the expertise, but I can tell right from wrong by the comments section and how they are dealt with.

    Please keep on, it might make you grumpy, it certainly gets up their noses and upsets them, you do make a difference.

    Happy new year

  12. david said

    “Tough times for a technical climate blogger. Lots of the same crap, trees ain’t thermometers, ice ain’t melting, sea level ain’t rising from CO2, no more hurricanes, Antarctic and Arctic ice will still be there, on and on and on”

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————-

    I have beeen there Jeff, For a time I did not even visit my old internet haunts. It reminds me a little of a scene from the movie, Sargent York. (The true story of the most decorated veteran of World War 1 ) Young Alvin York (Gary Cooper) is getting very drunk with some compaions in a bar bodering Tennesee and Kentucky. Already quite drunk, Mr York says, “Well, we dern ner drunk fer everythin I can think of, I gots an idea, lets drink agin somethin.” (Or word to that effect)

    Well I say, like Mr York, maybe change it up a bit. Go on the offensive. Write a post on the known benenfits of additional CO2, verses the actual observations of the much hyped, projected “what if” but never really happens harm. Maybe put this in an ecoomic setting with a little help from someone like Ross McKitrick. What is the economic value of all the crops in the world growing 10% to 15% more food, on the same amount of land, witrh the same amount of water, at 390PPM, compared to what would happen at 280 ppm of CO2. Consider the likelhood that we would very possibly have many more food riots and possibly massive war if CO2 was still at 280ppm, and include that in your economic estimate of the benefits of CO2.

    Or consider some posts on climate unknown riddles, to both illustrate what is not known, plus recieve some brainstorming ideas from your educated (far more then me) posters. For instance here is a riddle I would like to see your posters address.

    Sunlight, falling on the Earth when it’s about 3,000,000 miles closer to the sun in January, (perihelion) is about 7% more intense than in July. Counter intuitively, at aphelion most people state that the Earth’s average temperature is about 4 degrees F higher in July than January, when in fact they should be stating that the ATMOSPHERE is 4 degrees higher in July. In January this extra SW energy is being pumped into the oceans where the “residence time” within the Earth’s ocean land and atmosphere is the longest. Some of the energy increases the mean evaporation rate of the oceans and is transmitted to latent heat before being released, but most of the extra energy is lost to the atmosphere for a time as it is contained within the ocean, but eventually it is radiated from the ocean as LWR and increased latent heat in water vapor. Of course there is greater albedo during January in the NH, due to more snow cover on the greater land mass. So we know that the atmosphere loses energy in January due to increased land snow cover and loses energy down into the oceans due to more sunlight hitting the oceans where it is absorbed for undetermined lengts of time depending on it ocean penetration and residence time within the oceans. This annual cycle presents many questions I have never heard answered.

    Is the earth’s ocean /land/ atmosphere system ( combined as one) gaing or losing energy at periheiion.?
    What implications about climate can be learned from the answer to the above?
    If the oceans are gaining energy ar perihelion, are they losing energy at aphelion?
    Do the climate models accurately portray what is observed on earth during these peak differences?
    What is the W/M2 TOA and surface flux difference between perhilion and aphelion?
    Do the seasonal observations of TOA incoming and outgoing flux behave as predicted?
    What is the disparate residence time of the surface level TSI reaching the oceans, broken up into different spectrums with differen residence times for each spectrum?
    How much do these change from solar cycles to solar cycle?
    If we had 60 years of increased surface TSI in deep penetrating SWR entering the oceans, how long would it take for the oceans to reach a radiative balance?

    And finally, are the following assertions from this layman’s study of the above accurate?
    (David’s Law) (-; “At its most basic only two things can effect the energy content of any system in a radiative balance. Either a change in the input, or a change in the “residence time” of some aspect of those energies within the system.”

    It therefore possibly follows that any effect which increases the residence time of LW energy in the atmosphere, (green house gases) but reduces the input of SW energy entering the oceans, (atmospheric heating causing more cloud cover oand or water vapor) causes a net reduction in the earth’s energy balance, proportioned to the energy change involved, relative to the residence time of the radiations involved. The critical fact is that the energy is CUMLITIVE for everyday of “residence” and some of this energy may increase DAILY for as many days, months, years or decades that a change in TSI or cloud cover continues. Hence my paraphrase of an old maxim, ” A SW photon in the ocean is worth two LWIR photons in the atmosphere,” Of course it could be 30 to one for all I know.

    Forgive any typos, I may have been following a little of young Alvin York’s behavior patterns tonight.

    Cheers, and thanks for your blog and hard work.
    David

  13. pouncer said

    You aren’t factoring in the “feedbacks”…

    I’m a school board trustee charged to evaluate a new superintendent. Our district’s standardized test scores are WAY up this year over last. My six peers are anxious to give the man a big raise.

    Your work and McIntyre’s etc have made me skeptical and set an example.

    Digging into the data I see that the “participation rate” on our tests have dropped. Some ten percent of kids tested are now taking a modified test. The modifications allow fewer questions, fewer multiple choices per question, and set the passing score at a lower percentage. But the passing rates are accumulated,without adjustment, into the overall passing rate.

    I’ll have to get the raw data, student by student, for the past two years, in order to develop an “apples-to-apples” report showing the real change in scores from last year.

    If not for you, I might not think the game worth the candle.

    But if you can fight “Nature” — I can dig here. The truth is worth it. And the example to others is beyond price.

    Carry on,

  14. Chuck L said

    Jeff, everyone gets the “blahs.” The service that you, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, and others is immeasurable and has, in my opinion, had a real substantive effect on the AGW debate. When “real” scientists fail to question orthodoxy, talented citizen-scientists like you are able to step in and jump-start the science and the debate.

    Hang in there – have a beer, spend time with family and the blahs will pass!

  15. page488 said

    Hmmmmm – why keep fighting????

    Let’s see. I want to keep my money; “They” want to take my money (for no good reason) .

    I vote for me!!!!!!!!!!!!

    We all appreciate what you, the M’s, Watts and others have done. Unfortunately, this is a war of attrition, so take a break and come back to pick that low hanging fruit. At least, they’ve made easy targets of themselves.

    Happy New Year to all and thanks again, Jeff.

    Page and Sylvie (the doggie in the pic)

  16. curious said

    Cheer up Jeff – what did you make of the Christy graphic at Anthony’s?

  17. Derek said

    Jeff wrote,
    ” Lots of the same crap, trees ain’t thermometers, ice ain’t melting, sea level ain’t rising from CO2, no more hurricanes, Antarctic and Arctic ice will still be there, on and on and on. ”

    Maybe some are feeling down beat because, they have been
    “merely” quibbling the figures, rather than questioning the principles of the Greenhouse and AGW failed hypothesises perhaps???

    Reasons for all (without a vested interest in GH and AGW) to be cheerful, and be invigorated by, IS because,
    times are a changing, and they are getting more exciting, not less.

    Good bye and good ridence to CO2 and man’s supposedly “dominant” effects upon climate, AND, that damned silly radiative obsession and misrepresentation/s.
    The false data sets, the false computer models, the false “physics”, the numerous false thought experiments, and the false use of W/m2.

    Sure Hansen, Schmidt, Santer, Trenberth, Jones et al, the IPCC, and the UN’s role, not to mention virtually all governments and politicians (Left, Right, and Center), and beaurocrats,
    SHOULD, and WILL BE “remembered”, but not as “saviours”. Political and consensus science “greens” never were, nor never wiil be green, they never had an interest in that, AT ALL.
    They SHOULD be rememberered, and held up as, so the lessons will not be forgotten, as the exact opposite, that they are, and have MOSTLY knowingly and deliberately been.

    Technically speaking Jeff, surely the science is only just about to begin?
    Exciting times ahead then I would suggest.

  18. Blog Lurker said

    Jeff,

    Like the others above, I hope you stick at it. But, if you’re feeling jaded by it all, do take a break. We appreciate the work you’ve done so far, and some of us prefer quality to quantity. ;)

    So, spend some more time with your friends & family & enjoy life. But, I do hope you come back, cause this is one of the most reasoned climate blogs around (with a great community of commenters too).

    P.S. If you’re looking for inspiration AFTER your break, have another look at Al Gore’s film: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8847562857479496579 and remember that for most people, THAT still is the “science”.

    It often gets tedious & frustrating wading through the likes of Mann’s teleconnected treemometers and datasets which have been “homogenised” until they match the models better :(. If such rubbish was just an issue for the climate science community, I’d be tempted to leave them to it.

    But, this has been made a public issue, and the public deserves to know the flimsy basis on which the “consensus” exists.

    P.P.S. Happy new year! :)

  19. Jeff Id said

    Guys, I tried to quit once already. I tried very hard. It didn’t work any better than it would right now so don’t worry about that.

  20. curious said

    FWIW – I think you should get the gang back on the road and do another paper. Something that interests you all rather than refuting or critiquing the stuff that drives you nuts.

  21. I just read the sharks story over at WUWT and had exactly the same emotions. The average joe appears to be a total moron who will suck up any old rubbish. Climate change, both as a money making machine and a front for furthering left-wing green agenda’s is such a powerful force, that screaming on a blog is almost pointless. People are too stupid to see the obvious – such as the basic fact that we have only been measuring arctic ice properly since 1979 and it is simply NOT declining the way things were predicted.

    Let the machine win – I for one will have simply given up caring – time will carry the truth.

  22. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, it sounds like you have lost your enthusiasm for the technical analysis because of insufficient reactions to those analysis. In my book there is no guarantee that good technical analyses will win the day over poor political policy. The current reigning political philosophy and the intelligentsia who support it are very much in favor of bigger government and that applies to AGW mitigation – and it will apply for them regardless of the analyses. The basic issue then becomes that of changing the prevailing political philosophy and the intelligentsia and that will happen only slowly over a long period of time.

    What keeps me very much interested in climate science and the analysis is that the analyses are fun and challenging and allow me to see the big picture more clearly. Learning about the scientists themselves is an enjoyable pursuit. Of course, unlike you and most others participating at these blogs I am retired and do not have a career or a profession or a job to keep me busy and challenged. Obtaining knowledge and seeking the truth can be rewarding in its own right.

    You mentioned, Judith Curry’s lack of response to your analysis of the BEST methodology pertaining to estimation of the CIs for temperature. I would think that Judith had high hopes for the BEST effort to influence the less informed public opinions that indeed the instrumental record shows recent warming and that it would add back integrity to that lost to climate scientists from climategate. I personally have some doubts about whether they have gotten the estimation of CIs right as I think you do. There have been some problems revealed about that BEST effort that I would think would require some immediate attention for Judith to consider in hopes of getting the most positive spin from that effort. If the BEST effort authors had a slam dunk response to your analysis, do you think they would not have responded to you already?

    I currently have been discussing the CRU temperature set use of adjusted GHCN V2 and V3 temperature data by way of a couple of email exchanges with Phil Jones. I get a better picture of the CRU data set and how it is produced with each email. I am hoping a response to my email of today will finally answer my questions. My analysis of the CRU data set and its use of GHCN data originated from a thread at TAV where Nick Stokes was challenging the amount of skeptics attention paid to CRU as it is currently constructed.

  23. Ruhroh said

    Hey Jeff;
    As a ‘SAD’ person, I tend to suggest some Vitamin D supplements for folks who get ‘grumpy’ , ‘sluggish’, ‘blah’ , etc. at this time of year. It’s an easy experiment to run.
    Your body generates vast amounts of D in sunshine, and so your body also has mechanisms to handle any excess amounts; i.e., no toxicity risk.
    It’s not a ‘cure-all'; more like JATO bottles to get off the runway and up into the air…

    Otherwise, you seem to have the ‘visionary’s dilemma’ ; the problem with being able to see the future is that you can’t really do all that much to make it get here any faster than it can.

    Kind of like psychotherapy: it doesn’t really work to tell people what is wrong with them; they have to figure it out themselves, and the therapist can only guide their steps with consummate subtlety (i.e., no dragging).

    Or, maybe, another ‘anal-ogy’ of your situation is that you’ve visually diagnosed a foundering horse as having eaten a load of dirt-laden hay; unfortunately, the therapeutic intervention involves shoulder length gloves and a garden hose (and waterproof protective gear).

    Maybe you could get that Tom Moriarity fellow to do a guest post summary on his lovely deconstructions of the various Rahmstorf (sp?) sea level absurdities. You’re safe there in the heartland, but out here in CA, R2009 is the mandatory planning scenario, by Executive Order of the previous Governator.

    Best,
    RR

  24. 18.
    Jeff Id said
    January 4, 2012 at 10:39 am
    Guys, I tried to quit once already. I tried very hard. It didn’t work any better than it would right now so don’t worry about that.
    ——————————————–

    Jeff, was any of the novel direction I suggested interesting to you?
    #11
    david said
    January 4, 2012 at 7:06 am

  25. Ruhroh said

    Short version; you can lead horses to water, but you can’t make them drink.
    Carpe Dinero
    RR

  26. George said

    I believe that the first thing people need to understand is that this is not about science and it is not really about reducing CO2. What this is *about* is central regulatory control of global economic activity by the UN using CO2 restrictions as a throttle on economic activity.

    A bunch of unelected bureaucrats want to create a way that they can cause a reduction in economic growth in some areas while increasing economic growth in other areas and in some cases extracting direct cash payments from the more wealthy countries for handing over to the poorer ones (this helps get more countries on board with the program). They, in their minds, actually believe they are making the world a “better” place and making a tidy sum at the same time.

    The point is that it could be shown with absolute certainty that to date CO2 has had negligible impact on global climate and it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. It isn’t really about CO2 and it isn’t really about “climate change”. It is really about finding an issue they can use in order to justify limiting economic development in some areas and diverting it to other areas.

    It is about second and third world governments (who make up the majority of countries of the UN) seeing first world countries getting wealthier while they get poorer and rather than looking at the root causes of why their countries lag in natural economic growth, attempt to force economic activity to migrate there by making it more expensive to go anywhere else or failing that, collecting a direct cash payment from the wealthy countries as rent for “atmospheric resources” that the wealthy countries “consume”. Rather than looking at their own political and economic barriers to growth and making reforms that would allow their economy to grow on its own, they are attempting to force business activity (or just cash payments) to their locations via international regulations.

    The Rio Declaration is an amazing document that George Orwell himself couldn’t have bested even if he tried. Key to the document are the notions that the burden of proof that something is harmful to the environment must be inverted and that “scientific uncertainty” not be a barrier to action. All that is required is a finding that it is *plausible* that environmental damage could occur, the uncertainty surrounding that conclusion notwithstanding. See what they did here? You could be 1% certain that something “could” happen, and that is all that is required to justify regulations. Once it is established that something “could” plausibly happen, the burden of proof is then inverted so that the onus is on proving that it *can’t* happen in order to prevent regulatory action. It is impossible to prove a negative. Simply showing that it *isn’t* happening isn’t enough. One must prove that it *can’t* happen in order to block action. So once the IPCC establishes that it is plausible that CO2 *could* cause a rise in temperatures and that a rise in temperatures *could* cause a detrimental environmental impact, the UNFCCC is free to act to produce policy guidelines. In order to block them, one must prove that CO2 emissions *can’t* cause temperature rise or that temperature rise *can’t* cause a detrimental environmental impact. So you have a very liberal allowance for what constitutes justification for action and a very strong barrier to to blocking that action.

    Once these conditions are set, the UNFCCC and other groups are then “justified” in their forcing of “sustainable development” onto the rest of the world. It is absolute lunacy. There is no way out at this point short of leaving “the process”.

    The only way out of the situation is to pull out of the Rio process. The entire thing is a “roach motel” treaty. Regulations can only go one way and it is nearly impossible to get them to go in the other direction even if shown to be incorrect because the burden of proof requirement is in itself an impossible condition to meet. You can not PROVE that CO2 can’t cause temperature rise, you can only prove that you have not yet found any evidence that it has. Evidence can only be positive. It is impossible to produce evidence that something does not exist or has not existed or hasn’t happened.

    The entire thing is absolutely insane. And if I were Lord Monckton, for example, rather than attempting to find reasons to prosecute scientists for fraud, he should be having national leaders exposed for idiocy and malfeasance for signing their country up to an agreement that is fundamentally illogical. The scientists have a way out, they can say there is “significant uncertainty” surrounding their findings, meaning “this may or may not really happen”. The UN, on the other hand, has no such restriction to act on any reality. They are free not only to act on conjecture, but one is forced to prove a negative to prevent it. I am simply amazed that any government would actually sign themselves up for it let alone “internationalize” their environmental regulations to go “lock step” with it. It is pure insanity and all the science in the world can’t stop it.

  27. Gary said

    Jeff, the romance is in the guerilla warfare. Viva ID!

  28. Nic L said

    Jeff,
    I quite understand your feelings. You have done much to expose poor science in various aspects of climate – I and many others have appreciated your for doing so. But maybe it’s worth your looking at one or two new areas, with fresh challenges? For instance, climate sensitivity – one of the keys to the whole AGW argument. I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking into climate sensitivity studies – optimal fingerprinting one and others and – surprise, surprise – found that some of the data, maths and statistics is very questionable.

  29. page488 said

    RE: # 25

    I don’t think the Rio Summit is binding on anyone, but your points are well taken.

  30. George said

    It is binding on the UK because they have legislated that Defra will follow UNFCCC policy recommendations. It is binding on California because the California Air Resources Board has decided to do the same. Not a single elected representative of the people is involved in implementing these policies. It flows right from the UNFCCC to the “environmental” bureaucracies in the areas involved. And the EPA recently requested expanded powers in order to implement “Sustainable Development” under Agenda 21 of the Rio Declaration.

    Besides, the US signed it and the Senate ratified it in the US.

  31. George said

    The point is, this is not really about “climate change” and you could prove tomorrow that there is no such thing and it won’t make any difference.

  32. Curt said

    If previous scares (e.g. power line electromagnetic radiation, heterosexual AIDS) are any indication, the best we can hope for is a long, gradual fall-off in the scare stories, hype, and underlying studies. Then it’s on to the next scare! Lather, rinse, repeat…

  33. Blog Lurker said

    @Kenneth, #21:
    Does he use adjusted GHCN then? I haven’t really had much chance to analyse CRUTEM3 much since it was released this summer, but I had (naively?) assumed he would have used unadjusted. Does he use both?

    I have to admit, my biggest shock so far from the post-Climategate releases is how the station list is so different to the documented description (Jones & Moberg, 2003 and Brohan et al., 2006) and the station list they posted on the CRU website around 2007/8 (?): http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ (there were only about 4000 then as far as I recall, while the summer 2011 release has a lot more).

    Did you find out when they introduced all the extra stations? Was it just done post-Climategate, or were they using them when they posted the old list?

  34. Jeff Id said

    Carol,

    I believe you were referring to the ideas of #11 but am not really sure. I don’t have the answers for you at hand but guess that due to time scales, climate models don’t bother with annual solar variations. There are a lot of interesting avenues to pursue and I’m not sure what will catch me next.

  35. Hank McCard said

    Jeff,

    Although I am (much) older than you, I’m an engineer who shares many of your POVs and understand the conflicts of a young family and a business career. Nonetheless, as a result of your dedication to scientific ethics, we all have a better understanding of the disconnet between some of the AGW advocates proclomations and scientific-based findings.

    Hang in there and continue to help us and others to “separate the weeds from the chaff.”

  36. Hank McCard said

    Jeff,

    Although I am (much) older than you, I’m an engineer who shares many of your POVs and understand the conflicts of a young family and a business career. Nonetheless, as a result of your dedication to scientific ethics, we all have a better understanding of the disconnet between some of the AGW advocates proclamations and scientific-based findings.

    Hang in there and continue to help us and others to “separate the weeds from the chaff.”

  37. I kind of share your despondency…where I am we are being lashed by Winter gales (60 mph gusts…and those fecking wind turbines are not generating)…rain…it gets dark at 3.30pm…..why do we endure this Hell?

  38. jperusta said

    Try not to get discouraged, Jeff. I don’t understand the complexities of the mathematics/statistics, though I do make the attempt. Your website and contributors have helped me to become a *little* more knowledgeable in this area. I’m currently working on understanding ‘spatial degrees of freedom’ as that seems to be a popular refrain in some of the CG2 emails. I’m likely to gain only a rudimentary understanding but that’s ok, at least, for my purposes. :-)

    I know that you are most interested in the technicalities of climate science but I’m finding the social behaviour revealed by the emails to be quite fascinating. I’m doubtful many of these scientists would appreciate the voyeurism but I think their interactions are an important clue to how this branch of science, in particular, has evolved. I don’t imagine that any of them ever expected to find ‘Rock Star’ status when they chose their careers but, at least it seems to me, a (freakish?) set of circumstances has given some of the major players more public exposure and standing than was likely ever warranted. It appears that some started to place more importance in their own press than they did in science.

    I have no doubt that most average people won’t understand the science behind any of this but they can understand how a cult of personality(ies) can be very dangerous, especially when global public policy is involved. They do understand that when decision makers, on whatever level, are not willing to share all the data and all the information that forms the basis of their decisions on a completely transparent basis, there is likely something about that data and information that cannot withstand public scrutiny.

  39. Jeff, you are a hero in a hard-fought battle against enormous odds.

    The scriptures of almost all religions teach this is the battle of life. Sometimes we all feel like Arjuna in the opening chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, discouraged and feeling that we cannot continue in this battle.

    But be of good cheer, and know that you are on the winning side, not on your time schedule but in the great indelible schedule of events controlled by cause and effect.

    Because of you, others cautious join the battle each day:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/03/1111115109.full.pdf+html?sid=46ee967e-4c59-4501-8e47-4a909134b6e6

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21325-nobel-prizewinning-quasicrystal-fell-from-space.html

    That may the way political-based SSM and AGW dogmas are defeated.

    Best wishes for the New Year!
    Oliver K. Manuel

  40. GHowe said

    For a new perspective, try substituting tequila for the morning coffee. Good Luck in the New Year!!

  41. david said

    34.Jeff Id said
    January 4, 2012 at 7:17 pm
    Carol,

    I believe you were referring to the ideas of #11 but am not really sure. I don’t have the answers for you at hand but guess that due to time scales, climate models don’t bother with annual solar variations. There are a lot of interesting avenues to pursue and I’m not sure what will catch me next.
    ————————

    Dear Jeff

    Thank you, that was indeed from me, David, concerning the questions I asked at comment #11. I was using my wife’s computer, unaware of that fact. I do hope you will review # 11 again and consider the questions asked. I consider the ocean heat content, and the means by which it aquires its energy to be easily as important, as well as intimately related to cloud formation and clould/jet stream locations. If it is true that the climate models primarily deal with averages, then having them run the seasonal, almost 100 watt per sq meter flus between January and July, and seeing if they match the TOA and surface flux observations as well as all other observations such as atmosphere flux, may well be very informative and cogent to certain errors within the models, and also improve are understanding.

  42. gallopingcamel said

    Good generals (like you Jeff) concentrate their attacks on weak points in the enemy’s position.

    So where is the IPCC weakest? At the center!

    The heart of the IPCC position is that atmospheric carbon dioxide controls global temperature. If one keeps hammering on this absurdity, their defenses will collapse.

  43. Jeff Id said

    Oliver,

    “Jeff, you are a hero in a hard-fought battle against enormous odds.”

    Kind words but overstated. I’m an opinionated engineer who happens to have an extreme dislike for the pseudo-intellectual climate crew. Just another monkey in the pile.

  44. frozenohio said

    Sounds like me and arguing with liberals. Sometimes it’s ‘what’s the point’? Take a deep breath and walk away – maybe do something fun & ignore all this nonsense. Works for me. Then come back with a clear head and keep up what you are doing – edumacating them on the BS known as AGW. Rome wasn’t burned down in a day… ;)

  45. kuhnkat said

    Jeff Id,

    sometimes it gets to you. You and others have done great work showing the emperor has cellophane clothes, yet, it doesn’t seem to be making a lot of difference in the policy end of the scam or even amongst the main criminals and their income!!

    Buck up, at least you aren’t being incarcerated or beheaded, yet! 8>)

    As others have suggested, it might be a good time for a break as you aren’t the only body in the breech. Take some time and try and relax and set it aside for a bit. Whatever you decide I am sure I am not the only one who will say that we respect and appreciate what you have done for us. We would miss you, but, understand that at times the mental state isn’t healthy sticking in a mess like this.

    Happy New Year!!!

  46. Jeff Id said

    kuhnkat,

    Thanks but I don’t plan to go anywhere. I tried that before.

  47. The Iconoclast said

    I get it. You shine a light on the ugly blackness and it’s there, plain and simple for everyone to see, yet they continue to persist with their foolishness and sometimes it feels like all your efforts are not making one whit of a difference.

    I marvel sometimes at how McIntyre continues to plug away, year after year. Dogged: Having or showing tenacity and grim persistence.

    I’ve read the comments. You already know you’re going to keep going. You tried to quit before and you couldn’t or wouldn’t.

    All the really worthwhile endeavors seem to require a lot of pretty much thankless effort where step after step and day after day the destination seems to get no closer. People tell you you’re crazy; your mind screams at you to give up. You keep going, and eventually you get somewhere, and there is a deep truth in the expression “The journey is the reward.”

    And don’t forget humor. As Twain said, against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand. All their machinations, chimeras and conspiracies may crumble thanks to a few cold winters… and people say God doesn’t have a sense of humor.

  48. Frank K. said

    Jeff,

    Let me add to the chorus of appreciation for your work here at your blog. I check it out daily to see what you’ve written, which is always interesting. Please keep it up!

    Also, what we see in mainstream climate science and the “press releases” in the MSM is, in my opinion, directly a result of the massive amounts of climate ca$h available for research work today. If you look at the proposals that are funded by NSF and DOE for example, their abstracts basically indicate that the investigators are seeking confirmation of CAGW and will perform a study of xyz to prove it (e.g. a numerical model study, examination of the mating habits of wombats in warm climates, etc.). So, nothing is published from these studies that will contradict this thesis. With hundreds of these projects in the pipeline, it’s no wonder that we’re treated to a different manic CAGW press release nearly every day!

    The most effective means of combating the climate science nonsense is to attempt to get our political leaders to defund the government-funded climate machine. Unfortunately, closing down ANY government program is nearly impossible these days…

    Frank K.

  49. kim said

    Beheadings there be none,
    Incarcerations not a one.
    But servers cower.
    =============

  50. Stacey said

    Jeff

    Imagine a world without the web? What would have happened ? None of us would have been any the wiser, it is sites like this that have provided information where all we have been fed is disinformation.

    You me feel like a candle in the wind but the light shines oh so brightly.

    On a more jovial note this from Carrington at The Guardian via the highly esteemed University of East Anglia renowned centre for disinformation:

    “It’s a new year, so let’s start with a new idea: a democratic body to safeguard the basic needs and fundamental interests of future people

    That is the proposal of Rupert Read, a philosopher at the University of East Anglia, in a report called Guardians of the Future for the think tank Green House. The core idea is both radical and straightforward: a council of “Guardians of Future Generations”, chosen like a jury from the general public, would sit above the existing law-making bodies and have two core powers. A power to veto legislation that threatened the basic needs and interests of future people and the power to force a review, following suitable public petition, of any existing legislation that threatens the interests of future people.”

    Hey man they are absolutely desperate but unfortunately we have to pay for this garbage.

    They are also losing because of sites like this lest you forget.

    Take care

    Regards

    S

    Kind regards

    S

  51. Stacey said

    Sorry for the typo “me” should read “may”.

  52. Mark T said

    #50 Stacey:

    Imagine a world without the web? What would have happened ? None of us would have been any the wiser, it is sites like this that have provided information where all we have been fed is disinformation.

    On the flip side, it would also be much harder for “climate scientists” to disseminate their disinformation. The Internet is a double-edged sword (arguably we are better off with it than without).

    The core idea is both radical and straightforward: a council of “Guardians of Future Generations”, chosen like a jury from the general public, would sit above the existing law-making bodies and have two core powers. A power to veto legislation that threatened the basic needs and interests of future people and the power to force a review, following suitable public petition, of any existing legislation that threatens the interests of future people.”

    We in the US already have something like that: the Supreme Court of the United States. They are not chosen by the people, however, in order to remove the politicking involved with public voting (some of it, at least, and there are arguments regarding what “advice and consent of the Senate” actually means). They can also only review legislation that is brought before them, which means an unconstitutional law cannot be overthrown until it actually gets implemented and “tested,” and they have a right to refuse to hear any issue at their whim.

    Like any alternative, there are always pros and cons, no matter how well conceived.

    Mark

  53. AJStrata said

    Jeff,

    It’s like we are living parallel lives. Even the skeptics have begun to move slowly, filter out the challenges. Dare I say – go native!

    Cheers, AJStrata

  54. Jeff Id said

    Mark,

    “Like any alternative, there are always pros and cons, no matter how well conceived.”

    In politics the pro’s are the cons.

  55. GHowe said

    Some excellent comments. The Iconoclast’s (#47) is great.

    My congratulations and encouragements, beatifications not yet!

  56. kim said

    Before God and the swans, remember Brus’s spider in the cave.
    ======================

  57. Anonymous said

    Personally I think Rahmstorf hasn’t had nearly enough auditing so far.

    Maybe 2012 will be his year?
    :)

  58. GHowe said

    #57- Long time coming eh.

    Kim # 56- Great analogy. Riddle me this: will Jeff the ID escape the cave w/o destroying the web?
    my opinion, with today’s technology, and if those LHC people get their communication problems solved, I’d say yes.

    OK, the Shock Tops are talking.

  59. Matthew W said

    # 52
    “advice and consent of the Senate”

    Yes, that’s become a joke considering how Judges Bork and Thomas were treated compared to Kagan and the most seriously under qualified Sotomayor.

    “Some” of the politics of the appointment of justices is removed, but only for a certain political party.

  60. Matthew W said

    Jeff, I can certainly understand your frustration as that is almost everyday of my job !!

    But thanks to you and many other citizen experts, there has been great progress in reversing the abject stupidity, nonsense and flat out lies of the “CO2 is to blame” crowd.

    Keep the faith brother !!!

  61. #43 Jeff

    I am concerned for you and sent a private email.

    The essence of my message:

    When facing powerful external opposition to a just cause, Gandhi realized that destruction of self-centeredness is the key to success: Stay spiritually fit, do what is right, and let go of the results.

    Hang in there, Jeff, the universe is unfolding exactly as it should, but not always to my liking.

  62. Stephen Richards said

    22.
    Kenneth Fritsch said
    January 4, 2012 at 11:54 am

    Kenneth It’s a long time since I saw you out in a blog. Your work with Jones sounds interesting. Incidently, no relation to the great man, Otto by any chance. I once worked with his, now this is difficult because I’m not sure but I think, grandson or son, Tony. If your out there Tony where are you.?

  63. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I suspect you mean Otto Frisch without the t. No relation. You might also be confusing me with my son by the same name. Still attempting to get answers from Jones and GHCN.

  64. Joshua said

    Jeff –

    I’m not technically proficient enough to determine whether you’re making a valuable technical contribution – but when you write about the non-technical stuff you contribute significant humor to the climate debate.

    You’re not wasting your time. Buck up, big fella.

  65. kim said

    Heh, from the laughingstock sophist @ Climate, Etc. Joshua is transparent except to himself.
    ==============

  66. Jeff Id said

    “I’m not technically proficient enough to determine whether you’re making a valuable technical contribution ”

    If it goes through peer review, how bad can it be…?

    hehe.

  67. Mark F said

    If it goes through HOSTILE peer review…

  68. Blog Lurker said

    #66 Jeff,
    Well, Steig et al., 2009 got through peer review, so… ;)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers

%d bloggers like this: