Monday, April 30, 2007

Take a number

A few brave and foolhardy readers have registered a complaint with management that all the anonymice look the same. This racist attitude must end. Their moms can tell them apart. Besides they are a forgiving crew and you do not risk being torn limb from limb if you attribute a comment to the wrong little grey or white fellow or lady. Eli is fond of all his mice friends. Some of them have personalities that make them easy to identify, such as anonymuse, and Mus musculus anonymous, but, we admit it can be trying to the casual observer (your own damn fault, come here more often).

A suggestion has been made to number the comments. Sadly no, blogger does not appear to allow that. However, each comment is timestamped, and you could simply note that the idiot who posted at 6:36AM deserves whatever for being awake that early.

On the other hand, the mice could look at this as a chance for a personality transplant. It would take the blog to new heights lows. There are lots of good mouse names out there, mighty mouse, the mouse for all seasons, church mouse for the poor or pious, and so on without end.

(Image from Country Church Mouse Designs)

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Roger Revelle was right

Eli, because he RTFSPM, knows what the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report will say about the rise of global temperatures by 2100

Best estimates and likely ranges for global average surface air warming for six SRES emissions marker scenarios are given in this assessment and are shown in Table SPM.3. For example, the best estimate for the low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and the best estimate for the high scenario(A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C).
and also, because he RTFR, Eli knows what Roger Revelle thought in 1991, 1 to 3 C. Of course, that is not what was published by S. Fred, in the Cosmos Club Magazine
Assume what we regard as the most likely outcome: A modest average warming in the next century- well below the normal year-to year variation- and mostly at high latitudes and in the winter.
We know from the copy of the infamous galleys that S. Fred brought with him to San Diego that S. Fred wanted to say less than 1 C and that is what he wrote. Less than 1 C might arguably be less than the normal year-to-year variation in global temperature, about 0.2 C, but 1 to 3 C is substantially greaterSo what did Roger Revelle say. We can look at the galley proofs. The comment on the side is Roger Revelle's, and it says "one to three"

How do we know that Roger Revelle wrote one to three. . . well Eli RTFD, S. Fred's deposition starting on page 157
Q: Turning back to this marked up manuscript, is now the galley proof, moving to the impact - the climate change section again, Galley: 003, can you explain to me the discussion in February of 1991 concerning the first sentence under this section? And explain the notations.
A: The printed text represents, of course, my final draft submitted to the Cosmos journal sometime in 1990. The handwritten note on the side is Roger Revelle's. And it reads either "one or three" or "one to three." I can't make it out. The discussion revolved around whether warming would be below the year-to-year variation. And I explained to Roger that my wording was much more certain, that if the average warming was below one degree, it would be below the normal m year-to-year variation, whereas his numbers would certainly not be. below the normal year-to-year variation. He didn't argue about the normal ill year-to-year variation, but he argued about the number. I was able to convince him. But we compromised finally by leaving out all references to any number. And note that his position was much more conservative than mine. He was willing to allow that a much larger temperature increase would still be below the normal year-to-year variation. And I told him that that is not so.
Q: Let me see if I have this right. The "one to three" indicates what?
A: The "one to three" indicates degrees Celsius.
MR. BLUTE: Just for the record, or that was Dr. Revelle's handwriting. He so testified. He was there. You're not a handwriting expert Let's move on. (Discussion off the record.)
Q: Taking what you've told us to be the "one or three" or the "one to three" written by Roger, may I take the "RR" with the circle around it to indicate your expression that this was one of Roger's comments?
A: Yes.
Q: Fine.
A: The "RR" is in my handwriting.
Q: Clearly. Would you agree that it doesn't matter whether Roger wrote "one or three" or "one to three," or whether you wrote "one to three" or "one or three," that in either case we're talking about Revelle's comment?'
A: Well, I would never have written this.
Q: Okay.
A: You know, this is my final draft. And so these comments were written on here by Revelle to discuss with me before we turned the draft - the final draft, the laser proofs back to the publisher.
Lancaster leads S. Fred on
Q: Well, just again on this point, under the "Impacts of Climate Change" in the first sentence, is it reasonable to understand the "one or three" or the "one to three" comment to indicate Dr. Revelle's belief that a modest average warming, a likely outcome, would be one to three degrees - in the range of one or three degrees Celsius, in that range?
A: That is one interpretation.
and S. Fred claims that Revelle didn't know the magnitude of annual variation in global temperatures
Q: Is that an incorrect interpretation? And if so, what is the correct interpretation? Why are those words written there?
A: He was under the impression that this would still be below the normal year-to-year variation. And we discussed it and thought the best way to adjust it is to take out reference to any kind of number. So we deleted my sentence - my part of the sentence and we deleted his comment.
Q: Doesn't it show that he actually struck the word "well" in that third line of that paragraph?
A: It does show that, yes.
Q: Isn't it true in the published version that the word "well" isn't struck, that it exists in the document?
A: I'd have to check that.
MR. BLUTE: It speaks for itself.
Q: Would you agree, based on what you've just said, that it was understood between you and Dr. Revelle that the words "of less than one degree Celsius: well" would be struck from the document?
A: I don't recall that. But I'm quite willing, as it were, to strike the word "well." So if it does appear in the final version, it might well have been a mistake.
Q: Might it not have been a mistake if Dr. Revelle believed that one to three degrees was the most likely average warming in the next century, to have the words "below the normal year-to-year variation"?
A: Well, I don't think that's correct. That's just my point, that if you accept the fact that the average warming is below the normal year-to-year variation, which he did, then you cannot specify a warming of one to three degrees. It has to be less than one degree.
Q: Did you and Dr. Revelle discuss at that point what the number was for the normal year-to-year variation?
A: I think we tried to estimate it.
Q: What number did you come up with?
A: I told him it would have to be less than one degree. And he agreed but suggested that we also take out my wording, which is "of less than one degree." So we left it kind of open. This is quite usual when people collaborate and try to achieve a compromise.
Q: Is it possible that you got to this point and you understood Dr. Revelle's belief was that a likely warming would be one to three degrees indicated by this comment written in the margin, and that then you were able to move on by you striking the language "of less than one degree Celsius," your agreeing to strike that language?
A: Well, I certainly agreed to it, yes.
S. Fred does Alberto Gonzales imitations.
Q: Is it possible that at that time you didn't discuss and didn't estimate the normal year-to-year variation?
MR. BLUTE: He just testified that he did.
MR. LANCASTER: Yeah, I just want to know if it's possible that he didn't.
A: I think we did.
Q: You remember that clearly?
A: Yes, I think I said to him that a three-degree increase would certainly stick out about the normal year-to-year variation. And he accepted that.
Q: If Dr. Revelle's closest colleagues believe that Roger Revelle - Roger Revelle's view was that the most likely warming in the next century would be one to three degrees, then you're saying they're mistaken?
MR. BLUTE: Objection. You can answer.
A: Either that, either they're mistaken, or they misinformed you, or I was able to convince him otherwise. Revelle is not an expert on mathematical models. And these numbers are derived from mathematical models.
And Our Dick Lindzen sulks across the stage:
Q: Is it fair to say that it was your belief in March of 1990 that a modest average warming in the next century would be one to two degrees Celsius?
A: Yes, at that time that was my belief.
Q: And what influenced your belief between that time and the writing of this draft?
A: I would say a closer look at the data on temperature changes and a realization that the models are really much worse than I had thought. This was based on discussions with a number of experts whose names I've already mentioned.
In short, 1-3 C was not such a bad estimate at the time for what would happen in a century, but sad to say Lancaster had to serve as his own attorney at the time for lack of funds. SLAPP suits depend on this. Poor Tim Ball

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Separated at birth

or Napolean and the Tsar. That ended badly too.

Friday, April 27, 2007

The Pielke fan club will come to order

Michael Tobis' asks, what not to do about Prometheus, and IEHO gets it pretty much right as to the substance behind the issue

In my opinion Roger Pielke is a post hoc arguer, choosing a position based on a political calculation and then defending it
(go read Michael's blog for details). However, Tobis feels badly about Real Climate (read Michael Mann) mistreating Roger Popcorn. Although not many know, Eli was a classical Rabett before taking up carrot science. Among other things he knows something important about Prometheus, specifically how he was able to steal fire
Prometheus was a son of Iapetus by Clymene(one of the Ocenaids). He was a brother of Atlas, Menoetius and Epimetheus. He surpassed all in cunning and deceit
Which is why Eli disagrees with Michael and agrees with Michael when Michael says (Since everyone here can keep the Anonymice straight that should be easy to decode)
Simply censoring him would be cause for concern, but yelling at him, openly censoring him, and not giving him room to respond is another matter. This behavior by RC editors is worse than no RC at all. It isn't Pielke that looks bad in this exchange.
Eli thinks that Michael is making a major mistake, the kind of mistake that has allowed the Lindzens and Singers of the world to prosper (FWIW, RP's of all ages are not Singer or Lindzen). You do not invite skunks to a picnic. When someone argues post hoc, you call them on it. Fast.

Calling James Annan and Brian Schmidt...

Richard Lindzen is in a betting mood

Q I read that you bet one of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?

A I haven't bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.

If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place. That's usually the way it behaves before it goes down. In fact, I suspect that's why you have this tsunami of exposure the last two years, with Gore's movie and so on. I think that this issue has been around long enough to generate a lot of agendas, and looking at the temperature records there must be a fear that if they don't get the agendas covered now, they may never get them.

Of course, when challenged to put his money where his mouth is Our Dick backed out. As James Annan wrote
Richard Lindzen's words say that there is about a 50% chance of cooling. His wallet thinks it is a 2% shot. Which do you believe? He says he was misrepresented in the quote on the site - can we expect to see a correction, and headlines in the sceptic press along the lines of "Richard Lindzen thinks there is at least a 2% chance of global cooling"? I'd probably take bets against that happening, too - and 50:1 odds against it seems reasonable in this case!
But he does win the Godwin prize

Q That's encouraging. Because I find the indoctrination at schools to be pretty relentless. On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"

A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it.

UPDATE:  Most links have been moved to

Also an update from Justin Lancaster

Richard Lindzen is looking to up the ante. In an interview with the Canadian National Post, our Dick said

Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?
A Well, he's dead.
Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.
A It's a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.
This is one of those strange little stories that you find Richard Lindzen crawling about at the bottom of the toilet in. The popular paper is an article in the magazine of the Cosmos Club (a club for movers and shakers in DC) written by Fred Singer and Chauncey Starr that had Roger Revelle's name on it. How Revelle's name got there beyond the fact that Fred Singer put it there is a matter of interest that is explained by Justin Lancaster, Revelle's student and last assistant.

According to Revelle's widow, Revelle and Singer met at a 1990 AAAS meeting and Singer asked Revelle to co-author a paper with him. In 1990, when Revelle was gravely ill, just before his death, Singer kept sending him drafts of an article, which Revelle kept shoving to the bottom of the pile on his desk so he would not have to look at them. We know that because we have the sworn testimony of Revelle's secretary, Christa Beran. Singer also sent drafts to Richard Lindzen and Lindzen communicated with Singer about them according to Singer's sworn testimony as evidently did Balling and Ellsasser. On Feb 16 1991, Singer showed up at Revelle's office, invited himself in and spent ~ four hours going over galley proofs he had brought with him. Revelle at the time was very ill, and 20 min of work tired him out. Singer stayed for four hours. Again, you don't have to depend on Lancaster for this, but you can look at the secretary's testimony, and information from others.

The moral of the story is when a Richard Lindzen or S. Fred show up, throw them out the door. They are only their own friends. They are users.

After that it gets interesting. After Revelle died, Lancaster was asked to serve on an editorial board for a CRC Press volume on Global Warming as well as submit a chapter. It turned out that Singer had submitted the Cosmos paper for publication in the same volume. Reference to the Cosmos article kept turning up, pushed by such characters as Greg Easterbrook and George Will (might be interesting to talk to Easterbrook now about this about who fed him).

Political opponents were using the article as a stick to beat Gore (nothing changes, all die). Gore called Lancaster and asked if Revelle's opinions had changed, Lancaster told Gore that shortly before Revelle's death, Revelle and he had talked about the paper, that Revelle was unhappy about the situation, and hoped that the paper would sink without a trace. From this Lancaster concluded that Revelle was not active in the writing of the paper, although his name appeared as co-author and he had met with Singer at Singer's insistence.

Lancaster reviewed the Cosmos paper in detail with C.D. Keeling, both being at Scripps.
Keeling and I agreed that there were too many misleading and inaccurate statements in the Cosmos article for Roger to have been carefully, attentively and enthusiastically "writing" or "authoring the Cosmos paper
At about the same time another colleague of Revelle at Scripps, Walter Munk and Ed Frieman wrote to the Cosmos Journal that
"S. Fred Singer wrote the paper, and as a courtesy added Roger as a co-author based upon his willingness to review the manuscript and advise on aspects relating to sea level rise."
This was published also in Oceanography 5 (1992) 125. Keeling and Lancaster also wrote the the New Republic, but that letter was not published. Still the Cosmos article continued to be pushed by the denialists. George Will stuck his oar in (easy enough to guess the slime who showed up to this party) trying to show that Revelle had had a deathbed conversion on the issue of global warming. Revelle's daughter wrote back for the family that George should stop smoking those funny cigarettes.

The third party candidate in the 1992 US presidential election, William Stockdale, raised the issue again to Al Gore. Gore replied that the article did not represent Revelle's opinion and that Revelle's family was very disturbed about its use.

At about that time, Lancaster recommended to the CRC press that the article not be reprinted, or if reprinted it should carry some warning language. It was printed anyhow. Singer was disinvited from the Revelle Memorial Symposium. In addition, Lancaster had expressed his opinion about the authorship of the papers in his Revelle Memorial Symposium article. Singer sued. It was a classic SLAPP suit. Lancaster did not have the resources to contest it, serving as his own lawyer. Finally, under the entreaties of his wife, he caved. However, he is still around, and occasionally comments on the matter on various blogs.
Anyone perplexed by this Balling/Revelle/Gore story might want to examine the sworn testimony of one S. Fred Singer at the following site: didn't cherrypick Revelle's old views, because Revelle didn't write that Cosmos article to which Balling refers. And Balling knows that Revelle didn't write it, because Balling himself was a participant in S. Fred Singer's ploy to hoodwink Revelle shortly before Revelle's death. It was a nasty, disgusting and secret business. Its purpose was to undermine Gore. It has been incredibly effective, as Singer, Michaels and Balling have successfully fed this story to a plethora of secondary bloggers who are happy to add their echo to the rant.Crandall and Singer's chapter in the Hoover volume, published online is a mass of misinformation. I encourage anyone interested to examine the primary evidence and draw their own conclusions.
This shameful manipulation and exploitation of the life and teaching of a great scientist and humanitarian cannot stand. For my friend and colleague, for all those who have been misled by this Cosmos myth, and for the honor of a courageous and committed politician and journalist, it is important that I hereby fully rescind and repudiate my 1994 retraction and make available the evidence that supports my statements.
UPDATE: Eli found this all too depressing. He went and read a tribute to Roger Revelle, by one of his closest friends and collaborators, Walter Munk. Things are a bit better.

Google's Inconvenient Truth

If you thought Al Gore was tough on Global Warming, take a look at "What would Google Say" a slide show with music of the first 200 images that turn up in a search for "global warming". It gives one faith in search engines and is fun to watch.

WWGS, TWTWTW for a new generation?

Hit British Television like a steam train and nuked the collective public consciousness on its first appearance. The first show to feature stand-up comedy satirising current affairs. Thumbed its finger at traditional news broadcasting and mocked everyone from political figures, sports people, through to Television executives themselves.
We need that

Oh yeah, you can stop the video and use the slider to contemplate each slide as you munch your carrot treats. Eli, having been gifted by Ms. Rabett calling out for Buffalo Carrots last night did so and being the kink of creature he is did so. Scientific fingers conclude that in the Google poll, the denialists are kind of down there with Dick Cheney. This might lead to a re-evaluation amonst us thumb suckers. Of course, the poll could have been manipulated, but so it goes.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

A free ride...

Via Discourse from Early Days of a Better Nation, a proposal to reduce pollution, wasted time, congestion and road rage.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Things are going to get worse...

Table 2 in the Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers paints a grim, one could even say, Stern like picture. As in the third law of thermodynamics things are scheduled to get worse. This appears not to have been much commented on, but is worth paying attention to. Now the devil may care will ask, if we are not so certain about attribution of current climate change (see the second and third column) how can we be more certain about what will happen in the future :( see last column): The answer, of course, is that the changes are getting bigger as the forcing grow.

Phenomenon and direction of trend

Likelihood that trend occurred in late 20th century (typically post 1960)

Likelihood of a human contribution to observed trend

Likelihood of future trends based on projections for the 21st century using SRES scenarios

Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas

Very likely


Virtually certain

Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas

Very likely

Likely (nights)

Virtually certain

Warm spells/heat waves. Frequency increases over most land areas


More likely than not

Very likely

Heavy precipitation events. Frequency (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) increases over most areas


More likely than not

Very likely

Area affected by droughts increases

Likely in many regions since 1970s

More likely than not


Intense tropical cyclone activity increases

Likely in many regions since 1970s

More likely than not


Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis)


More likely than not


RTFR there are footnotes

Monday, April 23, 2007


As Ethon feared Roger is playing little brother, you know the one, having picked, picked picked, is crying that someone slammed the door of their room and included him out. Pretty much the same stuff as in this post, with the addition of the ""censored material""(double scare quotes) and with an interesting comment

I don't much read RealClimate anymore
Considering that Technorati has the other place at 15,000 or so, and Real Climate at 800, Eli doth see the glint of envy, considering that Roger pretty much invented the climate blogging business. Ethon and Eli enjoyed the reaction of Roger and the gang. Maybe he will go and start his own blog? Roger could guest over here at the 71000 most popular place. . . . . . Nah

UPDATE: The beat goes on....Real Climate has put up a post on the Vecchi and Soden article that touched all this off. The boys are turning postively Rabett like, the title of the post is Hurricane Spin and the link is Shear Turbulance. Broadway next week. Anyhow, go read it, including the comment by Vecchi. (to be continued.....)

Another one falls to the blorg

Michael Tobis writes

I have been accepted as a columnist at which will expand my audience. Opinions expressed by others on are not necessarily shared by me!

My first Grist contribution is visible here.
As we know
The Blorg are a fictional race of science blogs first introduced by Seed Magazine. They are characterized by relentless pursuit of targets for assimilation, their collective conscience that enables rapid adaptability to almost any defense, and the ability to continue functioning properly despite seemingly devastating blows. They have become a powerful symbol for any juggernaut against which "resistance is futile".
Those who have gone over to the other side (Deltoid, Stoat, Andrew Dessler, Coby Beck, etc.) have done so for their own reasons, but the Rabett is a difficult character, and being a Marxist of the Grouchy persuasion has little interest. Fortunately the feeling is mutual.

The mice play (avert eyes)

Michael Tobis started it, Eli joined in, but the anonymice have stolen the cheese. Since only the brave around here look at the comments, Eli thought it due (besides which he gets a free post out of it) to show you that when the Rabett is away, the mice will play.

We start with Fergus Brown, who if he does not control himself will end up on the blogroll

Okay, here's my poor attempt: (with apologies to the Revd. Lionel Blue, former chief Rabbi)

The angel Gabriel visits Hansen, Pielke Jr. and (insert name of favourite snarker) - Milloy one night and gives them all the same message: 'The Lord is tired of Man's abuse of his creation: in a week, all the unworthy will be punished by a great deluge. Go forth and tell your people the news.'

The next morning, the three all woke up and started writing. Hansen's article appeared in Nature: 'We must change our ways or we are doomed' it says, 'the time to act is now...'
Pielke's appears in the Washington Post: 'We may have a bit of a problem: I recommend forming an advisory panel to discuss possible solutions: a week is a long time in Politics...'
Milloy's appears in Forbes: 'There's never been a better time to buy that yacht you always wanted...oh, and don't forget to get your Hummer rustproofed...'
Fergus, we would appreciate a pointer to Rabbi Blue's joke....and we have some approvingly snarky comments from the mice...
I think Annan would have made a quick attempt to measure the "sensitivity" of the fire (by adding a small post-it note to the fire and then measuring the increase in temperature) before putting the fire out (so he could at least get a paper out of it).
A comment about super Al
I didn't realize that Al Gore ever slept...and I also think he would undoubtedly have called up the media to let them know he had invented...I mean put out the fire....and then made a movie... and then run for office...and then took a nap (maybe)
and, of course, Rabett Run being the center of the Pielke fan club some comments about Roger
Actually, I believe Pielke would have rationalized for a split second that

"People should not live in fire-prone buildings (just as people should not build on the beach) and, besides, future generations can adapt to living in a burned-out building"
The Pig pointed out
The way I heard it, Lindzen, Motl, and the CEO of Exxon Mobile were also in the room. When the fire broke out, Lindzen sent Motl out for marshmallows, and the EM guy for some lighter fluid, in case the fire went out.
There were multiple comments to the effect
No, No, No, No! You've got it all wrong Pig.
Nobody sent the EM guy our for lighter fluid.
Who do yu think was setting all the damn fires?
I mean, you expect the ice cream man to have ice cream, the drug dealer to have drugs, the mailman to have letters, the librarian to have books and George Bush to have no clue right?

Why then would you not expect the EM man to have fuel? It makes no logical sense.
Oh yes, Coby has a good one over at Tobis' place in the comments.

Friday, April 20, 2007

A joke?

Michael Tobis has been murdering old mathematician jokes, so Eli thought he would take a shot.

Al Gore and James Annan and Roger Pielke Jr. were sleeping in a hotel room when a fire broke out in one corner of the room. Only Al Gore woke up he saw the fire, grabbed a bucket of water and threw it on the fire and the fire went out, then he filled up the bucket again and threw that bucketful on the ashes as a safety factor, and he went back to sleep. A little later, another fire broke out in a different corner of the room and only James Annan woke up. He went over measured the intensity of the fire, saw what material was burning and went over and carefully measured out exactly 2/3 of a bucket of water and poured it on, putting out the fire perfectly; James then went back to sleep. A little later another fire broke out in a different corner of the room. Only Roger Pielke Jr. woke up. He went over looked at the fire, he saw that there was a bucket and he noticed that it had no holes in it; he turned on the faucet and saw that there was water available. He, thus, concluded that there was a solution to the fire problem and he went back to sleep.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Al Gore does Chris Mooney

Al Gore has a new book coming out in May "The Assault on Reason" which takes the argument begun on the blogs and moving into public conciousness about framing one step further

A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism, and blind faith has combined with the degration of the public sphere to create an environment dangerously hostile to reason

(Ethon has been teaching me Roger's tricks, but you can work your way back through the links) Eli would change that to "purposely combined" in there. The blurb continues

We live in an age when the thirty-second television spot is the most powerful force shaping the electorate's thinking, and America is in the hands of an administration less interested than any previous administration in sharing the truth with the citizenry. Related to this and of even greater concern is this administration's disinterest in the process by which the truth is ascertained, the tenets of fact-based reasoning-first among them an embrace of open inquiry in which unexpected and even inconvenient facts can lead to unexpected conclusions. . .

Gore's larger goal in this book is to explain how the public sphere itself has evolved into a place hospitable to reason's enemies, to make us more aware of the forces at work on our own minds, and to lead us to an understanding of what we can do, individually and collectively, to restore the rule of reason and safeguard our future.

All hell breaks loose

Ethon flew in from Boulder and dove straight into the hurricane shelter. Ms. Rabett went downstairs with some leberknoedel to try and coax him out of the corner. Reaching out with fearful claw he stammered that it started innocently at Real Climate with Bob Ward asking

Gavin, I know this is only tangential to this thread but do you have any comment on the new paper by Vecchi and Soden in GRL, which Chris Landsea is promoting as evidence both that the recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity is due to the AMO, and that global warming should reduce activity (because it increases windshear)?
Mike Mann was having none of it
I have no knowledge of (or frankly, interest in) what Chris Landsea may be saying about the paper, but I don't see this paper as changing the picture significantly. . . .(reasons inserted here). . .In short, the Emanuel (2005) study continues to stand on its merit, and I don't see where this paper puts even a dent in it. We may have more to say about this paper in the near future
Now you might ask why he was having none of it, and of course the reason was what Chris Landsea was pushing up the hill at the other place.
One implication to me is that this further provides evidence that the busy period we've seen in the Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to natural cycles, rather than manmade causes. We've seen a big reduction in wind shear in the last thirteen hurricane seasons, which is OPPOSITE to the signal that Vecchi and Soden have linked to manmade global warming changes. Another implication is that this paper reconfirms earlier work that suggests that global warming will cause very small changes to Atlantic hurricanes, even several decades from now.
Chip Knappenberger poured oil on the fire at Real Climate,
I think we can surmise that driven by changes in anthropogenic forcings alone, the models simulations of the past 30 years would be trending in a similar direction as the model projections for the future, that is, vertical stability and wind shear should be increasing, at least over the tropical Atlantic. Adding non-anthropogenic forcings to the mix may, or may not, overwhelm these trends (they will if the models are getting things right, they wont if things in the models are still amiss). But assuming the case that the models aren't horribly wrong, non-anthropogenic influences must be largely responsible for the observed trends being in the direction that they area which is towards producing a more hospitable environment (that works along with SST increases) for tropical cyclone development and intensification.
Mike was showing signs of impatience
Chip, we'll permit this one comment, but since this is obviously not supposed to be the topic of this thread, we'll limit it at that. You seem to have missed the central point here. Emanuel (2005) shows that the warming SSTs are behind the increased TC intensity in the Atlantic. . . Future predictions of shear changes are interesting, but they have no bearing on this fairly simple logic
Which Chip went running back to the snack shop with
As far as I am concerned, Chris's comments re: Vecchi and Soden are right on the mark. We have detailed similar thoughts in depth a bit more at our usual spot Apparently, the boys over at RC aren't so inclined.
And, of course, our hero hied hisself over to RC to add

You are simply incorrect when you assert: "Emanuel (2005) shows that the warming SSTs are behind the increased TC intensity in the Atlantic. No impartial reading of that paper could come to any other conclusion."


Comment by Roger Pielke, Jr. — 19 Apr 2007 @ 7:03 pm

Which, as they say, was the last piece of foie gras

Roger, we're not about cherry-picking sentences and out of context quotations here at RC, so you should take that somewhere else. Anybody who has studied the scientific issues involved well knows that SSTs in this context are a proxy for a more complex set of interconnected atmospheric environmental variables which tend to covary with it. We hardly need you to quote Emanuel for us. Figure 1 in Emanuel (2005) comparing SST and TC Power Dissipation in the tropical Atlantic speaks for itself, you might want to take another look. If we do an article on Hurricanes in the near future, you're free to engage in the discussion. But that's not the topic of this post, so we're going to close it out with this. -mike]
Looks like RC has adopted Kevin Drum's comment policy as amended.
If I or my bunnies get sufficiently annoyed with you, we will delete your comments. If you don't like it, tough.
Pass the popcorn.

UPDATE: Well, as Ethon feared Roger is playing little brother, you know the one, having picked, picked picked, is crying that someone slammed the door of their room and included him out. Pretty much the same stuff as in this post, with the addition of the ""censored material""(double scare quotes) and with an interesting comment
I don't much read RealClimate anymore
Considering that Technorati has the other place at 15,000 or so, and Real Climate at 800, Eli doth see the glint of envy, considering that Roger pretty much invented the climate blogging business. Ethon and Eli enjoyed the reaction of Roger and the gang. Maybe he will go and start his own blog? Roger could guest over here at the 71000 most popular place. . . . . . Nah

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Vanity Fair about the Foul

Eli is playing with the meeting mice. Till he gets back later this week you can play at Vanity Fair where there is a rather complete deconstruction of CEI and Myron Ebell, the denialist's denialist. Myron and CEI have taken about 2M$ from Exxon Mobil alone since 1998. Tom Wigley has the last word in the middle of the article

Mainstream scientists say that, along with a warming atmosphere, our oceans are heating up, too. "I think that's made up," Ebell says. "I understand that the oceans are primarily heated by direct solar radiation. I do not understand how—beyond just the surface—they are heated by the warming up of the atmosphere. It seems to me that the atmosphere would have to warm up significantly above the previous level before that radiation could actually heat up the ocean."

"That's the most preposterous bullshit I've ever heard," exclaims Tom Wigley,

He explains why, but read the article to see why dealing with trash like Ebell requires one not to be polite. Of course, the pithier amongst the mice might prefer James Wollcott's description of Rush Limbaugh
For us non-dittoheads (that is, the unconverted), a more fitting memorial to Mount Rushbo might be a diorama of the environmental destruction that he did so much to enable in his multi-decade reign of denigration. Global warming's most popular denialist, talk radio's most imitated showman, conservatism's minister of disinformation, he has injected millions of semi-vacant American skulls with a cream filling of complacency that has helped thrust this country into the forefront of backward leadership. He has given Republican lawmakers the rhetorical cover fire to do nothing but snicker as the crisis emerged and impressed itself on the rest of the world. He conscripted concern for nature as just another weapon in the Culture Wars. May the grasses of his favorite golf courses go forever yellow and dust storms whip from the sand traps.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

The speakable and unspeakable in climate science

There is a wonderful monograph by the late John Bell, The Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics which deals with the issue of what can and cannot be described on many levels. Roger Pielke Sr. is pursuing such a chimera, demanding that we use metrics of climate change which are simply either not available, or available only for short periods of time, or, as we have seen for ocean heat content, or are not (one hopes yet) reliable.

Now, Roger Pielke Senior is a fan of the IPCC using such metrics such as “the global-averaged and regional-averaged patterns of changes in heat content in units of Joules” instead of surface temperatures. Eli wished him great good luck in explaining that to your average policy maker.

Well, how about enthalpy or energy content. Eli agrees, the perfect measure would be the energy change of the oceans, surface and atmosphere. One could settle for lower atmosphere and upper ocean. Multidecadal records of these too are not currently available and, as yesterday's post shows, many of the measurements that we have are not as good as we would wish. Worse from the standpoint of Pielke, the best way of reconstructing such profiles is through models which can be validated by comparison with the data we do have, such as records of surface temperatures and precipitation.

To paraphrase Thomas Knutson: Should we use surface temperature observations or energy content profiles? In reply we note that if we had multidecadal observations of energy content throughout the oceans and atmosphere, we obviously would trust them more than the surface temperature records, but unfortunately we cannot go back in time with modern instrumentation and recapture the needed profiles.

Eli wishes to emphasize that the only way to get those profiles is through inproved postdiction with models. Those who demand unknowable perfection before doing anything have little interest in action. They don't much like proxy measurements either.

Yesterday, when describing a few of the problems with ocean heat content measurements, Eli forgot to point to this post by Tamino which showed that even without corrections, the differences between the models and the observations were within natural variability. The figure is from Hansen et al. (2005, Science, vol. 308, pg. 1431).

It will be interesting to replot the models against corrected observations.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

We got big trouble in ocean heat content measurement. . . .

Ocean heat content measurements are proving to be especially troublesome. While the new ARGO float system holds the promise of improved data and is almost in place

problems have emerged with a large number of the floats, particularly in the North Atlantic that impose a cold bias on the measurements. This now appears to be understood and can be corrected for. That is the good news.

ARGO is a relatively young system with great promise. Deployment started in 2000 and has almost reached the 3000 float target. Each little bugger bobs up and down between the surface and 2000 m every 10 days measuring temperature, salinity and the flow of currents then phones home with the data

Expendable bathythermographs (XBT) are toss it over the side with a couple of wires that bring the data to the surface torpedo like gizmos that have been used since the 1950s. In Geophysical Research Letters, Gouretski and Kolterman argue that they have a warm bias of 0.2 - 0.4 K, and it may not be possible to correct the data which is a large part of the older measurements of oceanic temperature profiles.

This knocks a number of things into cocked hats. G&K estimate that

Using bias-corrected XBT data we argue reduces the ocean heat content change since the 1950s by a factor of 0.62. Our estimate of the ocean heat content increase (0–3000 m) between 1957–66 and 1987–96 is 12.8·1022 J. Because of imperfect sampling this estimate has an uncertainty of at least 8·1022 J
This leaves studies which relied on the XBT and ARGO data up an interesting river without a propulsion system. In particular, the Lyman, Willis and Johnson 2006 study which described a RecentCooling of the Upper Ocean, has a 2007 submitted correction that describes the effect of both problems. In short, the cooling described in the 2006 study is now seen to be an artifact.

Now, among the Friends of Rabett Run, ClimateScience has been the one most heavily invested in Lyman, Willis and Johnson, using it to argue strongly against the IPCC WG1 Summary for Policy Makers. To his credit Roger Sr., owner operator of Climate Science, noted the coming correction week or so ago. Eli commented
I would recommend caution with something like this. It is going to take a while for the calibration and other kinks in the ARGO float data to be worked out, and in the meantime there is great potential for egg on the face as was the case with the MSU fiasco’s. ARGO has the huge advantage that it was designed for the type of measurements that are being done. Moreover extrapolation with such a short data set is particularly risky given variability.
The response was to attack the surface temperature record, via a 95 pager that apparently has been accepted by J. Geophys. Res. One wearies.

Friday, April 13, 2007

Rabett Reads....

Eli has been to the library. He has been reading Tellus 28 (1976) 552, in which Keeling Adams, Ekdahl and Guenther do it right. They describe their measurements of CO2 at the South Pole. Comparing how Fonselius, Koroleff and Buch grabbed their samples

to that of Keeling and Co. is the difference between Moe Howard and Einstein.

FKB used a small 250 cc cylinder filled with air one end of which is connected to a rubber bulb. They opened both stopcocks and held the bulb outstretched in Mr. Roland Ploennige's arm and pumped the thing a 150-200 times. There are huge problems, not the least of which is the presence of Mr. Roland playing the air bassoon which Eli commented on.

It is instructive to compare this with the care and thought that went into the South Pole sampling:

Five liter spherical glass flasks, previously evacuated to a pressure below 1 micrometer of mercury, were exposed by opening a greased stopcock so that air expanded into the flask. In the earlier years of the program, two flasks were routinely exposed on the same day; after 1964 this number was increased to three.

Although this procedure is simple to execute, special precautions must be consistently observed to avoid contaminating a high proportion of the samples. The sample taker, to minimize contamination from his own breath, was instructed to sample only when the wind was at least 5 knots. After first breathing normally near the site for some moments, he exhales, then inhales slightly, and finally, without exhaling again, walks 10 steps into the wind, where he takes the sample. He should have a clear idea of the wind direction and be certain that no local source of CO2, even another human being is upwind.

According to our current instructions, in force since 1962, the flask, after exposure to air, is brought indoors and the stopcock is slowly warmed and turned back and forth to work out any streaks in the grease. The flask is then repacked immediately to avoid prolonged exposure to light. . . .

Only one member of the South Pole field party was designated each year to take samples. Prior to arrival in Antarctica, he received two days of instruction from Scripps personnel. The results of his practice sampling were determined by gas analysis while he was still undergoing training.
Now you ask why Keeling took care to repack the sampling flasks...well from 1960 to 62
the flasks, after exposure to air, were hung on a wall and repacked only when a dozen had accumulated. Photo-oxidation of the hydrocarbon stopcock grease occurred in the hanging flasks and rendered useless all but the last pair of each dozen
Fortunately, a continuous, IR monitor was operated between 1960 and 1963.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Found in the margins

Recently, Eli has been improving his German over at Oekolismus, drawn there at first by the reappearance of the good Diplom Beck and his Jaworowski-like “180 years of CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods” which Princess Denial, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen published in Energy and Environment in an attempt to lock up this year's S. Fred. Eli dealt with the subject matter in a friendly matter earlier. He will not repeat that mistake. As for Jaworowski, well Jim Easter in Some are Boojums has torn that fakery apart. You can get the flavor from

In Dashiell Hammett’s story The Golden Horseshoe, much of the action takes place in a bar of that name in Tijuana. At one point the narrator, an operative for the Continental Detective Agency, kills a few strategic seconds by studying the decorations:

I was reading a sign high on the wall behind the bar:
I was trying to count how many lies could be found in those nine words, and had reached four, with promise of more …

Sometimes I come across an article, web posting, advertisement or other statement that makes me feel when I read it just as I imagine the Continental Op did in that Tijuana bar.
How can they possibly pack so much misinformation into such a small space?
To honor exceptional achievement in mendacity, I would like to present the Golden Horseshoe Award to that writer who has out-performed his or her peers in density of false statements per column-inch.
To receive the first Golden Horseshoe Award, I can think of no more worthy recipient than Zbigniew Jaworowski.
If you have not had the opportunity, go read the lot. If you don't have time read this. But let us reluctantly return to the good Diplom Beck and the to and fro in Oekolismus.

To summarize, there were several sets of atmospheric CO2 measurements made by wet chemical methods between ~1870 and 1970. Many of them have been critically reviewed, most recently by Eric From and Charles Keeling. Suffice it to say that there were both methodological and meteorological problems with many of the earlier methods, although some are better than others. At best the accuracy of the wet methods was more than 1%, more often like 3%, which is somewhere between 3 and 10 ppm. The infrared absorption method introduced by Keeling had an accuracy of a part in four thousand with proper calibration and is the gold standard.

John A. is the hero in this story. A few weeks ago, he looked at Rabett Run's posting on the matter and commented:
Re: the two links to Keeling. The first one requires a login and password, and the second link goes to a "404" message.

I'm impressed.
The link was to a history of the Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 measurements written by Keeling in 1993. In searching for another version, Eli came across a 1998 Keeling autobiography which appeared in Annual Reviews of Energy and Environment, "The Rewards and Penalties of Monitoring the Earth". It answers several questions.

One of the issues about the wet chemical measurements is how well they were carried out. There is an interesting comment in the Keeling autobiography:
This Scandinavian program, started by Rossby in 1954, had been a major factor in triggering interest in measuring CO2 during the IGY. Nevertheless it was quietly abandoned after the meeting, when the reported range in concentrations, 150–450 ppm, was seen to reflect large errors. 3

3. At two stations in Finland, samples collected by station personnel had been sent to Scripps. These samples yielded nearly the same concentrations as those measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, proving that the errors in the Scandinavian program were mainly analytical rather than due to variable CO2 in the air being sampled.
Another is about how well the MLO and other observatory measurements match those high in the atmosphere
You may have to click on the image to see it clearly

The solid line is from a series of aircraft measurements. It clearly follows the Mauna Loa measurements, showing that the CO2 mixing ratios measured there are equivalent to those measured at altitude.

Yet another issue is the daily variation of CO2 concentrations, something that Keeling had sussed out quite early (long but interesting excerpt)
. . .these data showed an intriguing diurnal pattern. The air contained more CO2 at night than during the day. Also, the heavier carbon-13 isotope of the CO2 at night was depleted with respect to the lighter carbon- 12 isotope, as though the CO2 that caused the nighttime rise had been released by the plants and soil. The degree of depletion of carbon-13 for a given rise in CO2 concentration varied from site to site in a manner suggesting that the plants during daytime at some sites reabsorbed CO2 previously released into the air locally the night before....
The diurnal patterns were similar everywhere I went, from the rain forests of the Olympic peninsula near Canada to the high mountain forests of Arizona near Mexico. (US National Forests at that time had large tracts of land not yet disturbed by logging.) Moreover, the air in the afternoon seemed always to have nearly the same amount of CO2, about 310 parts per million (ppm) of air, after correcting for water vapor. The concentrations were highly variable at night and always higher than in the afternoon. Also, the carbon isotopic ratios in the afternoon were all about the same, though systematically variable with concentration at night.

The scientific literature didn’t suggest that daytime concentrations should be so similar from place to place. A recently published book on geochemistry (53) indicated that arctic air could contain as little as 150 ppm, tropical air as much as 350 ppm. Moreover, photosynthesis by plants in the area of my sampling should have drawn CO2 down during the day, making the concentration lower than in air over bare ground. I broadened my study by sampling on a high mountain during strong winds over barren ground. . . . .

Even at these places, sampled in the free atmosphere, the concentrations and carbon isotopic ratios were nearly the same as in the afternoon near vegetation (30, 32). Why didn’t photosynthesis, which takes CO2 out of the air during the day, cause low and variable concentrations when respiration by plants and soil, which puts CO2 into the air at night, causes high and variable concentrations? I found an explanation in a book that attracted my attention because of its apt title: The Climate Near the Ground (21). All of my forest measurements had been made during fair weather. On such days heating by the Sun typically induces enough turbulence in air near plants to cause thorough mixing of this air with the free atmosphere by early afternoon. Where I had sampled, the free air evidently had been of nearly constant composition with respect to CO2. In contrast, during the nighttime the air near the ground cooled, forming a stable layer that allowed CO2 from respiration to build up within the forest canopy.

The highly variable literature values for CO2 in the free atmosphere were evidently not correct.1 Rather, a concentration of 310 ppm of CO2 appeared to prevail over large regions of the northern hemisphere. I had detected this near constancy under the implausible circumstances of studying air in old-growth forests where variability was to be expected.
The 1986 From and Keeling paper deals with the many problems of the data sets taken before 1905 and there are other indications of problems with the subsequent wet chemical measurements. For example, a paper by Lockhart and Court describes 1940 and 41 measurements of air composition in Antarctica. They find abnormally high CO2 mixing ratios, 600 ppm, but they also find abnormally LOW oxygen ratios, and there is no indication of measurements on calibration mixes. A big no-no.

The 1955 Fonselius, Koroleff and Buch paper would have won the S. Fred with Golden Horseshoes. One of the things you have to do to measure CO2 content is sample the air. These guys could not have thought of a worse way to do it.

You may have to click on the image to see it clearly

The right way to sample is to use large evacuated bulbs which you open rapidly to sample. You always use carefully calibrated mixes to calibrate your measurements. You really want to understand and eliminate wall effects by making the volume large compared to the surface, optimizing pumping, etc. Keeling, for example, used 5 L bulbs when he started his California measurements.

The Buch method is an invitation to error. They have a small 250 cc cylinder filled with air one end of which is connected to a rubber bulb. They opened both stopcocks and held the bulb outstretched in Mr. Roland Ploennige's arm and pumped the thing a 150-200 times. The flow of air through the cylinder is not constant. This (a) is pretty close to Mr. Roland Ploennige, (b) does not guarantee a complete exchange of air in the bulb, (c) encourages backflow from the opposite end which is pretty close to Mr. Roland Ploennige's armpit if not his mouth (d) is not much volume to work (e) it is not clear if the measurements were calibrated against standard samples. That is for starters.

This is not the gold standard.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

The Ill-Stars take the field

Roger Pielke Sr. heralds a new bunch hawking their wares as climate consultants, and an ill star group they are. The demeriti among them, and there are many, certainly have a bunch of time on their hands. However mice shouldn't take the list too seriously. This is the braindead child of Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist who we last met as author of the Fraser Institute Summary for Making Bad Policy, one of the last doors in the Exxon AR4 Advent Calendar

He set up a booth at the American Meteorological Society meeting and asked anyone who had an interest in what they planned to leave their names and addresses.

Like from a melting ice cap, the rodents of denial who left their names are already jumping ship. Chip Knappenberger, from New Hope Environmental Services (Pat Michaels' chop shop) said:

To my direct knowledge, some of the “experts” listed were not contacted by ICECAP, and in fact, have no idea as to who or what ICECAP is. So clearly, they should not be referred to as “our experts” which carries an air of association when done exists. This is not good form and this misunderstanding should be cleared up by the ICECAP management
Which is a nice was of saying Pat and I and our friends have our own things, include us out. Chip says he talks to others besides Pat. Joe D'Aleo has an interesting reply:
Icecap is funded by private individuals and think tanks not associated with the oil or major corporations.
Eli understands such formulations, CEI is not associated with Exxon, except for getting some funding from them, so Exxon can pass the money to us through them, or something like that. It is called implausible deniability. The effort does have the stink of Regenry Press, Pajama Media, etc. typical US right wing money washing . But you can see that Chip was right, and there will be others leaving the list soon by reading D'Aleo's description of how the experts "joined" Icecap:
The experts listed were all informed that the effort was underway and agreed to help provide their expertise or allow us to use their material or link to the material on their sites. We told them for that material, we would list them as contact experts and link to their sites or books.....

All the members listed below the expert list signed up at the AMS annual meeting where we had a booth or via email. That list will grow.
D'Aleo pwnd S. Fred and Sally just like Siggie and Sally got everyone else with the Heidelberg Appeal, the Leipzig Declaration, the OISM petition! Irony is good.
  • Robert C. Balling Jr., Professor, Climatology, Arizona State University
  • Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  • Thomas A. Birkland, Director of the Center for Policy Research University of Albany, Policy associated with sudden disasters. Not clear he is a real Ice Capper.
  • Robert Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia
  • William Cotton, Professor, Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
  • David Deming, Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma
  • James R. Fleming, Professor, Colby College. Not clear he is a real Ice Capper
  • UPDATE: Well that was a good guess, see the comments.
  • Mel Goldstein, Chief Meteorologist for News Channel 8 in Connecticut.
  • Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer IPCC
  • William Gray, Meteorologist
  • Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist
  • Warwick Hughes, Earth Scientist
  • Craig D. Idso, Founder, Chairman of the Board, and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
  • Sherwood D. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
  • Madhav Khandekar, retired Meteorologist, formerly with Environment Canada
  • David Legates, Associate Professor in Climatology, University of Delaware, still another victim of the Kaine shuffle
  • Joseph E. Luisi, Former Chief Meteorologist for Delta Airlines
  • Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
  • Pat Michaels, Research professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia, the original Kaine shuffle victim
  • Tad Murty, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa
  • James O’Brien, Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University
  • Gary Sharp, Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
  • S. Fred Singer, President of the Science & Environment Policy Project
  • Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama
  • George Taylor, Faculty Member, Oregon State University’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences....Note NOT Oregon State Climatologist, another victim of the Kaine shuffle.
  • Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
  • Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator, ACRIM Experiments Somehow Eli doubts this, take a look at the list of ACRIM C0-Is

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Going into business

UPDATE: The Mad hatter by Tenniel
(the mice made Eli do it. He really wishes Keven and Jason, every success on their venture)

The mice bring word that Kevin Vranes has joined a startup, as consultant offering advice to industry on how to deal with climate change issues. They are going great guns, Kevin has joined the talking heads, with an interview on CNN's In the Money:
WESTHOVEN: What about companies that aren't green washing at all, what about companies that are actually out there maybe actively fostering debate about whether or not there is greenhouse gas emissions or whether or not they're having any affect?

VRANES: Well you know, the main culprit there has been Exxon Mobil. They're the poster child for trying to stall not just action on climate change, but also trying to confuse the public on climate changes. I'm actually starting to get a sense that they're starting to pull back away from that a little bit. I think they also see the writing on the wall, and I think they don't want to be the last man standing either and, so I kind of get a sense that they're starting to pull back too.

ROMANS: Kevin, there was a time when we would say global warming on television, and we would be inundated with, like, conservative think tanks and conservative oil industry tied groups whose only job was to try to change the wording global warming to climate change. Or to get it into something that didn't suggest that Americans were doing it or that the consumers weren't doing it or that energy companies had any kind of say in it. We've really come a long way on this debate, haven't we?

VRANES: We have. I mean, and that falls to science. I think what we've come to is maybe a tipping point in the understanding and the awareness of the issue from the public and from the business community. I think that maybe up until now they were just kind of taking a wait and see approach where they were saying, well, maybe next year new science will come out, maybe next year new science will come out, and finally here we are. It doesn't happen.

Every year new science comes out that says, no, it really is happening, and I think finally people have said, OK, we hear you. We've woken up, and we're going to make -- we're going to make progress on this issue.

ROMANS: There are some scientists, though -- I do have on point out that there are some scientists who still adamantly say there is a long period of temperatures in this environment and it maybe has nothing to do with human kind. There are those folks still out there.

VRANES: There are those folks out there. I would say that they're at the fringe, and I would say that they actually get more media attention than they deserve compared to the scientific weight of opinion. You know, there's going to be a new report released actually next week February 2nd. A big intergovernmental panel will come out with its latest consensus statement on climate change, and it will say the consensus of the scientific community is that we are 90 percent certain that global warming is happening, and we are the cause of did.
Jason Denner, the managing partner, worked at the Rocky Mountain Institute on such issues as more efficient autos, oil refineries and such. Welcome to the future.

However, as Ethon points out, Hi-Point 380 is a brand of 9mm target gun.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Comment policy

Rabett Run has adopted Kevin Drum's policy

If I or my bunnies get sufficiently annoyed with you, we will delete your comments. If you don't like it, tough.
If you piss Ms. Rabett off, hide. If you are selling something we won't buy and we will trash your comment. Irrevocably.

OTOH, we intend to maintain our open door even to Czech trash if they behave themselves.

Where that came from

Eli has been reading and commenting over at Oekologismus, a German blog dedicated to the proposition that environmentalism is the new anti-Christ (ok, Eli exaggerates slightly as usual, they only think that environmentalism is the new western religion spread by an evil media. If you have some German you can read their mission statement, but the ten commandments they assign to this new dogma are out of the normal denialist playbook - not a complete translation:

1. You shall fear. The worst scenario is the most likely
2. You shall have a guilty conscious. Who lives harms the world
3. You shall not doubt. The environmental movement never errs.
4. Nature is our god.
5. You should hate mankind
6. Reject the free market
7. Don't consume
8. Don't believe in a better tomorrow
9. Value technology not much
10. Know that guilt is white, male, christian and western.
To which we add, leave no strawman unturned, but the owner operator does turn up interesting stuff like the Lindzen interview, and the comments are rich, which brings Rabett media to tonight's feature. One Planck, who appears to work at a climate research institute of some sort, had heard a Lindzen seminar a couple of weeks ago. Planck was not kind
He, (Lindzen) has done practically no science in the last five years but bloviates about the iris hypothesis, that has been beaten down again and again and again. Supposedly the talk was supposed to be about this and our entire cloud troop was there to ask a few questions. Instead ~80% was a dumb polemic linking climate research to eugenics to racial theories and the nazis. He provided a taste of this in the (Weltwoche) interview. . . .

I asked him who it can be that we have thousands of proxy records that document climate variability and all show that the glacial maximum was at least 3 degrees colder in contradiction to an iris feedback. His short answer was "I don't believe in paleoproxies". Lalala I create reality, just like I like.
Planck dug out the source of Lindzens polemic. This, young bunnies, is the source of all strawmen, with many of our favorite characters doing walk ons. Published in 1996 as Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics in Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, R.W. Hahn, editor, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996, it was due warning to anyone listening that Richard thought that environmentalism was the new anti-Christ or at least Shabbatei Zvi, and had signed on to the Oekologismus mission statement ten or more years before it was drawn up.
The issue of global warming has been one of the more confusing and misleading issues to be presented to the public. Despite the absence of a significant scientific basis for most predictions, the public has been led to believe that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the issue is a matter of immediate urgency requiring massive control of energy usage. The first part of this paper will briefly describe this situation. The thought that scientists would allow such an abuse of science is difficult for most laymen to believe. However, I suggest that what is happening may, in fact, be the normal behavior to be expected from the interaction of science, advocacy groups, and politics. A study of an earlier example of such an interaction, the interaction of genetics, eugenics and immigration law during the early part of this century, reveals almost analogous behavior.
Hmm...where do we see this type of argument today?, But the interesting part is that early on we meet our old friend Princess Denial, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen,

The consensus concerning the behavior of the observed globally averaged temperature is pretty much a natural consensus. The consensus concerning the model response to increasing CO2 is not. The issue is described by Boehmer-Christiansen in both the 1 December issue of Nature and in a book-length analysis. Briefly, a number of groups in the early 80’s wanted to push increasing levels of CO2 as a major environmental issue. However, it was recognized that this would be difficult to do in view of the degree of scientific disarray on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in order to forge a consensus on the scenario of significant warming (rather than to objectively assess the issue in terms of supporting and contradictory findings) so as to facilitate the development of international policy.
The beginnings of the hurricane wars
A recent example was the publication by world leading experts in hurricanes that there was no reason to suppose that, even were global warming to occur, it would have any particular affect on hurricanes (6).

6 Lighthill, J., G. Holland, W. Gray, C. Landsea, G. Craig, J. Evans, Y. Kurihara, and C. Guard, 1994. Global climate change and tropical cyclones. Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 75, 2147-2157.
and then Richard jumps the shark
Somewhat by accident, I came to realize that we’ve been through all this before. The interaction of genetics, eugenics, and the politics of immigration in the early 1920's has been studied at great length, primarily as an example of the misuse of science in the interests of racism. It was in this connection, that I was given an article by Jon Beckwith to read9. However, whatever the implications of this case for the responsible application of biology, it is also a remarkable example of the interaction of science, advocacy, and politics. Although it will be obvious that I am neither an historian nor a social scientist, I find the history of this matter helpful in understanding contemporary environmental issues, and I would hope that those more capable than I am would examine it in a more professional manner.
It goes downhill from there. His own paragraph heading applies Simple minded pictures and events. Perhaps we will return.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Richard "wrong way" Lindzen

In an interview with Weltwoche which Eli translated, Richard Lindzen said when asked to explain the current warming

I don’t believe it. The warming occurred from 1976 to 1986, then it plateaued.
Several anonymice sitting in the front row wondered which dog pile he pulled that out from under, but, never fear, Eli has located the source, thanks to friend Lumo. who in response to an inquiry replied with his usual grace and charm uttered:
Dear Alexander, late 20th century global warming did stop in 1986, as well as other moments, see e.g. the graph 1204.gif UAH MSU troposphere data...
(you may have to click on the image to get a readable image)
Lubos: You can see that 1986 is as high as 2004; 2006 was cooler than 1986. A naive village student should first try to look at the basic numbers before you try to attack a leader of the field that you pretend to study.
Well, you might see that if the image went out to 2006, but there is a small problem....the image comes from Junk Science in January 2005, so it didn't, and there was a rather large correction that had to be made to the entire MSFC/UAH MSU record later that year. If one looks at the current corrected record
(you may have to click on the image to get a readable image)

you get a different picture. And, as they say, who you gonna believe, Lubos, Lindzen, or your lying eyes. There is no way that 2006 was cooler than 1986, or 2004 was the same in the lower trop. As a mater of fact we can look at the data

Mon 1986 2004 2006
1 -0.022 0.337 0.371
2 -0.164 0.350 0.382
3 -0.146 0.402 0.297
4 -0.028 0.216 0.218
5 -0.050 0.088 0.027
6 -0.159 0.076 0.201
7 -0.193 -0.106 0.236
8 -0.233 0.012 0.281
9 -0.268 0.210 0.335
10 -0.265 0.324 0.376
11 -0.110 0.229 0.284
12 -0.133 0.192 0.303
Avg -0.148 0.194 0.276

There is no month in 1986 that was warmer than any month in 2004 and 2006. Both Lindzen and Lubos, the Mass Ave twins are relying on uncorrected (that means there are big, known errors folk) versions of the UAH tlt lower troposphere reconstructions....but we do know now where that particular piece of folk art came from.