Arctic/Antarctic Ice Extents 2012-09-30

No real comment - it's all been said elsewhere:


Watts & Co Misuse of Blogs

"THEY" talk about corruption of peer review
"THEY" talk about climate scientists forcing publication editors to resign.
"THEY" find it quite ok trying to destroy a scientists reputation because they disagree with his results - DESPICABLE, TWO-FACED ... etc. etc.
From CA
  • Anthony Watts
    Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Reply
    for those that are keeping track, and wish to register a complaint on the statistical methodology being faulty (not to mention the sampling) you can contact:
    Professor Robyn Owens
    Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
    The University of Western Australia, M460
    35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009
    [full phone email details were included here]
    • Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Reply
      Your comment is awaiting moderation. well done watts trial by blog is an ideal way to improve science
    • HAS
      Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Reply
      Another way in is through the funding agency. L. is part funded through a Discovery Australia Linkage Project LP120100224 “Creating a climate for change: from cognition to consensus” (you can find details of the Australian Research Council site). The administering organisation is the University of NSW who have a contract with the ARC for this funding (the generic contract is on the ARC site). Ben R Newell Assoc Prof @NSW is likely the lead.
      Anyway there a number of points in the ARC contract that are possible breached by L. et al. and the associated publicity around it. A quick scan suggests that those climate sceptics that feel aggrieved should review clause 18.4 and 18.6 of the funding contract that reference the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) (also available at the ARC web site).
      The sections dealing with conflict of interest (L. other blog interests); respect for research participants; reporting results; and communicating research findings (informing interested parties before the media) appear to have been breached. These are matters that could well be referenced regardless of the contract in any communication directly with the UWA. The Code lays down the process for UWA to follow.
      However while UWA may seek to balance Code compliance with academic freedom there is the issue of the ARC contract under which L.’s activities have been part funded. It seems that UWA and the U. of NSW also have a responsibility in this regard that are not balanced by academic freedom, and the ARC as funder has a clear interest in breaches. These could all be approached by anyone who feels L.’s work has breached the code (or any other part of the funding agreement) pointing out these obligations are independent of academic freedom.
  • 2012/09/22

    "Saving Humanity" or "Where's my Handout"

    No one actually 100% understand how the climate works -  I think this is a fair statement.

    So ask yourself is it SAFE to experiment with the only place we can live when you have
    • No idea what the controls do
    • Whether there are unknown controls
    • What the linkage is between controls
    • If it is a linear system
    • If there are "tipping points"
    • little idea of what positive feedbacks and their magnitudes are
    • little idea of what negative feedbacks and their magnitudes are
    • Only 200 years of prior data that is vaguely reliable.
    And of course
    • It takes 30+ years for the effect of each experimental tweak of a control to become clear
    • It takes longer than 30+ years for the effect of the tweak to dissipate (much longer if you trigger an ice age).  
    • It is not just YOUR hand tweaking the controls - there are other humans and natural inputs simultaneously affecting your experiment.
    • Each experiment is disastrously expensive.

    Even Watts believes that CO2 is causing warming and some of that is from anthropogenic sources. He just believes it is irrelevant.

    Here's a plot with all data zeroed:

    Note how small the swings in TSI are.
    A couple of Kelvin increase in 288K may seem small but the wealthy nations rely on stability. We no longer have an easy option of migrating to colder/warmer areas, moving our dwellings from the shores of continents as they get inundated (see doggerland! on wiki).

    The inhabitants of doggerland simply packed their dwellings took their pots and moved uphill. This would be a trifle more difficult now.

    It is not even possible to say leave it until we are sure that there is a problem - the built in time constants ensure that by the time we are sure and take action there will be another multi-decade of environmental changes before we see the effect of our corrections.
    I think it is very telling that from all the revelations from "climate gate" and other hacks not ONCE have I seen any one pointing out any climate scientists email (which it is obvious the scientists thought were and always will be private) which suggests that they have vast wealth to spend on themselves.
    Watts seems very delighted at having access to a private blog on sks where he foams at the mouth over this snippet:
    And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.
    Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.
    ..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.
    To me it sound a bit like "saving humanity" not "where's my handout".



    Lewandowsky Survey Lunacy

    One Comment

    1. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:47 PM | Permalink | Reply
      Your comment is awaiting moderation. HMMMMM!
      So SMOKEY new about the survey
      AND he took the survey.
    So WUWT actually had a link posted
    So here’s another source for responses

    1. paulw says:
      August 30, 2010 at 2:30 am
      Look at
      It is a survey by an Australian university that tries to show correlations among the science beliefs of people. It asks, for example, your view on climate change and your view on free markets.
      I gave it a go so that my climate change and free market views are properly represented in the results.
      [Reply: I took the survey. Interesting questions. ~dbs, mod.]
    1. paulw says:
      My earlier comment got quite a lot of criticism. I was called ‘thick’ and a ‘sockpuppet’, and I am just a commenter.
      I think that some of us have particular views that are not strongly linked to science. This weakens our critical view of the scientific results.
      It might help to take the survey by the University of Western Australia, on attitudes towards science. Then, we can debate on the survey results and hopefully help our efforts. The URL to the survey is
     Djozar took the survey


    Good God! This is really scary stuff

    Who in their right mind would put their name and reputation to this.


    1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

    2.We believe ...  


    1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

    4.We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.


    now at:

    Well, here are some signatories they highlight

    Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama, Huntsville,
    Dr. Joseph D’Aleo (Executive Director and Certified Meteorologist, Icecap
    Dr. David Legates (Associate Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware
    Dr. Ross McKitrick (Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada,
    Dr. Cornelis van Kooten (Professor of Economics and Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
    Dr. Kenneth W. Chilton (Founder and Emeritus Director, Institute for the Study of Economics and the Environment, Lindenwood College); 

    Contibuting Writers.
    :Rev. Richard S. Courtney, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Methodist Preacher, Cornwall, UK
    G. Cornelis van Kooten, Ph.D., Professor of Economics and Research Chari in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, BC, Canada

    Advisory board
    James A. Wanliss, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Physics, Presbyterian College, Clinton, SC

    How can any report from these people be believed? For them to even contemplate suggesting that there is man made climate change would be to deny their Gods omniopotence.
    There is only ever one report they can give in order to retain their faith - All in the world is wonderful.
    Yet some of these have given reports to governments. Surely this is much worse than ANY collusion/falsification shown in the stolen emails (i.e. none!)

    Fragile ecosystems? self regulating? Protecting the poor?

    If the poor of the world were to be brought up to the same energy consumption levels of the US (and others) what price would the rich be paying for fuel.

    How long would resources of metals fossil fuels uranium last if consumption were leveled at the us values?

    This just gets worse:


    Earth and all its subsystems—of land, sea, and air, living and nonliving—are the good products of the wise design and omnipotent acts of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Triune God of the Bible. As such they reveal God’s glory. Mankind, created in God’s image, is the crown of creation. Human beings have the divine mandate to multiply and to fill, subdue, and rule the Earth, transforming it from wilderness into garden. They act as stewards under God to cultivate and guard what they subdue and rule. Calling them to be His vicegerents over the Earth, God requires obedience to His laws—in Scripture and imprinted in the human conscience—in their stewardship. Although sin, universal among mankind, deeply mars this stewardship, God’s redemptive act in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross and His instructive activity through Scripture, communicating the nature of creation and human responsibility for it, enable people to create wealth and decrease poverty at the same time that they pursue creation stewardship and, even more important, the true spiritual wealth of knowing their Creator through Jesus Christ.

    Garden? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hobet_Mountaintop_mine_West_Virginia_2009-06-02.jpg
    Garden? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text
    Garden? http://www.businesspundit.com/the-worlds-worst-environmental-disasters-caused-by-companies/
    Garden? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3161812.stm
    Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/20/uk-fish-stocks-low-brits--cods-haddock_n_1811461.html
    Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.bigmarinefish.com/bluefin.html
    Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.tigersincrisis.com/
    Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15663982
    Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1888702_1863782,00.html
    Resilient Ecosystems? http://www.orangutan.org.uk/
    Self Regulating? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
    Self Regulating? http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/trashislands.htm
    Self Regulating? http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/HCOU-4U4JCL

    Ater this visit

    and see what another saw



    Some more analysis of u/d lwir and clouds

    Total / opaque cloud vs Temperature
    No slope on the opaque cloud but a definite dip when teperatures are between 16 and 22C
    The following plots limit RH to 20 to 40%. Day refers to time that cloud can be measured Night to when cloud is not measured.

    D/U LWIR vs Temperature (night values - 0-100% cloud)

    Both upward and downward LWIR linear proportional to temperature

    D/U LWIR vs Temperature (day values cloud 0-100%)
    Very similar to night - slopes are a bit different.

    D/U LWIR vs Temperature (day values but limiting cloud to 20 to 40%) (note change in humidity limits

    D/U LWIR vs Humidity Temp 22-24C cloud 40-50%
    By constraining the temperature to a 2C band The temperature effects on IR are minimised whilst still returning a reasonable number  of results. Note that the ULWIR falls with increasing cloud but the DLWIR rises by 100w/sq m 

    D/U LWIR vs Opaque Cloud cover temp 22-24C RH 35-40%
    Temperature RH are constrained to minimise these effects. The DLWIR increases by approx 80 w/sqm
    I think these last two plots conclusively prove relative humidity and cloud cover have a positive effect on the downward long wave ir (ir increases if cloud and/or RH increase)
    Now how do you do this for CO2?

    Data available from:



    More stuff from NREL Solar Radiation BMS

    Using hourly data from http://www.nrel.gov/midc/srrl_bms/ gives the possibility of checking the effect of cloud cover on upward and downward long wave infrared radiation (ULWIR and DLWIR), time of observation TOBs on temperature readings.

    Cloud cover effect on D/ULWIR

    Data from 2004 to present (hourly)

    Using data at around dawn when solar heating is minimal (would be better to have data pre dawn but cloud coverage is not measured in the dark) it should be possible to see the effect of clouds on DLWIR.

    This is the plot:

    The effect of clouds is most noticeable up to 25% coverage but does continue increasing up to about 80%. In this plot temperature has been constrained to 16 to 22C and RH 20 to 45% for time from 0:00 to 8:00am.
    Constraints cannot easily be made tighter else total data returned fall to zero.

    Time of Observation (TOBS).

    One measurement per day max and min calculated for 23 hours prior to last measurement. Constraints on cloud cover is tricky since no information is available over night so some expected perturbation may be seen at sunrise/sunset
    Within the constraints noted in the chart header, the data for each hour over the record is split into 2 - 1st quartile and 3rd quartile (this lowers the effect of false max and min values). the hourly data returned is then averaged

    Data is for all Augusts on record.
    The day time cloud cover effect is noticeable (0 to 10% cover - night is o to 100%).

    Removing the cloud constraint gives this plot:

    It looks as if TOBs could change temperature measurements by +-1.5C

    A couple of cloud coverage per hour plots January and July

    The early and late drop offs in coverage may be an effect of the measurement method seems a bit consistent with both plots.

    However it seems that cloud coverage in jan is costant with time of day wheras in july cloud coverage increases with time.

    Effect of relative humidity on DLWIR.