we’re ending 2014 with 3rd quarter GDP up at a 5.0% rate without an inventory build, the strongest annual job creation since the turn of the century, and going into the new year with gas as low as $2…
Uh Oh, another pillar of the AGW/ACO2/CAGW hypotheses just crumbled with new data measurements. http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/946xvariable_height/public/thumbnails/image/mainco2mappia18934.jpg?itok=gi4wa1au
CO2 is neither well mixed, a common description of the atmospheric gas, but may actually be concentrated in tectonically active areas. Yes volcanoes do cause CO2 concentrations, but what the new OCO satellite tells us it is those undersea volcanoes that may be the most active causes for the atmospheric causes.
If you also note, CO2 is not well mixed at all. That areas where it is expected to be concentrated in the highly industrial areas of the planet, actually has lesser amounts.
EM’s ignorance strikes again! ?OLD? NASA says this: http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/nasas-spaceborne-carbon-counter-maps-new-details/#.VKa_i3sxm1s “The first global maps of atmospheric carbon dioxide from NASA’s new Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission demonstrate its performance and promise, showing elevated carbon dioxide concentrations across the Southern Hemisphere from springtime biomass burning….”
Let me repeat that message: THE FIRST GLOBAL MAPS FROM…
I am certain that when the scientists at WUWT take their usual fair and balanced look at the research they will conclude what the research actually shows and what it actually does not show.
Meanwhile,
” New research proves that the traditional conjurer’s claim that “the hand is not faster than the eye” is rarely true.
Instead, many people do “see” how a magician has performed a sleight of hand trick but do not consciously register what has happened.
Effectively, their brain is fooled into overlooking what takes place directly in front of their own eyes.
The secret, researchers believe, lies with a set of “distraction” techniques built up by magicians over hundreds of years.
Scientists have previously shown that we become consciously aware of only a small part of what we see within our field of vision.
The new research suggests that magicians can manipulate which parts of what we see our brains register and what they overlook.
Distraction techniques they use include “misdirection”, where a magician builds up the idea of what they are about to see so strongly in an audience’s mind that they do not notice something completely different taking place.
Researchers from the University of Durham and the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada videotaped the reactions of 46 volunteers as they watched a performance of a simple sleight of hand magic trick, during which a magician dropped a cigarette into his lap.
They found that more than half of the audience did not see the cigarette being dropped, despite it happening right in front of them.
Close scrutiny of the recordings showed that two of those who did not “see” the cigarette fall were staring directly at it at the time, according to the findings, published in the Trends in Cognitive Sciences journal.
The researchers, who include practising magicians, claim that conjurers are “miles ahead” of scientists in predicting how humans will react to certain triggers. ”
when i took social psychology over forty years ago i did not like it much. thought it was boring. was surprised later to realize that the professional liars rely pretty much on the results of those social-psych experiments.
or maybe the scientists were just confirming what they learned from the professional liars.
oh, a species of psychology called “cognitive psychology” confirmed the limits of human cognition to this student at least more recently. but whenever i try to tell people they are not as smart as they think they just throw their used bananas at me.
not at all sure what Arne was complaining about.
unlikely obama’s veto pen will run out of ink. he remains convinced that if only he offers a big enough compromise we can all just get along, whoever gets hurt.
i am as always not sure what you are getting at. But does your analysis include the well known fact that CO2 concentrations vary seasonally with the growth cycle of plants, and that the northern hemisphere is out of phase with the southern due to the tilt of the planet on it’s axis.
the problem of global warming has nothing to do with the very large turnover of CO2 “naturally” but with the relatively small accumulation of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, which over time is resulting in significant, eventually catastrophic, climate change.
i stated that badly above: the earth is not “tilted on its axis”; the earth’s axis of rotation is tilted with respect to the plane of its revolution around the sun.
i realize that most third graders know this, but i am trying to help make things clearer for Co Rev.
Dale, these are measurements made by a new satellite, and current for a short period. Accordingly, annual averages, those that include CO2 concentrations vary seasonally, are premature. This satellite data will confirm the impacts of those seasonal variations.
There is a problem with your statement: “the problem of global warming has nothing to do with the very large turnover of CO2 “naturally” but with the relatively small accumulation of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, which over time is resulting in significant, eventually catastrophic, climate change.” It is largely contradicted by the new data! The data also points to a volcanic source for CO2 previously largely ignored or down played.
Finally the oft used phrase, CO2 is s well mixed atmospheric gas, is shown as conjecture. What i find interesting is the concentrations of CO2 in the equatorial areas. That also negates the seasonal variation.
reading the NASA paper you first cited, CoRev, it clearly says that “analysis shows these (high CO2) signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests,”; i see nothing indicating it’s from volcanic activity… your map shows CO2 concentrations between Oct 1 & Nov 11, so southern hemispere concentrations would naturally be higher, coming out of their winter…while CO2 is a well-mixed gas, it is not an instantaneously well-mixed gas…you can see that on the first chart here, where it shows the well known May maximum and November minimum for Northern hemispheric CO2: http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
RJS,my oreiginal comment refered to two sources. I’m not sure to which you referred and reviewed. If it’s the NASA site, they are the party line source until the data gets analyzed by outside parties. I don’t think you reviewed the WUWT article from which the findings of volcanic origin was derived.
Until this specialized satellite’s data became available most of the CO2 measurements were from a handful of stations and extrapolated over the planet and/or modeled. These are actual measurements covering the vast majority of the planet. Measurements beat models and seriously extrapolated thin data for accuracy.
You also say this: “while CO2 is a well-mixed gas, it is not an instantaneously well-mixed gas…” This data says otherwise on the well mixed claim.
Your reference’s scary graph: http://www.planetforlife.com//images/icecore.gif makes the classic mistake often seen in climate claims. The extended end point uses data from a period far smaller than the filter length used for the core data. Any similar peaks are lost in the filtered data. So no one can say the current levels are higher than … any peaks seen in the prior period(s).
This kind of misrepresentation of data is too common in climate literature. It is almost seems to be planned to exaggerate claims. Last years Marcott paper, another hockey stick, had to be corrected for the end points for this reason.
Um, you should read the two things together about 60 times. Then when you figure out it does not match your ideology you can ignore it.
“. Thus, in the released OCO2 dataset, showing the average atmospheric concentration of CO2 over a period of about 6 weeks late in 2014, there are three curious, relatively week, but distinct CO2-hotspots over oceanic regions:
Yeah, they are curious alright. Without the arrows you would not even notice how week they are. Oh, sorry weak.
“Dr Philos. Martin Hovland MSc PhD FGS, has been working for the Norwegian energy company Statoil ASA from 1976 to 2012 as senior engineer and marine gology specialist.”
According to Dr. Hovlan, two of the biggest such occurrences of these volcanoes are in Azerbajain and Pakistan. I wonder why there is no such signal(even a week signal) in the data?
EM, perhaps you think you are making a point, but if its there it is totally unclear. Being cute is not sending a message. Just what ideology do you think it refutes?
It is an ideology formed by Frank Lubtz . Call it the Luntz School of Science.
“The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding “frightening” phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.
The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.
“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science,” Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
“Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
“Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”
Course, Luntz was only spinning the words for the leaders of the denialist movement. You just need a shred of “doubt” to fight the climate wars. And a lot of money. And a lot of newspapers. And a lot of media outlets. And now, a lot of blogs.
If climate science can be called a big jigsaw puzzle, you only need to pick out one piece that does not seem to fit. And that piece does not need to be a piece that does not fit all of the time. It can actually fit into the puzzle most of the time, but the denier can show it doesn’t fit in a certain year; or a certain season; or a small location it works for them.
So deniers just follow this strategy. You uset temp records that are for a small period of time, or that start at a specific time. Or you get observations that are for a certain season(like the one at hand). Or you even get the small location like Greenland in the past. Or you go to the inane stage and get Inhofe’s igloo.
Every attack by the deniers on climate science follows this same strategy. Funded by energy companies, the messaging smoothed by wordsmiths. Just a repetition of the tobacco wars.
Next summer we will get further observations from OCO-2. And we will see the deniers discard their current puzzle piece and pick up another. And we will undoubtedly see Hovland write another column which shows the location of the volcanos now in the area of the highest level of concentration of CO2.
Hey, maybe Hovland can write that column now(or maybe he already has). He can just use old science to figure out where, and then use the “new” OCO-2 data to write another column that “contradicts” climate science.
EM, for heaven’s sake! Use something at least less than a decade ole, Frank Luntz’s analysis was wrong then and is today. BTW, it was the climate alarmists who changed the t4erms from Global Warming, to Climate Change (how did it ever stop changing?), to climate interruptions, etc. You can not get the basic facts straight.
Your reference to the NASA modeled film. From it we have this parapharased: “…we have the highest concentrations over the Northern Hemisphere, European and North American industrial areas….”
Amazingly the earliest results from the OCO2 satellite data prove just how wrong was the perceived and accepted CO2 science of just a few months ago, video was released November 17, 2014. MEASURED DATA ALWAYS TRUMP MODELS. In this case it appears to almost negate previous perceptions.
EM, I know you try, but most of your comments are so wrong it becomes a trial to even discuss them. This BRAND NEW data clearly shows the CO2 is not well mixed, it, as yet, shows no visible human component (for the global average to be influenced by human CO2 generation its density would have to be significantly higher in the 1-2% of the world where it is generated), and if you note the placement of the CO2 is way different than the modeled video.
The NASA site says this: “…atmospheric carbon dioxide – the key driver of global warming – exceeded 400 parts per million across most of the northern hemisphere….” When they have the basics so wrong on this “the key driver of global warming” then it is reasonable to assume the basic assumption is also wrong.
EM, after commenting about your ignorance on this subject you double down on it: “There is no scientist in the world who thinks the majority of CO2 is man made.” How did you ever come the conclusion that I was in anyway implying this?
Just a reminder: “your comments are so wrong it becomes a trial to even discuss them.”
EM, you keep repeating the same misconceptions, short term, cherry picked, fossil fuel paid… . The data are the data! Because they do not support your own perceptions is your problem. Because they do not match them you call them BS.
If you don’t like my analysis do your own. The tools to analyze temp trends are on the web and available to anybody. I suspect you fear you won’t believe or like even your own results.
EM claims: “No, they are not. The data is cherry pickedYour data in this case are the measurements taken from 10/1/14 to 12/11/14. That is cherry picked.”
In your impossible to anticipate ignorance, you call the first set of data from a BRAND NEW satellite, OCO2, is cherry picked? Perhaps you think it is different from the OCO1 data or some other source of CO2. data
OCO1 was destroyed at launch so no new data was obtained. Other
CO2 measurements are not nearly as comprehensive. Your need to refute anything not supportive of your climate science perceptions is so strong to make you say almost any nonsense.
Which brings me to your other nonsense: ” if the measurements taken from 5/1/15 to 6/11/15 are not different from the October measurements.” You want to bet someone on this? That it won’t change? How could it be the same? Did you miss the earlier discussion re: seasons? Are you that desperate?
Umm, if it changes then your comments are meaningless.
Put up or shut up.
Old, as in the the knowledge of seasonal creation of natural CO2 is old.
Expected, as in the deniers had the expected reaction to 7 weeks of data(with bright red!) that enables them to say, “Look! It is not coming out of smokestacks!”, while ignoring what the entire purpose of OCO-2 is.
EM, can you be any more clueless? “Umm, if it changes then your comments are meaningless.”
How could it not change? Do not believe in ACO2 causing global warming? Do not believe that burning more fossil fuels will not raise CO2 levels? Do you not believe that seasons effect CO2 levels? Etc.?
You do not understand that your are betting against your own beliefs?
EM, clueless is how I described your comments and the the bet. This was your bet: “$100 bet(to be paid to Angry Bear) if the measurements taken from 5/1/15 to 6/11/15 are not different from the October measurements.”
My response: “How could it not change?” After you said: “Umm, if it changes then your comments are meaningless.” The clueless portion of that conversation is your perception that CO2 would not change. The season was just one of the early causes discussed. Now after a couple of mentions you modify the wording of the bet: ” When offered to make a bet whether those 6 weeks of measurements would change with the seasons, …” How did you ever come to the conclusion CO2 was static in density, locale, etc?
The reason I persist with this discussion is because you are so very nasty and almost always wrong. When challenged you arrogance to your nastiness. Now we can add clueless. I am a retired elderly man with several computers and plenty of time. If you wish to persist with the attitude and clueless errors we can. Its a cold rainy day.
EM, some things are so obvious they need not be said. You are locked into some semantical game in your own mind that has no value nor relationship to the real world. It is just another strawman argument to hide your failure to understand the fundamentals.
I doubt seriously you know what kind of changes that will occur to these original data. Here’s a hint: adjustments, new data added, and they will be averaged with new data.
What is truly “old” in your commentary is the arrogance, nastiness and ignorance of the fundamentals of which you choose to comment. In this case Google is not your friend.
Your arguments are all worthless. And if you are not getting paid for your continual dissemination of non scientific garbage on this site, you are truly hopeless.
All any denier has to do is to show how the rise of PPM of CO2 has risen over 100 due to natural causes over the past century to stop the AGW scientists from their conclusions.
A Nobel prize is waiting for anyone who can do so.
You ain’t it.
But maybe in the collection of cretins you have chosen to ally yourself with there may be someone who can.
I doubt it, since $50 million a year from the fossil fuel industry has not even tried to do it, instead relying on pr to show it is not man made. And relying on pimps like you to spread nonsense.
At least you are starting to thrash around the importance of these data. IF (and that may be an important if) the measurements continue to show the stark difference from what the climate scientists perceived was the CO2 cycle as shown in the NASA video, then nature would have AGAIN shown how bad is/was the science.
You seem to think $50M is a big investment. IIRC just the US invested ~$29 Billion in in just one year under Obama.
In all honesty, there is no level of “nastiness” in this situation.
You and your cohorts are responsible for delaying actions that will save the human race from dealing with a real problem.
Funny, no response regarding finding a natural source(s) for the increased CO2.
Probably because the greatest climate scientists in the world have spent most of their time looking for exactly that, and could not find it.
Even the ultimate demon to deniers, Michael Mann, spent most of his time trying to find it(and was a hero to your ilk in his early days) and could not do so.
You people have figured out(see Luntz) how easy it is to just find one shred of doubt that convinces the weak minded that AGW is not real.
As opposed to actually finding out the truth.
I do not not which I revile people of your ilk more, the fact that you refuse the truth, or the fact that you refuse to search for the truth.
You are a sad human being, retired with your computers and refusing to see.
EM, you claimed: “Funny, no response regarding finding a natural source(s) for the increased CO2.” Think back to what I said in my first comment re: the OCO
EM, you claimed: “Funny, no response regarding finding a natural source(s) for the increased CO2.” Think back to what I said in my first comment re: the OCO2 satellite. The natural source of atmospheric CO2 is just one of the pillars threatened by this data.
Compared to the previous understanding by climate scientists of the carbon cycle, the OCO2 data clearly show how badly it was/is understood. Another pillar of the climate scientists hypothesis threatened.
Your commenting is represented by this comment from WUWT:
”
CR Carlson
January 2, 2015 at 3:11 am
Certain researchers and CAGW advocates may just ignore this evidence, as they often do any with empirical evidence that’s contrary to their agendas. I hardly ever read how human’s paltry 3% contribution to the 0.04% total atmospheric CO2 can have any effect and since it’s highly doubtful that CO2 has any significant effect on global temps anyway………. ” You are ignoring this OCO2 data. focusing on MODELED predictions that have not come true.
You are challenged to find the few climate predictions/projections that have actually occurred. The number of failures is mountainous and growing.
Let me correct some of your dialogue:
“…(TRUE BELIEVERS (religious zealots) are incapable) of find(ing) one shred of doubt that convinces the weak minded that AGW is not real.
As opposed to actually finding out the truth, (they remain in DENIAL of the developing data….) the fact that you refuse the truth, or the fact that you refuse to search for the truth (are full throated examples of the zealosy).”
Moreover, your personal nastiness in your commenting needs to be challenged. It is so natural to your warped view, it becomes a shell to protect you from dissenting comments and from actually thinking.
we’re ending 2014 with 3rd quarter GDP up at a 5.0% rate without an inventory build, the strongest annual job creation since the turn of the century, and going into the new year with gas as low as $2…
what could go wrong?
Obama’s veto pen could run out of ink.
EMichael seems to be one of those perpetual motion deniers.
Uh Oh, another pillar of the AGW/ACO2/CAGW hypotheses just crumbled with new data measurements. http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/946xvariable_height/public/thumbnails/image/mainco2mappia18934.jpg?itok=gi4wa1au
CO2 is neither well mixed, a common description of the atmospheric gas, but may actually be concentrated in tectonically active areas. Yes volcanoes do cause CO2 concentrations, but what the new OCO satellite tells us it is those undersea volcanoes that may be the most active causes for the atmospheric causes.
If you also note, CO2 is not well mixed at all. That areas where it is expected to be concentrated in the highly industrial areas of the planet, actually has lesser amounts.
For those who believe that WUWT that does not present science: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/
The better description may be that it does not present the science you wish presented.
Old, and expected news.
EM’s ignorance strikes again! ?OLD? NASA says this: http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/nasas-spaceborne-carbon-counter-maps-new-details/#.VKa_i3sxm1s “The first global maps of atmospheric carbon dioxide from NASA’s new Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission demonstrate its performance and promise, showing elevated carbon dioxide concentrations across the Southern Hemisphere from springtime biomass burning….”
Let me repeat that message: THE FIRST GLOBAL MAPS FROM…
EM, you are an amazement!
I am certain that when the scientists at WUWT take their usual fair and balanced look at the research they will conclude what the research actually shows and what it actually does not show.
Meanwhile,
” New research proves that the traditional conjurer’s claim that “the hand is not faster than the eye” is rarely true.
Instead, many people do “see” how a magician has performed a sleight of hand trick but do not consciously register what has happened.
Effectively, their brain is fooled into overlooking what takes place directly in front of their own eyes.
The secret, researchers believe, lies with a set of “distraction” techniques built up by magicians over hundreds of years.
Scientists have previously shown that we become consciously aware of only a small part of what we see within our field of vision.
The new research suggests that magicians can manipulate which parts of what we see our brains register and what they overlook.
Distraction techniques they use include “misdirection”, where a magician builds up the idea of what they are about to see so strongly in an audience’s mind that they do not notice something completely different taking place.
Researchers from the University of Durham and the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada videotaped the reactions of 46 volunteers as they watched a performance of a simple sleight of hand magic trick, during which a magician dropped a cigarette into his lap.
They found that more than half of the audience did not see the cigarette being dropped, despite it happening right in front of them.
Close scrutiny of the recordings showed that two of those who did not “see” the cigarette fall were staring directly at it at the time, according to the findings, published in the Trends in Cognitive Sciences journal.
The researchers, who include practising magicians, claim that conjurers are “miles ahead” of scientists in predicting how humans will react to certain triggers. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/2445090/Magic-tricks-make-people-doubt-their-own-eyes.html
E Michael
not so sure about miles ahead.
when i took social psychology over forty years ago i did not like it much. thought it was boring. was surprised later to realize that the professional liars rely pretty much on the results of those social-psych experiments.
or maybe the scientists were just confirming what they learned from the professional liars.
oh, a species of psychology called “cognitive psychology” confirmed the limits of human cognition to this student at least more recently. but whenever i try to tell people they are not as smart as they think they just throw their used bananas at me.
not at all sure what Arne was complaining about.
unlikely obama’s veto pen will run out of ink. he remains convinced that if only he offers a big enough compromise we can all just get along, whoever gets hurt.
CoRev
i am as always not sure what you are getting at. But does your analysis include the well known fact that CO2 concentrations vary seasonally with the growth cycle of plants, and that the northern hemisphere is out of phase with the southern due to the tilt of the planet on it’s axis.
the problem of global warming has nothing to do with the very large turnover of CO2 “naturally” but with the relatively small accumulation of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, which over time is resulting in significant, eventually catastrophic, climate change.
i stated that badly above: the earth is not “tilted on its axis”; the earth’s axis of rotation is tilted with respect to the plane of its revolution around the sun.
i realize that most third graders know this, but i am trying to help make things clearer for Co Rev.
Dale, these are measurements made by a new satellite, and current for a short period. Accordingly, annual averages, those that include CO2 concentrations vary seasonally, are premature. This satellite data will confirm the impacts of those seasonal variations.
There is a problem with your statement: “the problem of global warming has nothing to do with the very large turnover of CO2 “naturally” but with the relatively small accumulation of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, which over time is resulting in significant, eventually catastrophic, climate change.” It is largely contradicted by the new data! The data also points to a volcanic source for CO2 previously largely ignored or down played.
Finally the oft used phrase, CO2 is s well mixed atmospheric gas, is shown as conjecture. What i find interesting is the concentrations of CO2 in the equatorial areas. That also negates the seasonal variation.
Yeah, Cob.
No, CoRev.
Volcano this.
“This satellite data will confirm the impacts of those seasonal variations…..
What i find interesting is the concentrations of CO2 in the equatorial areas.”
In the same post
geez
reading the NASA paper you first cited, CoRev, it clearly says that “analysis shows these (high CO2) signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests,”; i see nothing indicating it’s from volcanic activity… your map shows CO2 concentrations between Oct 1 & Nov 11, so southern hemispere concentrations would naturally be higher, coming out of their winter…while CO2 is a well-mixed gas, it is not an instantaneously well-mixed gas…you can see that on the first chart here, where it shows the well known May maximum and November minimum for Northern hemispheric CO2: http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
RJS,my oreiginal comment refered to two sources. I’m not sure to which you referred and reviewed. If it’s the NASA site, they are the party line source until the data gets analyzed by outside parties. I don’t think you reviewed the WUWT article from which the findings of volcanic origin was derived.
Until this specialized satellite’s data became available most of the CO2 measurements were from a handful of stations and extrapolated over the planet and/or modeled. These are actual measurements covering the vast majority of the planet. Measurements beat models and seriously extrapolated thin data for accuracy.
You also say this: “while CO2 is a well-mixed gas, it is not an instantaneously well-mixed gas…” This data says otherwise on the well mixed claim.
Your reference’s scary graph: http://www.planetforlife.com//images/icecore.gif makes the classic mistake often seen in climate claims. The extended end point uses data from a period far smaller than the filter length used for the core data. Any similar peaks are lost in the filtered data. So no one can say the current levels are higher than … any peaks seen in the prior period(s).
This kind of misrepresentation of data is too common in climate literature. It is almost seems to be planned to exaggerate claims. Last years Marcott paper, another hockey stick, had to be corrected for the end points for this reason.
EM, did you have a point in your 2 quotes of mine comment? Your selection of those two quotes is why the equatorial concentrations are interesting.
CoRev,
Um, you should read the two things together about 60 times. Then when you figure out it does not match your ideology you can ignore it.
“. Thus, in the released OCO2 dataset, showing the average atmospheric concentration of CO2 over a period of about 6 weeks late in 2014, there are three curious, relatively week, but distinct CO2-hotspots over oceanic regions:
Yeah, they are curious alright. Without the arrows you would not even notice how week they are. Oh, sorry weak.
“Dr Philos. Martin Hovland MSc PhD FGS, has been working for the Norwegian energy company Statoil ASA from 1976 to 2012 as senior engineer and marine gology specialist.”
Strange.
According to Dr. Hovlan, two of the biggest such occurrences of these volcanoes are in Azerbajain and Pakistan. I wonder why there is no such signal(even a week signal) in the data?
EM, perhaps you think you are making a point, but if its there it is totally unclear. Being cute is not sending a message. Just what ideology do you think it refutes?
It is an ideology formed by Frank Lubtz . Call it the Luntz School of Science.
“The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding “frightening” phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.
The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.
“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science,” Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
“Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
“Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Course, Luntz was only spinning the words for the leaders of the denialist movement. You just need a shred of “doubt” to fight the climate wars. And a lot of money. And a lot of newspapers. And a lot of media outlets. And now, a lot of blogs.
If climate science can be called a big jigsaw puzzle, you only need to pick out one piece that does not seem to fit. And that piece does not need to be a piece that does not fit all of the time. It can actually fit into the puzzle most of the time, but the denier can show it doesn’t fit in a certain year; or a certain season; or a small location it works for them.
So deniers just follow this strategy. You uset temp records that are for a small period of time, or that start at a specific time. Or you get observations that are for a certain season(like the one at hand). Or you even get the small location like Greenland in the past. Or you go to the inane stage and get Inhofe’s igloo.
Every attack by the deniers on climate science follows this same strategy. Funded by energy companies, the messaging smoothed by wordsmiths. Just a repetition of the tobacco wars.
Next summer we will get further observations from OCO-2. And we will see the deniers discard their current puzzle piece and pick up another. And we will undoubtedly see Hovland write another column which shows the location of the volcanos now in the area of the highest level of concentration of CO2.
Hey, maybe Hovland can write that column now(or maybe he already has). He can just use old science to figure out where, and then use the “new” OCO-2 data to write another column that “contradicts” climate science.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2014/november/nasa-computer-model-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/#.VKdAx53LJcg
EM, for heaven’s sake! Use something at least less than a decade ole, Frank Luntz’s analysis was wrong then and is today. BTW, it was the climate alarmists who changed the t4erms from Global Warming, to Climate Change (how did it ever stop changing?), to climate interruptions, etc. You can not get the basic facts straight.
Your reference to the NASA modeled film. From it we have this parapharased: “…we have the highest concentrations over the Northern Hemisphere, European and North American industrial areas….”
Amazingly the earliest results from the OCO2 satellite data prove just how wrong was the perceived and accepted CO2 science of just a few months ago, video was released November 17, 2014. MEASURED DATA ALWAYS TRUMP MODELS. In this case it appears to almost negate previous perceptions.
EM, I know you try, but most of your comments are so wrong it becomes a trial to even discuss them. This BRAND NEW data clearly shows the CO2 is not well mixed, it, as yet, shows no visible human component (for the global average to be influenced by human CO2 generation its density would have to be significantly higher in the 1-2% of the world where it is generated), and if you note the placement of the CO2 is way different than the modeled video.
The NASA site says this: “…atmospheric carbon dioxide – the key driver of global warming – exceeded 400 parts per million across most of the northern hemisphere….” When they have the basics so wrong on this “the key driver of global warming” then it is reasonable to assume the basic assumption is also wrong.
Humorously, your post uses all of the Luntz School of Science. Once again picking up little pieces and making a picture.
BTW,
There is no scientist in the world who thinks the majority of CO2 is man made.
EM, after commenting about your ignorance on this subject you double down on it: “There is no scientist in the world who thinks the majority of CO2 is man made.” How did you ever come the conclusion that I was in anyway implying this?
Just a reminder: “your comments are so wrong it becomes a trial to even discuss them.”
Then don’t discuss them
Think I enjoy these constant cherry picked comments emanating from the fossil fuel industry?
Think I need to have some asshole take a six week phenomenon and use it to change years of measurements?
“These are actual measurements covering the vast majority of the planet.”
Yes. They are much more accurate. But what you say about them is sheer bs.
Why not take a six month vacation from trolling this blog and come back when the May measurements are taken?
Want to wager what happens?
EM, you keep repeating the same misconceptions, short term, cherry picked, fossil fuel paid… . The data are the data! Because they do not support your own perceptions is your problem. Because they do not match them you call them BS.
If you don’t like my analysis do your own. The tools to analyze temp trends are on the web and available to anybody. I suspect you fear you won’t believe or like even your own results.
“The data are the data!
No, they are not. The data is cherry picked.
Your data in this case are the measurements taken from 10/1/14 to 12/11/14. That is cherry picked.
$100 bet(to be paid to Angry Bear) if the measurements taken from 5/1/15 to 6/11/15 are not different from the October measurements.
You on?
oops to 11/11/14
EM claims: “No, they are not. The data is cherry pickedYour data in this case are the measurements taken from 10/1/14 to 12/11/14. That is cherry picked.”
In your impossible to anticipate ignorance, you call the first set of data from a BRAND NEW satellite, OCO2, is cherry picked? Perhaps you think it is different from the OCO1 data or some other source of CO2. data
OCO1 was destroyed at launch so no new data was obtained. Other
CO2 measurements are not nearly as comprehensive. Your need to refute anything not supportive of your climate science perceptions is so strong to make you say almost any nonsense.
Which brings me to your other nonsense: ” if the measurements taken from 5/1/15 to 6/11/15 are not different from the October measurements.” You want to bet someone on this? That it won’t change? How could it be the same? Did you miss the earlier discussion re: seasons? Are you that desperate?
Umm, if it changes then your comments are meaningless.
Put up or shut up.
Old, as in the the knowledge of seasonal creation of natural CO2 is old.
Expected, as in the deniers had the expected reaction to 7 weeks of data(with bright red!) that enables them to say, “Look! It is not coming out of smokestacks!”, while ignoring what the entire purpose of OCO-2 is.
EM, can you be any more clueless? “Umm, if it changes then your comments are meaningless.”
How could it not change? Do not believe in ACO2 causing global warming? Do not believe that burning more fossil fuels will not raise CO2 levels? Do you not believe that seasons effect CO2 levels? Etc.?
You do not understand that your are betting against your own beliefs?
That makes no sense at all.
Meanwhile, let’s review.
You said:
“Uh Oh, another pillar of the AGW/ACO2/CAGW hypotheses just crumbled with new data measurements”
Then you followed with a litany of conclusions based on those new measurements.
When offered to make a bet whether those 6 weeks of measurements would change with the seasons, you refused and said:
“How could it be the same? ”
What a maroon.
EM, clueless is how I described your comments and the the bet. This was your bet: “$100 bet(to be paid to Angry Bear) if the measurements taken from 5/1/15 to 6/11/15 are not different from the October measurements.”
My response: “How could it not change?” After you said: “Umm, if it changes then your comments are meaningless.” The clueless portion of that conversation is your perception that CO2 would not change. The season was just one of the early causes discussed. Now after a couple of mentions you modify the wording of the bet: ” When offered to make a bet whether those 6 weeks of measurements would change with the seasons, …” How did you ever come to the conclusion CO2 was static in density, locale, etc?
The reason I persist with this discussion is because you are so very nasty and almost always wrong. When challenged you arrogance to your nastiness. Now we can add clueless. I am a retired elderly man with several computers and plenty of time. If you wish to persist with the attitude and clueless errors we can. Its a cold rainy day.
Please.
I am aware that the measurements would change. “Old news”.
You clearly stated that these measurements were responsible for crumbling “another pillar of the AGW/ACO2/CAGW hypotheses”.
Somehow I missed the part where you stated that these measurements will change when making that comment.
Put up or shut up.
EM, some things are so obvious they need not be said. You are locked into some semantical game in your own mind that has no value nor relationship to the real world. It is just another strawman argument to hide your failure to understand the fundamentals.
I doubt seriously you know what kind of changes that will occur to these original data. Here’s a hint: adjustments, new data added, and they will be averaged with new data.
What is truly “old” in your commentary is the arrogance, nastiness and ignorance of the fundamentals of which you choose to comment. In this case Google is not your friend.
Brother,
The internet prevents any real arrogance.
Your arguments are all worthless. And if you are not getting paid for your continual dissemination of non scientific garbage on this site, you are truly hopeless.
All any denier has to do is to show how the rise of PPM of CO2 has risen over 100 due to natural causes over the past century to stop the AGW scientists from their conclusions.
A Nobel prize is waiting for anyone who can do so.
You ain’t it.
But maybe in the collection of cretins you have chosen to ally yourself with there may be someone who can.
I doubt it, since $50 million a year from the fossil fuel industry has not even tried to do it, instead relying on pr to show it is not man made. And relying on pimps like you to spread nonsense.
Out pops the NASTINESS!
At least you are starting to thrash around the importance of these data. IF (and that may be an important if) the measurements continue to show the stark difference from what the climate scientists perceived was the CO2 cycle as shown in the NASA video, then nature would have AGAIN shown how bad is/was the science.
You seem to think $50M is a big investment. IIRC just the US invested ~$29 Billion in in just one year under Obama.
Please.
Stop trying to compare actions to PR.
In all honesty, there is no level of “nastiness” in this situation.
You and your cohorts are responsible for delaying actions that will save the human race from dealing with a real problem.
Funny, no response regarding finding a natural source(s) for the increased CO2.
Probably because the greatest climate scientists in the world have spent most of their time looking for exactly that, and could not find it.
Even the ultimate demon to deniers, Michael Mann, spent most of his time trying to find it(and was a hero to your ilk in his early days) and could not do so.
You people have figured out(see Luntz) how easy it is to just find one shred of doubt that convinces the weak minded that AGW is not real.
As opposed to actually finding out the truth.
I do not not which I revile people of your ilk more, the fact that you refuse the truth, or the fact that you refuse to search for the truth.
You are a sad human being, retired with your computers and refusing to see.
EM, you claimed: “Funny, no response regarding finding a natural source(s) for the increased CO2.” Think back to what I said in my first comment re: the OCO
EM, you claimed: “Funny, no response regarding finding a natural source(s) for the increased CO2.” Think back to what I said in my first comment re: the OCO2 satellite. The natural source of atmospheric CO2 is just one of the pillars threatened by this data.
Compared to the previous understanding by climate scientists of the carbon cycle, the OCO2 data clearly show how badly it was/is understood. Another pillar of the climate scientists hypothesis threatened.
Your commenting is represented by this comment from WUWT:
”
CR Carlson
January 2, 2015 at 3:11 am
Certain researchers and CAGW advocates may just ignore this evidence, as they often do any with empirical evidence that’s contrary to their agendas. I hardly ever read how human’s paltry 3% contribution to the 0.04% total atmospheric CO2 can have any effect and since it’s highly doubtful that CO2 has any significant effect on global temps anyway………. ” You are ignoring this OCO2 data. focusing on MODELED predictions that have not come true.
You are challenged to find the few climate predictions/projections that have actually occurred. The number of failures is mountainous and growing.
Let me correct some of your dialogue:
“…(TRUE BELIEVERS (religious zealots) are incapable) of find(ing) one shred of doubt that convinces the weak minded that AGW is not real.
As opposed to actually finding out the truth, (they remain in DENIAL of the developing data….) the fact that you refuse the truth, or the fact that you refuse to search for the truth (are full throated examples of the zealosy).”
Moreover, your personal nastiness in your commenting needs to be challenged. It is so natural to your warped view, it becomes a shell to protect you from dissenting comments and from actually thinking.