Nenana Ice Classic is over for 2017

The Nenana Ice classic is a non-profit corporation formed by the residents of Nenana, Alaska, for the purpose of conducting an annual ice pool contest under special statutory authority enacted the first state legislature in 1960. The Association was incorporated by the State of Alaska in December 1972. Previously it had operated as an unincorporated association.

The idea is to guess the exact time of the ice break-up on the nenana river
This contest has been running since 1917 and consequently gives an idea of thermal conditions on the river over time. Unless dynamite is used(!) the time of breakup is difficult to contest and calling "Fraud" even more contentious.

Three plots are given 2 timed from the start of the year and one from the vernal equinox (the latter uses a fixed point in solar time).

Looks like the break up occurred at a time predicted by the slope of the average


Arctic Sea Ice to December 2016

First plot shows rate of change per day - Note wild fluctuations from October
Second plot show Extent on day of year - A few have line fits which show that the extent reduction is a reasonable fit to a straight line
The final plot shows the usual plus a rate of change per year.


Yet more Hyped up FOI'd Emails - George Mason University

Such invalid posts on blogs and the CEI site:


National Campaign led by AG’s to Use RICO Against ‘Climate Skeptics’ will be Revealed in Released E-mails


RICO-20 Campaign Against Sceptical Climate Scientists Revealed In Emails


BREAKING: CEI Defeats RICO-20 Ringleader Shukla In FOIA Lawsuit – Emails to be are made public

First a look at wuwt:
Watts comment in the editorial (in red)

And from one of his minions (not towing the line)

So what is the correct thing to do go private and "circumvent" foi???

What's it all about.
Well it seems to be about supporting a RICO case against corporations (in a similar attack made on tobacco firms who initially denied that nicotine was addictive and claimed tobacco smoking was not harmful)

So where does an attack on climate change dissenters come into this? Its certainly not obvious to me! What it looks like is a way to get corporations to come clean about what they know about climate change and fossil fuels, and to do it under oath facing a judge.

What do those people supporting the RICO case say - which dissenting climate scientists are they trying to muzzle. Let's see an email:

How have some of these dissenters who have NOT been attacked respond:

Strange that it is more like the dissenters are trying to muzzle the  RICO 20 right to free speech!

So how is this being taken by the public:

And the hate gets so bad that Prof Jagadish Shukla begins to think he should retract the letter but is convinced he should let it roll:

What is it all about?
The letter in question does not suggest criminalising climate change dissenters.
RICO is a fact finding rather than criminal investigation.

Still if you shout falsehoods loudly enough on the web your words will be heard by millions and repeated as true facts -



Nenana Ice Break Up Occurred 2016-04-24 15:39:00

The Annual Nenana Ice Classic is Over for Another Year
The Tanana River officially broke up on 2016-04-24 at  15:39:00

 2 plots as usual
one timed from start of year

this one timed from vernal equinox

Still declining! 



What I cannot understand about Professor Robert Brown of Duke University.

A post at wuwt data fudging / incompetence:
Problematic Adjustments And Divergences (Now Includes June Data)

Rgbatduke June 10, 2015 at 5:52 am [the full entry]

The two data sets should not be diverging, period, unless everything we understand about atmospheric thermal dynamics is wrong. That is, I will add my “opinion” to Werner’s and point out that it is based on simple atmospheric physics taught in any relevant textbook.

This does not mean that they cannot and are not systematically differing; it just means that the growing difference is strong evidence of bias in the computation of the surface record. This bias is not really surprising, given that every new version of HadCRUT and GISS has had the overall effect of cooling the past and/or warming the present! This is as unlikely as flipping a coin (at this point) ten or twelve times each, and having it come up heads every time for both products. In fact, if one formulates the null hypothesis “the global surface temperature anomaly corrections are unbiased”, the p-value of this hypothesis is less than 0.01, let alone 0.05. If one considers both of the major products collectively, it is less than 0.001. IMO, there is absolutely no question that GISS and HadCRUT, at least, are at this point hopelessly corrupted.

One way in which they are corrupted with the well-known Urban Heat Island effect, wherein urban data or data from poorly sited weather stations shows local warming that does not accurately reflect the spatial average surface temperature in the surrounding countryside. This effect is substantial, and clearly visible if you visit e.g. Weather Underground and look at the temperature distributions from personal weather stations in an area that includes both in-town and rural PWSs. The city temperatures (and sometimes a few isolated PWSs) show a consistent temperature 1 to 2 C higher than the surrounding country temperatures. Airport temperatures often have this problem as well, as the temperatures they report come from stations that are deliberately sited right next to large asphalt runways, as they are primarily used by pilots and air traffic controllers to help planes land safely, and only secondarily are the temperatures they report almost invariably used as “the official temperature” of their location. Anthony has done a fair bit of systematic work on this, and it is a serious problem corrupting all of the major ground surface temperature anomalies.

The problem with the UHI is that it continues to systematically increase independent of what the climate is doing. Urban centers continue to grow, more shopping centers continue to be built, more roadway is laid down, more vehicle exhaust and household furnace exhaust and water vapor from watering lawns bumps greenhouse gases in a poorly-mixed blanket over the city and suburbs proper, and their perimeter extends, increasing the distance between the poorly sited official weather stations and the nearest actual unbiased countryside.

HadCRUT does not correct in any way for UHI. If it did, the correction would be the more or less uniform subtraction of a trend proportional to global population across the entire data set. This correction, of course, would be a cooling correction, not a warming correction, and while it is impossible to tell how large it is without working through the unknown details of how HadCRUT is computed and from what data (and without using e.g. the PWS field to build a topological correction field, as UHI corrupts even well-sited official stations compared to the lower troposphere temperatures that are a much better estimator of the true areal average) IMO it would knock at least 0.3 C off of 2015 relative to 1850, and would knock off around 0.1 C off of 2015 relative to 1980 (as the number of corrupted stations and the magnitude of the error is not linear — it is heavily loaded in the recent past as population increases exponentially and global wealth reflected in “urbanization” has outpaced the population).

GISS is even worse. They do correct for UHI, but somehow, after they got through with UHI the correction ended up being neutral to negative. That’s right, UHI, which is the urban heat island effect, something that has to strictly cool present temperatures relative to past ones in unbiased estimation of global temperatures ended up warming them instead. Learning that left me speechless, and in awe of the team that did it. I want them to do my taxes for me. I’ll end up with the government owing me money.
However, in science, this leaves both GISS and HadCRUT (and any of the other temperature estimates that play similar games) with a serious, serious problem. Sure, they can get headlines out of rewriting the present and erasing the hiatus/pause. They might please their political masters and allow them to convince a skeptical (and sensible!) public that we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to unilaterally eliminate the emission of carbon dioxide, escalating to a trillion a year, sustained, if we decide that we have to “help” the rest of the world do the same. They might get the warm fuzzies themselves from the belief that their scientific mendacity serves the higher purpose of “saving the planet”. But science itself is indifferent to their human wishes or needs! A continuing divergence between any major temperature index and RSS/UAH is inconceivable and simple proof that the major temperature indices are corrupt.

Right now, to be frank, the divergence is already large enough to be raising eyebrows, and is concealed only by the fact that RSS/UAH only have a 35+ year base. If the owners of HadCRUT and GISSTEMP had the sense god gave a goose, they’d be working feverishly to cool the present to better match the satellites, not warm it and increase the already growing divergence because no atmospheric physicist is going to buy a systematic divergence between the two, as Werner has pointed out, given that both are necessarily linked by the Adiabatic Lapse Rate which is both well understood and directly measurable and measured (via e.g. weather balloon soundings) more than often enough to validate that it accurately links surface temperatures and lower troposphere temperatures in a predictable way. The lapse rate is (on average) 6.5 C/km. Lower Troposphere temperatures from e.g. RSS sample predominantly the layer of atmosphere centered roughly 1.5 km above the ground, and by their nature smooth over both height and surrounding area (that is, they don’t measure temperatures at points, they directly measure a volume averaged temperature above an area on the surface. They by their nature give the correct weight to the local warming above urban areas in the actual global anomaly, and really should also be corrected to estimate the CO_2 linked warming, or rather the latter should be estimated only from unbiased rural areas or better yet, completely unpopulated areas like the Sahara desert (where it isn’t likely to be mixed with much confounding water vapor feedback).

RSS and UAH are directly and regularly confirmed by balloon soundings and, over time, each other. They are not unconstrained or unchecked. They are generally accepted as accurate representations of LTT’s (and the atmospheric temperature profile in general).
The question remains as to how accurate/precise they are. RSS uses a sophisticated Monte Carlo process to assess error bounds, and eyeballing it suggests that it is likely to be accurate to 0.1-0.2 C month to month (similar to error claims for HadCRUT4) but much more accurate than this when smoothed over months or years to estimate a trend as the error is generally expected to be unbiased. Again this ought to be true for HadCRUT4, but all this ends up meaning is that a trend difference is a serious problem in the consistency of the two estimators given that they must be linked by the ALR and the precision is adequate even month by month to make it well over 95% certain that they are not, not monthly and not on average.

If they grow any more, I would predict that the current mutter about the anomaly between the anomalies will grow to an absolute roar, and will not go away until the anomaly anomaly is resolved. The resolution process — if the gods are good to us — will involve a serious appraisal of the actual series of “corrections” to HadCRUT and GISSTEMP, reveal to the public eye that they have somehow always been warming ones, reveal the fact that UHI is ignored or computed to be negative, and with any luck find definitive evidence of specific thumbs placed on these important scales. HadCRUT5 might — just might — end up being corrected down by the ~0.3 C that has probably been added to it or erroneously computed in it over time.

What I would like RGB to answer is:

He is basically stating that all major providers of temperature series of either
1 being incompetent
2 purposefully changing the data to match their belief.

IF 1. How can so many intelligent educated people be so incompetent. This seems very unlikely. Have he approached the scientists concerned and shown them where they are in error. If not, Why not?
IF 2. This is a serious accusation of scientific fraud. As such have he approached any of the scientists involved and asked for an explanation? If not, why not? he is part of the same scientific community.
Can he give reasons why he thinks scientists over the whole globe would all be party to the same fraud. Do climate scientists live in luxury mansions taking expensive family holidays - perhaps he could provide proof?. What manages to keep so many scientists in line - are there families/careers/lives threated to maintain the silence. why is there no Julian Assange or Edward Snowden, willing to expose them?


Lightning Photos

Best storm for decades (that I have seen) - about 4 hours of rapid strikes from midnight on 3rd July 2015 near Great Yarmouth

1st strike after forks

3rd strike after forks

forks and first strike combined (coloured green)

All pictures taken using same zoom from a video


The Annual Nenana Ice Classic is Over for Another Year

After an initial movement 2 days ago an ice-jam prevented full movement of the tripod and the clock was not stopped. However, the Tanana River officially broke up on April 24th at 2:25 P.M. Alaska Standard Time.


Tripod moved but not moving

Not free of ice but no more tripod:

So how does this extended date fit in with previous data.

2 plots
one timed from start of year

this one timed from vernal equinox

Seems to be following a declining period with a few early peaks


WUWT Claim: NOAA demands $262,000 fee for looking at their ‘public’ data - more stretching of the truth!

WUWT article title:
Outrageous: NOAA demands $262,000 fee for looking at their ‘public’ data
Anthony Watts / 1 hour ago March 27, 2015
March 27, 2015
Eric Worrall writes: It looks like NOAA have found a new way to stifle FOIA inquiries from the public. According to Steve Goddard, NOAA have just demanded a $262,000 administrative fee for zipping up a few raw data files.
I think most would agree this is totally over the top pricing. A few old data files a few programmes - a few seconds work.


What had they asked for?

Well this is from the NOAA response:
The National Environmental Information Center (which includes the former National Climatic Data Center) has access to a subset of the requested records. Very few if any letters, phone logs, memos, and other communications on this subject would be available. Historical internal and external emails are archived, though they are expensive to access and analyze due to unsupported technology.

As data stewardship – including homogeneity adjustments – has been central to NCDC’s mission for decades, determining which records are responsive to this extremely broad request will require significant resources. Responding to this part of the request would require retrieving, reviewing, and packaging many tens of thousands of items in at least 29 years of communications, if they can be located.
For investigating availability of items and code, some from obsolescent systems, evaluating content, and screening for non-responsive, deliberative, or personally identifying information, I estimate the following Federal-equivalent labor classes, durations and costs. The actual personnel, and sources of labor (Federal or contracted), would depend on conditions and workforce options available at the specific project start time.

So seems like more than a few data files.

From Goddards blog it seems that this is what is asked for:

kentclizbe says:

This message is to confirm your request submission to the FOIAonline application: View Request. Request information is as follows:
• Tracking Number: DOC-NOAA-2014-001602
• Requester Name: Kent Clizbe
• Date Submitted: 09/07/2014
• Request Status: Submitted
• Description: 1. Temperature Data Record Adjustments: Rationale, Methodology, Discussions–USG employees and others
For the NOAA/National Climactic Data Center: Please provide Internal and external e-mails, letters, phone logs, memos, and other communications, from, to, and between: government employees, external consultants, experts, advisors, or other parties regarding the rationale, methodology, and other issues concerning adjustments/homogenization or other changes to both the US and global temperature record data, from the beginning of the adjustments through today.
2. Temperature Data Computer Code Used to Process/Adjust/Homogenize US Temperature Data
Please provide the complete source code used for processing raw US temperature data.
Everything except the toilet paper again . see http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/schnare-vs-uva-impossible-request.html for something similar.
Do they think that this is easy to obtain?
You cannot just zip emails and send since there may be personal information included.
You have to employ people to read and approve and redact addresses.
Then of course there is the problem of changing technology - from NOAA comments email backups are available but not in a format currently readable. - so find the hardware - write an interface - sort through the myriad of emails that dot do not contain private comms. This is not simple search and zip as Goddard suggests.
As an example WUWT carried an article about retrieving photos from 1960s NASA missions:
A message from Dennis Wingo:
The Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP), is a NASA ESMD funded project to recover the original Lunar Orbiter analog data which was recorded on an Ampex FR-900 2″ video instrumentation recorder.  As far as we know, we have the last surviving drives of this type in the world.  We have retired Ampex engineers working with us on this project but the FR-900 was a limited use machine (exclusively the U.S. government at the FAA, USAF, NASA).
What we need is to find any possible source of documentation (we know about the Stanford Archive and have been there many times) for the FR-900 or the possibility of actual machines...
This is what one section of NOAA were using in the 80s/90s.
Would they be backing up things like emails when data storage was so expensive? Would they be transferring irrelevant data like emails to new storage media?
Would they still have those tape drives/optical drives (not CDs but 12" disks)?
Date System Installed: NOAA's satellite data processing and storage system became operational in September 1990.
System Installed by: Integrator/Vendor.
NOAA's data storage system components include:
  • Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) VAX 8530 computer system with 96 MB memory and floating point accelerator, 4 VUP (speed).
  • VAX 11-785 computer system with 64 MB of memory and floating point accelerator, 1.7 VUP (speed).
  • VAX 6000-510 computer system with 128 MB of memory and floating point accelerator, 13 VUP (speed).
  • Data communications network including Star Coupler configuration and Ethernet (Ethernet Server-16 ports); router to Internet, NASA, DAMUS, and NOAA backbone.
  • User workstations consisting of 48 PCs.
  • Multiple banks of magnetic hard disks, 9-track magnetic tape (800, 1600, 6250 bpi) drives, square tape (240 MB), and tape cartridge drives (5.2 GB and 2.3 GB).
  • Sony optical disk jukebox; 50 disk capacity (50 x 6.0 GB disks).
  • Technical system documentation, UPS power supply, and on-site systems maintenance staff.


Levelised Cost Of Energy

 Costs by generation type:

Wind vs Time

PV vs time

Coal and gas vs time

It seems that coal and gas are rising with time whilst renewable are falling.
From these figures it appears that wind is now generating at a cost similar to coal and gas without carbon capture and storage.

Data from World Energy Perspective  Cost of Energy Technologies
Published by World Energy Council in 2013

The only data on wind turbine build and running cost I have found is here




Satellite Temperatures

A post from Spencer:

Why Do Different Satellite Datasets Produce Different Global Temperature Trends?

January 6th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I thought it would be useful to again outline the basic reasons why different satellite global temperature datasets (say, UAH and RSS) produce somewhat different temperature trends.
They all stem from the fact that there is not a single satellite which has been operating continuously, in a stable orbit, measuring a constant layer of the atmosphere, at the same local time every day, with no instrumental calibration drifts.
Instead, what we have is multiple satellites (we use 14 of them for the UAH processing) with relatively short lifetimes (2 to 16+ years), most of which have decaying orbits which causes the local time of measurement to slowly change over the years, slightly different layers sampled by the earlier (pre-1998) MSU instruments compared to the later (post-1998) AMSU instruments, and some evidence of small calibration drifts in a few of the instruments.
An additional complication is that subsequent satellites are launched into alternating sun-synchronous orbit times, nominally 1:30 a.m. and p.m., then 7:30 a.m. and p.m., then back to 1:30 a.m. and p.m., etc. Furthermore, as the instruments scan across the Earth, the altitude in the atmosphere that is sampled changes as the Earth incidence angle of view changes.
All of these effects must be accounted for, and there is no demonstrably “best” method to handle any of them. For example, RSS uses a climate model to correct for the changing time of day the observations are made (the so-called diurnal drift problem), while we use an empirical approach. This correction is particularly difficult because it varies with geographic location, time of year, terrain altitude, etc. RSS does not use exactly the same satellites as we do, nor do they use the same formula for computing a lower tropospheric (“LT”) layer temperature from the different view angles of AMSU channel 5.
We have been working hard on producing our new Version 6 dataset, revamping virtually all of the processing steps, and it has taken much longer than expected. We have learned a lot over the years, but with only 2-3 people working part time with very little funding, progress is slow.
In just the last month, we have had what amounts to a paradigm shift on how to analyze the data. We are very hopeful that the resulting dataset will be demonstrably better than our current version. Only time will tell.

Basically he is saying that ALL satellite temperature are models with various bodges to correct for satellite inconsistencies.

This generated a post:
David A says:
“So you are saying that all satellite temperatures are models with a few bodges added?”
Of course. The satellites aren’t measuring temperatures, they’re measuring microwaves. It takes a data model to convert those into temperatures…. He’s a description of RSS’s algorithm; it’s quite complex:
“Climate Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (C-ATBD)”
RSS Version 3.3 MSU/AMSU-A Mean Layer Atmospheric Temperature
It’s not clear to me why satellite temperatures are said to be clean and exact while surface measurements are not….

followed by a post from Spencer:

Roy Spencer says:
Franco, not in the case of microwave emission in the 50-60 GHz range, which depends on the concentration of molecular oxygen, which is extremely stable in space and time (unlike CO2).

I then tried to post a comment only to find I have seemingly been banned:
CO2 and O2 are linked as one would expect so O2 is not constant see the post here
(repeat post as 1st got trashed.

This linked to a post on this blog with the following plot:

O2 is not constant over a year and continually falls over the period shown (it's locked to co2 cycle!). If Spencer believes O2 is constant then perhaps this is a source of error in his UAH measurements!!

Additional info on oxygen plot:


The primary O2/N2 reference gases (or ‘primaries’) used at Scripps consist of 12 tanks filled between 1986 and 1989, and an additional set of six filled between 1993 and 1994, as summarized
in .....
The large size of the atmospheric O2 reservoir makes measurements of the relatively small changes in O2 concentration challenging. Resolving a land biotic sink of 2 Pg C requires the
ability to detect a change of ∼1.8 × 1014 moles in the global O2 abundance, which corresponds to 0.000 49% of the total burden of O2 in the atmosphere. Changes in O2 concentration are
typically expressed in terms of the relative change in O2/N2 ratio δ(O2/N2) = (O2/N2)sample/ O2/N2)reference − 1, where δ(O2/N2) is multiplied by 10e6 and expressed in ‘per meg’ units. In these units, a change of 1.8×10e14 moles in the globalO2 abundance corresponds to a change of 4.9 per meg. In spite of the measurement challenge, there are now at least six independent
O2 measurement techniques in use that have demonstrated a precision at the level 6 per meg or better (Keeling, 1988a; Bender et al., 1994; Manning et al., 1999; Tohjima, 2000; Stephens et al., 2003; Stephens et al., 2006), and these methods are being variously applied for flask or in situ  measurements by at least 12 scientific institutions.


RSS TLT data from whole monthly record

Using the full monthly data set from RSS lower troposphere temperature (Often truncated to 1996 to latest to show no temperature rise - see wuwt and Monkton).

continental us data when smoothed is same as +-80° global
slope is 0.01°C/year


EU and Stupid Regulations?

The "latest" EU regulation will limit the power of vacuum cleaner to 1.6kW and eventually 900W. Is this really a problem?

First the response from the "best" worst website on the net WUWT:

From Watts:
One more reason to dump the EU- they are going to make criminals out of average people who just want to keep their home clean. – Anthony

Eric Worrall says: August 22, 2014 at 9:46 pm  

 In a totalitarian state, the measure of your power is how much misery you can cause

dp says:    August 22, 2014 at 10:40 pm  
It’s just starting. A utopian’s work is never done. Ever. The EU is the new and improved 1000 year reich. This is what happens when none of your founding documents begin with “We the people…”. 

Jim G says: August 22, 2014 at 10:51 pm  
And now, from the people who brought you RoHS. 

but then at last there is sense

SidF says: August 23, 2014 at 2:28 am  

I have a 1400 W Dyson that has very strong suction, so much so that on older carpets it can difficult to push. So 1600 W should be more than enough for a well designed cleaner. Dyson led the way in the transition to more efficient cyclone bagless cleaners and now dominate the UK market. The Hoover brand in the UK is owned by Candy, an Italian washing machine and white goods company and their floor cleaners are probably designed and made outside the UK. Hoover cleaners were very slow to adopt cyclones as the throw away bag filter was the most profitable part of the product offering.
I would think only a very small proportion of cleaners on the UK market are over 1400 W.
Not everything the EU does will be big money savers though. Some things are, such as the requirement to limit stand by power consumption on some home electronics to 1 W. I have a small older Sony hi fi that consumes 25 W on stand by….so the EU must have made some bif power savings there.
And haven’t they mandated that all phone chargers are mini USB to stop the proliferation of different charger connectiors we used to have? 

Now from the manufacturers:

Dyson http://www.dyson.co.uk/energy-ratings.aspx

Leading the campaign for efficient motors. 
Dyson has never engineered a machine with a motor rated higher than 1600W. We campaigned for motor wattage caps for vacuum cleaners, and welcome the fact that the energy label will introduce a maximum power input for new vacuum cleaners, capping motors at 1600W in order to reduce their electricity usage.

from a Hoover info page:
Motor size (new) 700 W (watts)
Motor size (new)850 W (watts)
Samsung seem to have a design problem (2.1kW)
Numatic Henry
power between 800 and 2200W
It seems to me that there is no problem with 1.6kW motors and even 900W motors. The design is the thing. and some people are better at design than others!
So in all it seems that the new EU regulation is not going to cause longer use of the cleaner it will simply stop inefficient design.
However it will not save much energy - using Dysons figures
Dyson has always shown that through efficient engineering, high performance can be achieved with low power – and we’re trying to encourage others to do the same. We have successfully lobbied the European Union to introduce a cap on the size of vacuum motors from 2014. The estimated energy savings from the EU Ecodesign and Energy Labelling measures for vacuum cleaners amount to 19 Terawatt hours of electricity per year by 2020. This corresponds to an estimated 8 million tons of CO2

19 Terra watt hours (19e12) sounds a lot but this equates to  2.2GW  generator running continuously. I.e. a couple of power stations over the whole of the  EU

The regulation of maximum standby power to less than 1W on things like wall-warts TVs satellite receivers, hi-fi etc save perhaps more than 750MW power per year in UK alone.

The comment on RoHS from the watts site is just plain ludicrous. The proliferation of electronics in society and the " I  must have the new best" throw-away culture would mean Lead pollution. The requirement for manufacturers to take back and recycle the stuff to me just makes sense.

The CE mark (which does not mean China Export!!) SHOULD guarantee that the item you purchased conforms to EU safety and EMC requirements and the benefit to society should be obvious. It does require more testing and proving - and hence higher cost - to the manufacturer but again the benefits are worth it.
Without such regulations the west would be fighting fog and pollution as China is today. No manufacturer would comply without government regulation (why should I lose profit when other companies are not) following the low pollution course) 


What ever you do - do not get your science from the heartland institute

A short video here from heartland doing the usual :
  • All climate scientists are communists
  • All climate scientists want you to live in a fuel impoverished future
  • All climate scientists want you all to die!

Has the most ridiculous graphic yet seen:
Now you see it

Now you don't

And these are scienists you are supposed to believe!


Good Lord - this is unbelievable.

From the Mending fences thread at wuwt:

Monckton of Brenchley says:

Mr Eschenbach continues to be entirely unreasonable. I shall not reply to him further.
Mr Svalgaard will likewise not tempt me to make any replies here. The matter of his conduct is now with my lawyers for their advice and will in due course be drawn to the attention of his university.
Both these two have unjustifiably maligned Dr Evans in the most unpleasant and unjustifiable terms. That is a shame.

lsvalgaard says:

Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 19, 2014 at 4:51 pm
Mr Eschenbach continues to be entirely unreasonable. I shall not reply to him further.
It seems you have found a willing stooge in the unpleasant ‘Richard D’.

Richard D says:
Monckton of Brenchley says: July 19, 2014 at 4:51 pm
The matter of his conduct is now with my lawyers for their advice and will in due course be drawn to the attention of his university.

and on the blog that does not stop people posting:

lsvalgaard says:

[snip - OK enough of this pissing match, the thread is about mending fences, not bashing heads. Kindly dial it back please, and that's not just Leif, all of you. - Anthony]

Anthony Watts says:

NOTE: Everybody take a time out. I’m closing this thread for awhile because it is just turning into a war of words about other people, not the science at hand.


The Brenchleys, Mcintyres, and  Watts of this scene have thrown the "fraud" word about with abandon when they talk of climate scientists and climate research. But when it happens to one of their own then the courts will be used and the scientist's employers will be informed.
It's nice to know free speech is alive and kicking! 


More 3D images from ISS

Just a couple more images showing good cloud depth. Only cross eyed versions posted (Click for larger image)


A strange situation at wuwt - just who can defame and who can sue

The blog controlled by Watts with an iron hand against any "warmist" commenters has got completely out of hand on this thread with respect to his normal acolytes.:

A Cool Question, Answered?

Guest essay by David Archibald

an example:
Monckton of Brenchley says:
However, I have been free to put the other side of the case and, in those circumstances, no action against the blog would be likely to succeed: nor, in those circumstances (nor in any foreseeable circumstances, for our kind host has been remarkably kind and generous to me) would I dream of suing the blog. 
One of the many features of this case that struck the lawyer was the persistence of the perpetrators of the libels when they had been warned off. The courts, he said, would start by taking particular umbrage at any allegation of criminality or dishonesty made against a scientist, whose reputation for honesty is part of his stock-in-trade. But they would be very angry indeed – and that anger would be reflected in the damages – on seeing the sullen determination of the perpetrators, even after it would have become blindingly obvious to the reasonable man that they had no basis for alleging dishonesty, to continue to allege it.
It may have come as something of a surprise to some here that the law applies just as much to widely-circulated blogs as it does to widely-circulated newspapers. But it does. If Dr Evans were minded to pursue this to court, and if he could spare the time from his research to do so, there is only one circumstance – a certain sensitivity in this affair which I came across on analyzing what the perpetrators had said about Dr Evans – in which a judge or jury might not award very substantial damages. And it is precisely to give the principal perpetrator the advantage of that circumstance, in the interest of justice, that I shall be writing to his university once the dust has settled.

(My bolding)

Brenchley has threatened Leif Svalgaard by writing to his university:

This matter now passes to the authorities at the university with which Mr Svalgaard is associated, whose policy on good conduct Mr Svalgaard has grievously breached. I am asking the university to intervene with Mr Svalgaard in the hope that he can persuade him to apologize to Dr Evans and to moderate his language in future.

He has threatened Leif and others with expensive defamation cases:
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 2, 2014 at 2:02 am
The legal position is now clearer. A grave libel has been committed – not, as I had thought, by only one person here, but by several. It has been persisted in after warnings to desist. The libel is based on a failure to pay close attention to what has already been revealed of Dr Evans’ work, and on a failure to wait for the imminent full disclosure before making serious criminal allegations, which have already begun to be repeated by others.

and summarised by Leif:
lsvalgaard says:

Here is a collection of comments [unbecoming a gentleman] by Mr Evans’ sidekick:
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:44 pm
He is a quack, not a scientist. This was not inadvertence on his part: it was plain wickedness. Nothing he ever says again on any scientific subject can or will be taken seriously. He is finished, dead by his own hand.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Mr Svalgaard can no longer be taken seriously as a scientist.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:47 pm
There are certain minimum standards in scientific discourse, and Mr Svalgaard, here as all too often before, has fallen well below them.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Mr Svalgaard is using incorrect data. Plainly he has an agenda.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 30, 2014 at 8:23 am
the rude, hate-filled comments of Mr Svalgaard.

the whole thread is a larf and well worth reading.!!!!!!!!!!! (before the post removal starts!)

Now all this seems so like the Mann defamation actions. Mann is simply defending his reputation as a scientist - his livelihood depends on this. Just how often has the watts blog called him a fraud?
So how can Watts accept the machinations of Brenchley but then write so many articles critical of Manns actions?


DIY stereo image of earth from ISS

Here's a simple method for capturing 3-d images of the earth from the live streaming video from the ISS. The method does rely on you being able to cross or uncross your eyes to obtain a single image from two.
The cross eye method.
  • Place the 2 images at sensible viewing distance with dark, uncluttered  background. these should be side by side with edges parallel. 
  • Cross your eyes as if you are looking at the end of your nose.
  • Slowly concentrate your brain on the confusion of images of the stereo pair.
  • Gradually uncross your eyes until your brain sees 3 distinct images.
  • Move your eyes and head until the centre image of the three is a single combined as one.
  • Then use your brain to decipher the 3D.
If you're that way inclined you can try the alternative stare straight ahead method (I cannot do it!)
How to get the images.
go here:
  • Do a screen capture of the NASA video place it in an editor.
  • After a perhaps 20 seconds (chose what works best for you) capture another image
  • Crop both pictures to the video and rotate them 90 degrees
  • Place side by side
  • Do the eyeball stuff.
 It probably works best on the downward facing camera (not often used) - example shown below - note that picture has been cropped to show similar location.
If the screen capture captures every extended screen on your computer the press [ALT] [print screen] with the video page selected.
You can of course use the full screen mode of the video and screen capture that.

Of course it is not very good stereo there's too much distance to the subject!

First here's one for cross eye viewing from downward camera

cross eyed view for downwarsd facing camera (US) CLICK to ENLARGE image
Australia using maximum baseline=max 3d

cross eyed view for downwarsd facing camera (africa) CLICK to ENLARGE image

cross eye - good depth of clouds

An  image (west coast South America)
straight ahead


It never ceases to amaze me at the short-sightedness/ignorance/selfishness of wuwt denizens

in a post called

The Botox generation explanation for climate change fear

Eric Worrall says:

About species adaption – in the South of Australia, you see seagulls everywhere, eating scraps, pecking for bugs, surviving, thriving.
Up here in the warmer North, you see hardly any seagulls – instead you sea Ibises everywhere, eating scraps, pecking for bugs, surviving, thriving.
Even further North, closer to the Equator, Ibises give way to birds of paradise.
Does it really make a pink fig of difference to my life, what kind of bird pecks at the bugs on my lawn?

bwanajohn says:

Poor Rod, he must live in a climatically controlled environment and never, ever go outside. Rod, here’s a clue – most species experience >delta 4C every day. What makes you think they can’t adapt over 100+ years?

Eamon Butler says:
I’m assuming Rod is a minor, but I hope he has learned a valuable lesson here. You can rest assured, young man, there is no scary climate monster hiding under your bed. Tell your friends about how you learned some real science here on WUWT.
I do not think anyone believes that human life on earth will be threatened but perhaps many will suffer.
4°C is talked about here. If this is just all that happens then it is obvious that there will still be ice in Antarctica and perhaps some northern latitudes will be, assuming T rise is all that happens, more pleasant.
However, the simple 4°C rise will make equatorial living very unpleasant. Life here will try to migrate into cooler climates. And of course most of the wuwt denizens would be against any form of immigration from the third world!
But 4°C is not all that will happen
  • Precipitation will change, more snow more rain in some places,
  • Storms fed from a higher energy system will be more extreme - let's see trees pull up roots and move to a safer location.
  • Greenland ice cap will shrink and sea levels will rise.
  • etc
Nothing too catastrophic but certainly no pleasant or cheap to adapt to.

But the wuwt denizens seemingly are unable to see beyond "I'm cold so 4°C warmer will make life for ME more pleasant"
They are incapable of seeing beyond their own back yard, their own family, their own wallet, their own lifetime. "I'm all right, Jack"


The Bengtsson Affair - Part 2

A response from Bengtsson is given in Uppsalainitiativet blog


Guest post by Lennart Bengtsson: My view on climate research
In a series of recent blog posts, we in Uppsalainitiativet have sharply criticized meteorologist and climate scientist professor Lennart Bengtsson (post 1, post 2, post 3). In this situation we feel that it is reasonable to provide Bengtsson with an opportunity to respond to our criticism, so when he contacted us and offered to clarify his views on climate research we of course gave him the opportunity to do so on our blog. Below is an English translation of Bengtsson's text, approved by him and published with his permission. It goes without saying that our translation and publication of this text in no way means that we endorse the views expressed in it.

* * *

My view on climate research

Lennart Bengtsson

During the last weeks there has been a lot of speculation regarding my views and my scientific standpoint on climate research. I have never really sought publicity and it was with a great deal of reluctance that I began writing articles for public media. A large part of my unwillingness to partake in public debate is connected to my friend Sven Öhman, a linguist who wrote about semantics and not least about the difficulties specialists run into when attempting to communicate with the public. Words and concepts have different meanings and are interpreted differently depending on one’s background and knowledge. Sometimes such misunderstanding can be disastrous.

This is also true for concepts such as climate and climate forecasts. Climate is nothing but the sum of all weather events during some representative period of time. The length of this period cannot be strictly specified, but ought to encompass at least 100 years. Nonetheless, for practical purposes meteorologists have used 30 years. For this reason alone it can be hard to determine whether the climate is changing or not, as data series that are both long enough and homogenous are often lacking. An inspection of the weather in Uppsala since 1722 exemplifies this. Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect.

Despite all these issues, climate research has progressed greatly, above all through new revolutionary observations from space, such as the possibility to measure both volume and mass of the oceans. Temperature and water vapor content of the atmosphere are measured by occultation with GPS satellites. Our knowledge of earlier climate has increased substantially.

It is not surprising that the public is impressed by this and that this trust transfers to climate forecasts and the possibility to predict the earth’s future climate. That all this occurs within a context of international cooperation under the supervision of the UN, and with an apparent unity among the scientists involved has created a robust confidence in IPCC’s climate simulations, in Sweden not the least. SMHI’s [Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute] down-scaled climate simulations for 100 years are impressive and show in detail and with splendid graphics how the climate will turn out both in Östergötland [the Swedish province of East Gothland] and in Västerbotten [West Bothnia]. This is invaluable for municipality climate experts and planners who are working feverishly to avoid future floods and forest fires. The public is in good hands in the benevolent society.

Unfortunately, things are not as splendid as they seem. As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us. It would not help even if we knew the exact amount of greenhouse gases. Add to this the uncertainty about the future of the world. This should be clear to anyone, simply by moving back in time and contemplating what has unfolded from that viewpoint. As Daniel Boorstin put it: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”.

I’m concerned that this is the problem of the present, and the real reason for me to choose to partake in the climate debate over the last couple of years. I don’t think anyone disputes that I have been highly critical of those who completely reject the effects of greenhouse gases on the earth’s climate. This is however not the problem, but rather how much, how soon and to what extent “climate change” will happen. There is no 97% consensus about this, and even less concerning how weather and climate will turn out in Västerbotten [West Bothnia] in 80 years. This is why it unfortunately is misleading of SMHI to show their beautiful maps, because people may actually believe that this is the way the climate will turn out. The climate scientists of SMHI know this, of course, but for the users this is not clear. My colleague in Hamburg, Guy Brasseur, told me the other day that an insignificant change on about 70 km height in a climate model’s mesosphere, made the weather systems relocate from north Germany to the Alps, consequently with radical regional climate change as a result.

Even more alarming is the tendency of giving people the impression that weather events are becoming more extreme, and that this has actually already occurred. Apart from a possible increase in precipitation and a possible intensification of tropical hurricanes that has not yet been detected, there are no indications of extreme weather in the model simulations, and even less so in current observations.

This has convincingly been demonstrated and also held up by the IPCC. Damages are increasing, as are damages from earth quakes, but this due to the growing economy. It is also important to stress that injuries suffered by humans during extreme weather has decreased substantially due to better weather forecasts.

What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect.

Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior. It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic. My colleagues and I have been met with scant understanding when trying to point out that observations indicate lower climate sensitivity than model calculations indicate. Such behavior may not even be intentional but rather attributed to an effect that my colleague Hans von Storch calls a social construct.

That I have taken a stand trying to put the climate debate onto new tracks has resulted in rather violent protests. I have not only been labeled a sceptic but even a denier, and faced harsh criticism from colleagues. Even contemplating my connections with GWPF was deemed unheard of and scandalous.

I find it difficult to believe that the prominent Jewish scientists in the GWPF council appreciate being labeled deniers. The low-point is probably having been labeled “world criminal” by a representative of the English wind power-industry. I want to stress that I am a sworn enemy of the social construction of natural science that has garnered so much traction in the last years. For example, German scientists have attempted to launch what they call “good” science to ensure that natural science shouldn’t be driven by what they view as anti-social curiosity-research by researching things that might not be “good”. Einstein’s "anti-social behavior", when he besides his responsible work as a patent office clerk in Bern also researched on the theory of relativity and the photoelectric effect, was of course reprehensible, and to do this during work-time! Even current labor unions would have strongly condemned this.

I hope that these lines of text will shed light on my viewpoints and my actions and perhaps create some understanding for my motivations.


It is interesting to note that the last few paragraphs are straight from the published ideology of wuwt.


cold weather claimed to be due to GHE

Popper - a falsification experiment using the earth moon sun system is a little bit tricky and to say the least risky. an experiment in a bottle just does not work with such a system. As a scientistperhaps he could have been able to suggest an experiment with climate that would satisfy Popper and return a result in time for any required adjustment in our ecosystem to be accomplished?

Talking about lower sensitivity publically is censored. (no proof given)

labelling with term "denier" (this is a perfectly good English word not ONLY associated with the
Holocaust deniers - "denier" and "Holocaust denier" are not synonymous)


The Bengtsson Affair

He joined the GWPF a climate change dissenting "think tank"
Scientists he may one day have co-authored papers with told him if he stayed with GWPF then they would no longer co-author.
He leaves GWPF and announces to the world:
“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen.

So he cites  "safety" but offers nothing other than " Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc." no statements about threats to mind and body. (he may of course had some but he certainly does not say what they were)

I would not co-author a document on racial tolerance with a the Imperial Wizard of the KKK.
And I hope I would have every right to remove my name if I had inadvertently co-authored with a KKK member.

Someone releases part of, part of one of the referees comments to the papers. This seems to suggest that there is nefarious things afoot in the climate world.
This is then negated by the complete review being published:

Bengtsson gives out this statement:

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, said:
“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.
“I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work“

I was surprised by the strong reaction from some scientists outside the UK to joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation this month. I had hoped that it would be platform to bring more common sense into the global climate debate.

“Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”

Which now suggests that they had every right to not publish.

Many also suggest that the work was not novel and therefore not worth publishing

Another mega manufactured storm in a teacup


The Tanana Ice Classic for 2014 is over.

2014/05/07 Updated with correct date !

The Tanana River officially broke up and the Tripod moved down river stopping the clock at 3:48 PM Alaska Standard Time April 25th, 2014

This makes last years very late breakup seem anomalous. But of course its only weather!

Adding this years figures to the data and you get plots which seems to follow the various global temperature profiles of: warming since 1970s until 1998 then static to present.
People have said the earlier times of the breakup is due to industrialisation upstream of Nenana - However the static/reversed slope seems to show that either industrialisation has reversed or perhaps, maybe, the temperature is having an effect!:

 Top 2 traces show timings from beginning of the year
Final trace is timing from vernal Equinox

All plots use AK time:
The first splits the data into 3 segments
The second assumes that there is no upturn and hence only 2 lines
Smoothing is done with Hodrick Prescott filter from http://www.web-reg.de/hp_addin.html

Breakup data from


Recover Deleted Files in Windows 7


Only the important bits below

What is Restore Previous Versions, exactly?

Introduced in Vista and now present in all editions of Windows 7, previous versions are local backups of every data file and folder that changes on your system.
The backups are created automatically and are instantly accessible.

Previous versions do for your standard documents (text files, spreadsheets, photos, whatever) what Windows System Restore does for system files.

The function that creates previous versions is enabled by default and is probably working right now on your PC, whether you’ve ever used the previous-versions feature or not.

As Microsoft’s FAQ puts it: “You can use previous versions to restore files and folders that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged.

Depending on the type of file or folder, you can open, save to a different location, or restore a previous version.”

Exploring your previous-version files

By default, Vista and Win7 make copies of changed folders and files at least once a day.

But you can adjust the schedule at will.

To start, open Windows Explorer, right-click My Documents (or wherever), and select Restore previous versions

The rest is logical!!!

An important point is: right clicking a filename and using restore previous version only works if you have not moved it. Using the above method allows recovery from its original location.


How to Talk to a Climate Change Dissenter

So much of the dissenter blogosphere is taken up with how despicable it is to use the term deniers (which some how, to them means Holocaust deniers)

I have refrained from using the term deniers as it does not help discussion but only diverts it to a blind alley).

However calling them "sceptics" is just so wrong! they cannot be considered sceptical unless they are, at least, willing to consider that climate change is real. Most certainly deny this possibility.

However, a link from Variable Variability (Victor Venema)

Seemed very sensible:

How to talk to a climate change denier

Not much in the way of visuals so just listen!


UK National grid - Rate of Change of Power

One of the many (usually spurious) reasons people give for not installing wind power is that the grid will have to run warm start and spinning reserve (see http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/national-grids-reserves.html ) to cover the sudden loss of wind power.
This power generation is expensive.

The website http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ connects to a download of national grid status at 5 minute intervals.

I have analysed the data - calculating the slope of power over 3 adjacent data points (15 minute interval) for each available data point. If any of the three data points is zero then no data is plotted.

There are some oddities these have been plotted but the point is allowed off scale to keep valid data to be on a sensible scale:

The plot colour indicates a different vertical scale. (scales have been corrected)

15 days of service

Over 2 days this looks like:
2 days of service

It looks as if wind can vary by as much as 15MW / minute
But this compares with demand which can vary by 170MW/minute

Closing in on a few hours shows:
6 hours - Coal replaces Nuclear

It is interesting to note that at 17 hours 10 minutes it appears as if wind is used for balancing - all fast reaction generators and wind show a drop.

It is also significant that there is little impact of wind variation showing on the fast reactor generators.

Finally Wind output shown over the same few hours:
Wind power output added