The Poor Quality of the CO2 Alarm

If ever there was a top noble cause, you might think ‘saving the planet’ would be it, and that it would attract our brightest and best to rally round its flag and trumpet its alarums. But I don’t see that happening. I see low quality science (e.g. the MBH Hockey Stick), I see low quality scheming (e.g. the Climategate Revelations), I see crass financial and political opportunism (e.g. renewables and the Gore revival), and I see wanton cruelty and foul propaganda (e.g. bio-fuels and the 10:10 video ‘No Pressure’). Then the sundry alarmer blogs and trolls and ‘activists thinly disguised as journalists’, and materials designed to frighten children make me feel that sadists rather than heroes have been attracted to rally round the flag of CO2 Alarm. All in all, it is overwhelmingly unedifying, and that is quite curious by itself.

Now that is all by way of lead-in to explain why I found much to agree with in a recent post by Scott Adams, and would commend it to all who come this way: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158549646496/how-leonardo-dicaprio-can-persuade-me-on-climate

He is not impressed by the presentation of the Great Alarm. Here’s a couple of extracts:

If you want to convince me that climate change is real, the best approach is to abandon the current method that packages climate models in a fashion that is identical to well-known scams. (Or hoaxes, if you prefer.)

Let me say this doubly-clear. When I say climate models are packaged in a fashion that is identical to known scams, I am not saying they are scams. I’m saying they are packaged to look exactly like scams. There is no hope for credibility with that communication plan.

To make my point visual, imagine walking into your kitchen and finding an intruder wearing a ski mask and holding a gun. You assume this person is not your friendly neighbor because he is packaged exactly like an armed burglar. If you shoot that intruder, and it turns out to be your neighbor playing a prank, you probably won’t go to jail because it isn’t your fault. The problem was that your neighbor packaged himself to look exactly like an armed burglar.’

And:

My point is that Leonardo DiCaprio would have a tough time persuading me that climate science is both real and serious. But it isn’t his fault, because science has packaged climate science to look like a hoax, and sent him out to sell it. I respect and admire DiCaprio for his heart on this matter, and his effort on behalf of the planet. But science has failed him by giving him hoax-looking sales collateral.

As they say, read it all! He finds the appearances unconvincing. I find the substance unconvincing. I suspect we both have a somewhat jaundiced view of the leading promoters and agitators raising high that Red (?) Flag of CO2 Alarm.

34 thoughts on “The Poor Quality of the CO2 Alarm

  1. On the poor quality of CO2 alarm, this from Carrington of the Graun today fits…

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/21/record-breaking-climate-change-world-uncharted-territory

    —-
    Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’

    Earth is a planet in upheaval, say scientists, as the World Meteorological Organisation publishes analysis of recent heat highs and ice lows

    The record-breaking heat that made 2016 the hottest year ever recorded has continued into 2017, pushing the world into “truly uncharted territory”, according to the World Meteorological Organisation.

    […]

    “Even without a strong El Niño in 2017, we are seeing other remarkable changes across the planet that are challenging the limits of our understanding of the climate system. We are now in truly uncharted territory,” said David Carlson, director of the WMO’s world climate research programme.

    “Earth is a planet in upheaval due to human-caused changes in the atmosphere,” said Jeffrey Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona in the US. “In general, drastically changing conditions do not help civilisation, which thrives on stability.”
    —-

    The problem being that writer and the WMO in fact ran out of ways to express themselves in 2007, and have been playing the same tune since. Transparently, the issue is much less civilisation weakening in the face of slightly more heat than it is about a fracturing of a global political project that saw little resistance, but which may now be losing it’s foundations. Hence,

    —-
    Trump is aiming to cut climate change research. But the WMO’s secretary-general Petteri Taalas said: “Continued investment in climate research and observations is vital if our scientific knowledge is to keep pace with the rapid rate of climate change.”
    —-

    It is as if nobody had told the WMO — and Carrington — that so much fear mongering in the face of scepticism of fearmongering is no way to shore up those political foundations. Yet even the most popular politician for a generation is now almost universally loathed, across the left and right he tried to sail between in his third-way boat, pulling the same ‘threat to civilisation’ tricks. Moreover, he vividly demonstrated that the coalitions he formed seemingly intended to mitigate against risk merely amplified the risk, turning AQ — run by a cripple on a dialysis machine in a cave — into IS. And let us not speak about the economic situation that his administration created. Ditto It is the WMO’s understanding of ‘civilisation’ itself which presents a far riskier proposition to civilisation than slightly warmer/wetter/drier/whatever weather.

    And that is why I am less generous to Leo DiCaprio than Scott Adams. I have zero respect or admiration for him, or his effort. There’s not simply the private jet-setting, billionaire-yacht-partying hypocrisy, there’s the question, ‘who the hell do you think you are?’. And the same question stands for the technocrats at the WMO, who think ‘civilisation’ is theirs to define, from above it.

    So it’s not a question of mistaken identity about the intruder and his garb; it is the intruder who is mistaken about his own identity. It’s only the self-appointed planet-saving super heroes who experience the identity crisis. Everyone else can see them for the robbers they truly are. Caught in the act, they have to struggle for the words and reasons to explain themselves, and ever more incredible prose… worse than we thought… uncharted territory…. But, like Carrington, they ran out of superlatives in 2007.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I also have little time for the Gores and Di Caprios of this world – classic examples that climate alarmism is for those who can afford it, and not for the little people (contrary to William’s claims).

    It’s all very well trying to defend their hypocrisy by saying that they indulge in carbon offsetting, so it’s OK for them to own numerous mansions, fly everywhere in private jets, and emit as much CO2 in a day as I do in a year. They live their lives in a way that they order us not to live, while saying it’s OK because unlike the rest of us they have so much money that they can buy indulgences to offset their sins.

    I’ll take them seriously when they live their lives in the way that they expect us to live ours, and not before.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. If the CO2 alarm system is so very poor, why has it been so extraordinarily successful? Almost all scientific academies across the world are avid supporters, governments have, up to just recently, gone hand in glove with the alarmists and proposed (or even carried out) policies that are decidedly harmful. Large segments of industry have jumped on board seeing opportunities for profit. Others, like the UN saw climate alarmism as an opportunity to bring the West to heel and transfer wealth and influence more widely.
    So the “poor” climate alarmism may be poor in terms of its intrinsic quality but has been superb in getting its message across and believed. So should we focus upon its inner weaknesses or upon its extrinsic successes?

    Like

  4. That article, Ben, might well win a place in the yet-to-be-funded online ‘Museum of the Great CO2 Scare’.

    Mark. Add hypocrisy to the charge sheet!

    Alan, I do agree. That has long puzzled me – such great political leverage from such a flimsy foundation. I think Archimedes would have been puzzled too!

    Like

  5. Mark — I’ll take them seriously when they live their lives in the way that they expect us to live ours, and not before.

    I won’t. A non-hypocritical overbearing prick is still an overbearing prick. While I can admire someone who decides to go ‘off-grid’ in search of… something, if only lifestyle, I cannot admire it when he says his is a more virtuous lifestyle than mine. More power to the elbows of anyone who wants to experiment with their own lifestyle, albeit with the benefit of hospitals, schools, social security, roads, and so on, offsetting the risks of toothache and worse, should the experiment fail. But zero to anyone who says a subsistence existence is a better thing than advanced capitalist (post-) industrial consumer society, and even ‘climate chaos’.

    Like

  6. I too have zero respect for arrogant hypocrites who choose to decry the lives of those less fortunate whilst living in a luxurious fossil fueled lifestyle most of us will never experience. They will never be cold, never be hot, never be hungry, never be thirsty. I have no objection to the wealth, they may well have earned it honestly. I object to the denial of said wealth and comfort for the rest of us by the demands to live in a way none of them would even contemplate from their well-fed, well-watered, air conditioned luxury

    Like

  7. Here’s report on a talk a few days ago by Roger Pielke Jr in which he argues that the climate campaigners have had big failures in the US: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/03/21/a-example-of-climate-activists-at-work-that-shows-why-they-lost/

    Extract:

    ‘The movement for massive US public policy action to fight climate change began (as an arbitrary date) with the testimony of James Hansen on 23 June 1988 in a sweltering (due to careful preparation) Senate conference room. During the following 29 years vast sums were spent to build public support for such measures. Now it has come to a standstill, having accomplished little. The public ranks it near the bottom of national priorities Most Americans rank climate change low among US public policy priorities (see the polls here, and more here). The Republicans running Washington want to rollback what little has been done.

    Why? Climate scientists made major tactical errors. But activists’ excesses were lethal to their cause. Academia, the news media, NGOs, and government agencies provided full spectrum support, laying down a barrage of propaganda — ranging from scholarly and compelling to outlandish or even horrific (see 40 posts with more examples).

    Here we see another method activists used: suppressing information contrary to their false assertions by swarming attacks on people, vicious and unscrupulous. I have experienced them (see details here and here). Here is an account of a more serious attack staged by journalists, scientists, and academics. It was obviously bogus at the time; time has just provided more evidence. It was politics by smear, seeking to destroy a professional reputation for political gain. Whatever the merits of either side in the policy debate, activists’ behavior did not deserve success.’

    Lots more of interest on the Fabius Maximus site on climate matters, e.g. https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/08/04/climate-science-public-policy-broken-87951/ :

    ‘Summary: This, my 305th post about climate, explains what I’ve learned so far. Climate science as an institution has become dysfunctional; large elements of the public no longer trust it. The politics of climate change are polarized and gridlocked. The weather will determine the evolution of US public policy. All we can do is learn what went wrong so we can do better next time, and wait to see the price we pay for our folly.’

    Liked by 1 person

  8. The latest “well-known scam” doing the rounds today is the correlation/causation one, with CNN claiming that global warming is causing diabetes. Further down the article, the claim is debunked, but of course the climate alarmists know that most people will only read the headline.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Thanks for the link to Scott Adams sensible thoughts. It would be hard to count the ways in which AGW has been made to look like a hoax. The multiple models are supposed to bolster each other but like the magic trick where all the results of a series of races are covered by bets, one of the models must be right… for the time being. Only modellers go one better and continuously issue new models, adjusted to incorporate each new data point as they arrive.

    Adams misses the point that modellers aren’t supposed to tune their models, even though they’ve admitted they do. They’re supposed to build the models from the science and in large part they think they do. They seem to use much the same values for CO2 and since it dominates all the other imputs, they get a similar output. When reality deviated from the models they tweak different things. Some bump up the effect of SO2 but there’s little evidence to justify the adjustments other than reality deviating. Without CO2, SO2 and maybe methane, I suspect the models would show little other than noise, included to make the final output look realistic.

    I see how Adams is playing this. Presenting one issue at a time and being quite generous to the DiCaprios of the World, so as not to make the point about anything other than the subject under discussion. The commenters do widen the issue to include the actor’s double standards but Adam’s isn’t responsible for it.

    Alan, the CO2 alarm system has been successful, largely because we warmed and there was little opposition other than natural political inertia. But, it’s no longer succeeding. Think large ship, slow to start and stop. The engines are off but we haven’t come to a complete stop. Academia got behind this because a) there was money and b) institutions are naturally nervous bodies. It’s easy to fuss about all sorts of things if you’re never tasked with solving and or paying for it. At the same time, alarmists are not winning because alarm is not growing and action on the issue is limp at best. CO2 isn’t just falling, the rate of increase is going up. Few people, including warmists think that it’s their resonsibility to act. Some businesses have leapt at the money offered to act but just can’t come up with viable answers. When the money dries up they vanish. None of that sounds like winning.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Paul “climate alarmists know that most people will only read the headline.”

    But a lot of those who only read the headline will think ‘boll***s’ and lose a little more faith in science.

    Like

  11. TinyCO2. I,m not so sure you can argue that alarmists were successful because it warmed. From the outset the correlation between increasing CO2 and temperature was shown to be due to cherry picking, was little different from the rate of temperature rise earlier in the century and there was accepted historical evidence for earlier even warmer periods. The original ice evidence linking CO2 and temperature was known to be the “wrong way around” before Gore’s travesty of a film was released. Furthermore the general population has not experienced any significant warmth.
    I have lived through the entire CO2 scare (although I was not aware of the pre 1989 part of it, being busy helping nasty oil companies find their dangerous product or was teaching budding petroleum geologists learn their wicked craft), and was employed at one of its scientific hubs. Yet I cannot work out how the scare was so successful. Why were other scientists willing to subsume their natural scepticism and allow in some cases charlatans to dominate the outcome? No doubt if the CO2 paradigm is overthrown some pseudo-science historians will arise to explain all.

    Like

  12. “From the outset the correlation between increasing CO2 and temperature was shown to be due to cherry picking, was little different from the rate of temperature rise earlier in the century”

    But most people, including scientists didn’t know that. Many still don’t know it, due to the determined efforts of organisations who should be acting as watchmen but are instead acting as colaborators. So for many, warming = man made climate change. Things got more interesting when the temperatures paused. CO2 alarm didn’t allow for interrupted warming. Things got more interesting when severe hurricanes paused. Skilled con men make promises without specific time lines and if they don’t they plan to be long gone before the deadline is reached. See more recent climate predictions.

    Like

  13. I find the alarmist’s intellectual gutlessness when it comes to debates and their thuggish aspirations to be disturbing. People like Chris Hayes actually brag about not having “deniers” on their show. Here’s Bill Nye, the totalitarian science guy:

    Part of the solution to this problem or this set of problems associated with climate change is getting the deniers out of our discourse. You know, we can’t have these people – they’re absolutely toxic.

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/06/bill_nye_demolishes_climate_deniers_im_not_a_scientist_therefore_im_not_going_to_use_my_brain/

    Like

  14. I sense the argument is moving away from the CO2 issue (because no-one takes it seriously any more) and slowly towards the “over-populated earth” meme. More and more of the BBC “Natural History” and other greeny comments (or fake news as we now know it) programmes bring this issue up. Apparently without catastrophic “nitrogen based fertiliser” we can only sustain a world population of 4bn. We await with baited breath the names of the 3bn + who need to be “removed”.

    Like

  15. Paul Matthews, that diabetes study looks most odd, and not only because of its untested – inappropriate, some say – speculation about causation. See the Science Media Centre for expert comments about that.

    Additional observations:

    1. Their analysis was based on only fourteen slices of data: the annual estimated tally of diabetes diagnoses (estimated diabetes-diagnosis proxies for areas outside the US) and the averaged annual temperature for 1996-2009 in various areas. Fourteen.

    2. They report increased/decreased diagnoses per thousand people per 1C temperature increase but not percentage diagnosis increases or anything that would allow you to work these out.

    3. Some of the footnotes seem to be irrelevant. (For example, notes 7 and 19 in the ‘methods’ section called ‘Diabetes incidence rate in the USA’.)

    4. The lead author got her brother to do the maths.

    5. Eyeballing the cited data sources for the US state that apparently showed the greatest increase in diabetes diagnosis per increase in outdoor temperature (South Carolina) shows a state with a mostly steady increase in diabetes diagnoses but averaged annual temperatures that are all over the place but mostly down.

    6. Could increased exterior temperatures/personal habits/anything at all have a delayed/cumulative effect on diabetes diagnoses? This isn’t discussed – but then how could it be relevant? They only deal with fourteen years.

    7. Is this study headline-grabbing tosh? Couldn’t say. I’m not a scientist. But it does give that appearance.

    Like

  16. I’m not sure I agree with Scott Adams on this point;

    “‘My point is that Leonardo DiCaprio would have a tough time persuading me that climate science is both real and serious. But it isn’t his fault, because science has packaged climate science to look like a hoax, and sent him out to sell it. I respect and admire DiCaprio for his heart on this matter, and his effort on behalf of the planet. But science has failed him by giving him hoax-looking sales collateral.”

    Climate science has been so spectacularly successful precisely because it has packaged its meagre contents so alluringly for so long. Lots of people have been attracted by the fancy packaging and the marketing promises made on the outside of the box. But people are slowly waking up to the fact that what’s inside the package doesn’t live up to the marketing hype on the outside, or the glitzy packaging. It’s becoming much harder to sell in a sceptical world and people like di Caprio, desperately drafted in to help sell it, are failing miserably because he himself is so obviously a hoax, quite apart from the slowly dawning realisation that climate science doesn’t do what it says on the very fancy tin. So it is Leo DC’s fault, precisely because he is such a glaringly obvious hypocritical, arrogant, mega rich twat, who squandered a precocious and remarkable talent for acting in exchange for Hollywood celebrity status and now fake enviro-preaching.

    Like

  17. It might be worth digging back into history. When exactly did global warming hit the public? For me it would be around 2005. There was something by Attenborough on the BBC website about the hockey stick and how alarming it was. Since it did not chime with my lack of experience of anything untoward with the weather, I thought it was just another data point on the guy’s sad descent into unrecognised senility. Then around the same time the Telegraph ran 3 long articles by Monckton about the stupidity of climate science. Until then, I confess to being unaware of the existence of climate science. When did Gore get on the gravy train? Perhaps I should check linguistic corpuses for the term “climate change” or wobal glorming

    Like

  18. Jaime, con men are very good at the glossy flim flam and people often fall for their fatastical claims. Celebs aren’t generally noted for their brains and they are very vulnerable to the idea of being a hero but not actually putting real effort in. The one thing the 10:10 campaign got right was when they had Gillian Anderson say that performing on the advert was her contribution and blowing her up for her double standards.

    Adams is walking the tightrope of getting his message across but trying not to offend too many people. The comments deal with DiCaprio’s other failures so Adams doesn’t need to.

    Man in a barrel, news about AGW grew from about 2000, after Y2K and then bird flu went off the agenda. I was quite aware of it by 2005/6 and started reading blogs about then but I’d started doubting some of the claims before that. About that time there was a clump of things that caught my eye. The BBC programme on internet cloud based climate modelling and a Horizon episode on global dimming. The Great Global Warming Swindle in 2007 just reinforced what I already suspected.

    An Inconvenient truth came out in 2006 but Al had been doing the presentation for some time before that.

    Like

  19. Vinny, thanks for the link to the SMC article.

    Dr Simon Cork, Research Fellow at the Department of Investigative Medicine, Imperial College London, said:

    “To be honest, I’m shocked that this has been published. It’s publications like this that reduce public trust in the scientific process.

    Like

  20. So between say 1990 and 2005 global warming hysteria got embedded in the universities and was starting to get into the media and politics. Did it really only take 15 or so years for these institutions to lose their minds?

    Like

  21. I became aware of the climate change issue when I joined UEA in 1989. Shortly after my arrival I recall a colleague remonstrating with me about the MWP. I learned to my astonishment that there was now considerable debate about whether the MWP was truly a global event or restricted to the North Atlantic region. However, I was a “deep time” geologist with no particular axe to grind. I only started to read up upon the issues, following my reading of the 2004 techno-thriller “A State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. After reading some of the references quoted in that book, I never left being a sceptic. The same thriller also destroyed my faith in all forms of ecological management.

    Like

  22. TinyCO2.
    “From the outset the correlation between increasing CO2 and temperature was shown to be due to cherry picking, was little different from the rate of temperature rise earlier in the century”

    But most people, including scientists didn’t know that. ”

    That may be true, but the scientists who should have mattered should have known. SAR was published in 1996 and immediately ran into criticism because the critical evidence linking CO2 with global temperature rise was absent. This was hastily published by Santer et al. also in 1996. 0ddly it only used data from between:1963 and 1987, but this did show a strong correlation between the two variables. Michaels and Knappenberger were able to publish in Nature in December 1996, that if you used data from before 1963 and after 1987 (data available to Santer and his gang) the correlation disappears. It was pure, unadulterated cherry picking. So when the rebuttal was published in a widely read journal like Nature, no informed scientist had any excuse.

    Like

  23. That hilariously titled newspaper, The Independent, now carries a piece that deserves to sit side by side in the same display cabinet as the one in that pretentiously titled newspaper, The Guardian linked to by Ben at the start of these comments. Paul Homewood has shredded it at his blog: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/bad-weather-proves-climate-change-says-wmo/

    He notes:

    The Independent’s readers are a pretty naive lot, but even some of them can see through this nonsense, judging by some of the comments.

    The first thing to remember is that the WMO has been at the centre of the global warming scam since its inception, when the IPCC was set up. As part of the UN, it is just another politicised agency and nothing it says can in any way be regarded as reliable.

    See his blogpost for substantial support for that last sentence.

    Like

  24. The Poor Quality of the CO2 Alarm

    Yes indeed, what’s being put out by the so-called media has the quality of a 1950s rubber monster movie. This morning a news search not for CO2 but Methane turned up a dozen headlines like this:

    Terrifying! More than 7000 underground methane gas bubbles are about to explode in the Arctic

    The hysteria turns out to be quaking bogs and not “Underground Methane Bubbles” as the accompanying video is labeled.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4335386/7-000-underground-methane-gas-bubbles-Russia.html#v-42938707459881846

    Startling video footage shows the ground wobbling under the feet of scientists.
    “It was like a jelly,” said one researcher, who continued: “We have not come across anything like this before.”

    It’s total B.S. being passed off as science news.

    Here’s a You Tube of a quaking bog:

    Like

  25. Scott Adams writes:

    “‘If you want to convince me that climate change is real, the best approach is to abandon the current method that packages climate models in a fashion that is identical to well-known scams. (Or hoaxes, if you prefer.)

    Let me say this doubly-clear. When I say climate models are packaged in a fashion that is identical to known scams, I am not saying they are scams. I’m saying they are packaged to look exactly like scams. There is no hope for credibility with that communication plan.

    To make my point visual, imagine walking into your kitchen and finding an intruder wearing a ski mask and holding a gun. You assume this person is not your friendly neighbor because he is packaged exactly like an armed burglar. If you shoot that intruder, and it turns out to be your neighbor playing a prank, you probably won’t go to jail because it isn’t your fault. The problem was that your neighbor packaged himself to look exactly like an armed burglar.’”

    That is a smart way of saying it,but it IS a scam too as shown in various ways such as Climategate, failed predictions,lack of reproducible science.

    The public is slowly wising up as the avalanche of absurd climate related claims, that are too much to swallow anymore. Only the diehard warmist bigots are still persistent in their delusion and ignorance.

    Like

  26. Steve Case. “Terrifying! More than 7000 underground methane gas bubbles [= quaking bogs] are about to explode in the Arctic”

    I probably flew over as many, and walked/crawled over quite a few, when I did field mapping in northern Saskatchewan in the 1970s. We were innocent then, we knew not that they were climate time bombs ready to unleash their toxic loads. We were also responsible for puncturing some and set light to the evil marsh gas and converted it into the dreaded green house gases carbon dioxide and water. Mea culpa, I must be alone responsible for causing a 0.000000000001oC (at least) temperature rise by my thoughtless actions. If I knew they could explode I think I might have sought danger money from the Geological Survey.
    Quaking bogs are fun, so long as you don’t have to traverse many. Another natural occurrence demonized by the climate miserables.

    Like

  27. Alexei Titovsky, the scientist quoted in many of the recent ‘exploding Siberian methane’ stories, was quoted yesterday as saying that the press had got things wrong:

    https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://sever-press.ru/obshchestvo/nauka/item/27162-uchenye-prokontroliruyut-istochniki-gazovykh-vybrosov-na-poluostrove-yamal

    Alas, that’s mostly about bulges not being bubbles. For a more complete understanding of what’s happening and what ‘explosion’ might mean in this context, see this 2015 article:

    http://earthsky.org/earth/new-explanation-for-siberias-mystery-craters

    Short version: Pingos don’t explode.

    Like

  28. There appears to be confusion. Pingos are not quaking bogs and quaking bogs are not pingos. Both can be associated with trapped methane but this is not essential. The quaking bog shown in the film clip is clearly a bog that floats upon part of a lake. I certainly wouldn’t have been so cavalier – its so easy to break through the moss cover and get immersed in freezing water. Difficult to see how it would ever explode.

    Like

  29. If you zoom into areas like the Yamal it’s pockmarked with circular pools. Whatever it’s doing, it’s been doing for a long time.

    Sunsettommy, I agree, it’s very clever. He’s drawing attention to the issues without pointing fingers. The reader is then left to decide if the flaws are deliberate or not.

    Like

  30. Alan: ‘There appears to be confusion. Pingos are not quaking bogs and quaking bogs are not pingos.’

    Two stories have got mashed together, initially by The Siberian Times. I think that’s what Titovsky’s clarification was about. The quaking bog was filmed last year on an island off the northern tip of Yamal. The ‘7,000 exploding bubbles’ thing is a mangled recent story about a pingo survey in Yamal and elsewhere.

    TinyCO2: ‘If you zoom into areas like the Yamal it’s pockmarked with circular pools.’

    Indeed. Google Maps is good enough for that and for close-ups and a bit of history there’s Terraserver.

    https://www.terraserver.com/view?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_text=&searchLat=&searchLng=&lat=69.971&lng=68.370&bbox=&center=

    That’s the first of the Yamal craters discovered in 2014. Pingo –> crater –> pond. The crater was formed some time between July 2010 and July 2013. (The July 2013 pic has gone missing. Perhaps Terraserver sold the rights to it. I’ve got a watermarked copy somewhere.) You can pan and zoom.

    Here’s the same crater at Google Maps:

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/69%C2%B058'15.6%22N+68%C2%B022'12.0%22E/@69.9684864,68.378921,9075m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d69.971!4d68.37?hl=en

    Like

  31. man in a barrel says: 22 Mar 17 at 9:06 am

    “So between say 1990 and 2005 global warming hysteria got embedded in the universities and was starting to get into the media and politics. Did it really only take 15 or so years for these institutions to lose their minds?”

    Such nonsense seems to start in 1964 when Dr. Goody published his textbook on atmospheric physics.
    In that text he referenced the theory of Dr. Satyendra N. Bose. In 1924 Bose wrote a paper deriving Planck’s quantum radiation law without any reference to classical physics by using a novel way of counting states with identical particles.creating the field of quantum statistics, now generally ignored.
    This paper completely ignored Maxwell’s famous equations for elecrtomagnetic field theory; substituting his concept of ‘statistical photons’ as the method of radiant heat transfer! This in turn lead to the concept that a black-body must radiate according to a function its own temperature (t^4) independent of surround thermal electromagnetic opposing field strength, for a BB, also a proportional t^4. Such a conjecture is in direct conflict with Maxwell’s field theory, completely bogus, only true for a surround BB temperature of 0 Kelvin, and a violation of required mathematical precedence in evaluating Boltzmann;s (S-B) equation. Such the history of what is still being fed to innocent university physics students. Only in some of the best EE curriculum do Maxwell’s equations, precede this utter BS. Without this nonsense no one could conceive of spontaneous thermal EMR flux being simultaneously generated in opposing directions. Such concept must be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, An invention of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, And the basis of all CAGW!! So no not 15 years, instead 53 years of the brainwashing of not so innocent children, many now college lecturers! 😦

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s