RealClimate logo


The Bore Hole

Filed under: — group @ 6 December 2004

A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.

1,976 Responses to “The Bore Hole”

  1. 1951
    Victor Grauer says:

    #227 MARodger: With or without various El Niño temperature spikes, Victor the Troll insists “there is no long-term correlation” between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 (except between 1980 and 1998).

    V: Don’t blame me. The absence of long-term correlation is displayed very clearly in Grumbine’s scattergram — only he omits the dates, making the climate history difficult to spot. Once we take the dates into account, it becomes clear that the diagonal that’s supposed to indicate a correlation is limited to the period ca. 1980-1998. Before 1980 (corresponding to 335 ppm), we see what looks like a random jumble. After 1998 (corresponding to 370 ppm), we see a period where CO2 levels continue to climb where temperatures either level off or rise only slightly.

    Your version covers a longer time period, but the result is essentially the same, aside from the spike produced toward the end by the El Nino of 2015-2016. Your insistence that the presence of this spike somehow compensates for the clear lack of correlation displayed in your own scattergram over a 16 year period is indeed touching. Sorry, but a statistical correlation is defined as “the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.” ( https://www.dictionary.com/browse/correlation ) Data collected over a 2 year period can’t possibly compensate, presto chango, for a period of 16 years where the attributes very clearly do NOT vary together.

    MAR: So it doesn’t matter that we can calculate the linear correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 to produce a line rising with remarkable consistently from bottom left to top right.

    V: Oh yes, the “correlation” can be calculated for sure. As Grumbine indicates on his graph, the correlation coefficient he came up with is 0.78. Which tells us something very useful about the value of such a calculation. I.e., that, in itself, it is meaningless. In the absence of a critical analysis of the sort I’ve performed, the numbers mean little. Literally: garbage in garbage out. Aka pseudoscience.

  2. 1952
    Victor says:

    #365
    As usual, MAR chimes in with his usual mix of silly invective, pointless blather and meaningless bluff. His amateurish attempt at psychoanalysis is belied by his mis-spelling of “subconscious” as “subconscience.” Just in case one might assume it’s a typo and he’s not a nitwit, he does this twice.

    He then goes on to demonstrate his utter lack of reading comprehension by once again totally misconstruing the scattergram analysis I presented on my “grubby little” blog page.

    MAR: What the moron is perhaps getting at is that he can happliy cherry-pick some sections of that 120-year-long record and of these cherry-picks he found only the one 1979-98 provides the same result as the “very strongly correlated” period 1900-2019. So I don’t see that such an analysis would lead to his denialist assertion that this full 120-year period shows no correlation when his eyeball was telling him it was “very strongly correlated.”

    V: No cherry picking needed, Mr. R. All you need do is match the CO2 levels with their corresponding dates and the problem becomes obvious. He of course fails to grasp the all important distinction I’ve made between a purely statistical correlation and a meaningful one. Does he fail to get it because HE’s the moron? Or because he is, very simply, in denial. Probably a bit of both.

    He then proceeds to link us to a couple of graphs that make no sense whatsoever. He really seems to have gone over the edge at this point. I guess I have that effect on him. In one we see a bunch of funny little red dots all lined up to illustrate “calculated temperature using CO2 correlation.” Sorry Mr. R, but I have no idea what you are getting at. Temperatures are depicted by displaying temperature data and correlations are depicted by displaying scattergrams. What is your point? The second graph is even more confusing, especially since he references three lines but displays only two. And what pray tell is “temperature calculated from CO2 correlation”???

  3. 1953
    Victor says:

    It’s hard to take you seriously folks, when your “scientific arguments” are so heavily laden with insults and ad hominems. It doesn’t take a Ph. D. in psychology to identify the obvious signs of defensiveness — which tells me that deep down you have doubts about the “science” you profess to have mastered.

    CCHolley: The time of day is defined by the position of the sun, correlation has nothing to do with it.

    V: When last I checked, sundials are no longer widely used, CC. We use clocks now. And watches. According to my watch it is now 2:11 PM. No need for me to check the position of the sun. Moreover, for the enlightenment of all the “scientists” posting here, a correlation is a correlation, even if one term is defined by the other. Correlation is based simply on the relation between two sets of data.

    And speaking of the sun, I’ve given the issue some thought and realized that comparing the lack of correlation between solar output and global temperatures to a lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures is ludicrous. CO2 levels are now up to 415ppm, roughly 125 units higher than the level in 1890. That’s close to 1/3 the current level. On the other hand, variations in solar output over any comparable period are miniscule compared to the total energy output of the sun during any similar period. Actually “miniscule” doesn’t begin to describe such a huge difference. If total solar output rose from 1890 to present at a rate proportional to the rise in CO2 levels, you can bet there’d be a crystal clear correlation with global temperatures. Of course, the Earth would be toast, so let’s pray that never happens.

    Thus, attempting to compare the effects of solar variation with those of CO2 levels is grossly misleading. (Now where have I seen that term before?) The fact that there is NO long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature cannot, therefore, be so easily dismissed. And by the way, that lack of correlation has nothing to do with “the physics.” As I’ve stressed more than once, correlation involves a relation between two sets of data. Period. Physics has nothing to do with it.

    And speaking of correlation, I’m amazed at the degree of ignorance displayed in these pages when it comes to my critical analysis of the three misleading scattergrams presented by MAR, BPL and Grumbine. There is no way you can make a silk purse out of those sow’s ears. Yet we see so many here turning themselves inside out in an effort to do so. Yes, Wolfe used monthly rather than yearly data, so what? The rise from the “mid-70’s” to the “late 90’s” is displayed clearly enough in his graph despite the apparent “noise.” So what’s your point? As far as the last 5 years are concerned, sorry, but a period of only 5 years cannot possibly produce a long-term correlation where none was apparent in the 130 years prior to that period. Why would anyone think it could?

    Now as far as “the physics” is concerned: science is filled with hypotheses based on a combination of math and lab tests. And in the vast majority of cases such hypotheses have failed to obtain support when tested in the real world. Real world testing is especially important in the realm of climate, where all sorts of factors that can’t be replicated in the lab come into play. The ultimate real-world test is therefore the test of whether or not a rise in CO2 levels will in fact produce a rise in global temperatures over time. When we see a correlation between the two for only a 20 year period from the late 19th century to the present, it looks very much as though “the physics” as tested in the lab has failed to produce the predicted result when tested in the real world. While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, causation is in fact very much dependent on correlation.

    So, OK, I’ve been reminded that other factors are involved that might well be masking a correlation that remains hidden. Fine. Now demonstrate to me what those factors are and how they operate to obscure the steady rise in temperatures necessary to support your hypothesis. Because without such real-world support, “the physics” you so confidently point to is falsified. And sorry but it’s not enough to simply produce a list of factors, such as volcanic eruptions (or lack of same), solar irradiation, industrial aerosols, etc. The existence of factors that MIGHT POSSIBLY be relevant, is not the same as supporting evidence.

    The problem is especially acute when we consider the well-known 40 year period from ca. 1940 through ca. 1979, when temperatures first took a 10 year plunge, then leveled off, while CO2 levels were soaring. The odd notion that an underlying temperature rise was masked by the presence of industrial aerosols was thoroughly debunked by me several months ago on these pages when I displayed a series of temperature graphs from regions with little to no industrial activity. Guess what? Temperatures failed to rise in these regions as well. Simply pointing to effects such as these as though they amounted to supporting evidence when clearly they don’t is a sign that there is something very wrong with the thinking behind “the consensus” we are continually being reminded of.

  4. 1954
    Martin says:

    I wonder why so many flawed papers indicating manmade CO2 is causing global warming is not yet retracted. Many peer-reviewed paper showed it is a flawed propaganda but still that theory gets funding and promotion. Is there some very basic thing wrong in the policy of climate science?

  5. 1955

    When you call somebody a “Denier”, they become your enemy.

    An enemy will never help you to solve your problems.

    So the more people that you call a “Denier”, the less likely you are to solve global warming.

    Q.E.D.

  6. 1956

    A global warming paradox
    ====================

    I have a friend called Mickey Orlando Mann. Mickey lives and works in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

    According to the “weatherbase.com” website, these are Mickey’s current temperature statistics:
    – annual average temperature = 13.3 degrees Celsius
    – average winter low temperature = -3.6 degrees Celsius (for January)
    – average summer high temperature = 30.6 degrees Celsius (for July)

    In summary, Mickey normally experiences a temperature range of about 34.2 degrees Celsius over a year, with an average temperature of 13.3 degrees Celsius.

    Mickey is very worried about global warming. He knows that global temperatures have risen by about 1 degree Celsius since pre-industrial times. If global warming increases by another 0.5 degrees Celsius (taking us to the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit), them Mickey expects that his quality of life will suffer.

    If global warming increases by another 1.0 degrees Celsius from the current temperatures (taking us to the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit), then Mickey expects that his quality of life will be seriously affected.

    Mickey is so worried about the prospect of reaching the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit, that he has worked out what his temperature statistics would be, if that catastrophe were to happen.

    These are Mickey’s global warming temperature statistics, if we warm by another 1 degrees Celsius (taking us to the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit):
    – annual average temperature = 14.3 degrees Celsius
    – average winter low temperature = -2.6 degrees Celsius (for January)
    – average summer high temperature = 31.6 degrees Celsius (for July)

    In summary, Mickey would experiences a temperature range of about 34.2 degrees Celsius over a year, with an average temperature of 14.3 degrees Celsius.

    But you don’t need to worry about Mickey, because he has a global warming contingency plan. Mickey’s parents gave him the middle name of “Orlando”, and Mickey has always dreamed of moving to the city that he was named after. If things get too hot for Mickey in Philadelphia, then Mickey plans to retire to Orlando, Florida, like many of his older friends have already done.

    To take his mind off global warming, Mickey decided to look up the current temperature statistics for Orlando, Florida, to see what temperatures the people who live in Orlando are currently experiencing.

    These are Orlando’s current temperature statistics:
    – annual average temperature = 22.9 degrees Celsius
    – average winter low temperature = 9.9 degrees Celsius (for January)
    – average summer high temperature = 33.2 degrees Celsius (for July)

    In summary, Orlando currently experiences a temperature range of about 23.3 degrees Celsius over a year, with an average temperature of 22.9 degrees Celsius.

    Looking at these temperature statistics, Mickey suddenly realised that the people who live in Orlando, Florida, are currently experiencing temperatures far, far hotter than Philadelphia will have at the 2.0 degrees Celsius limit. How can they live in such extreme temperatures?

    The current average temperature in Orlando is 8.6 degrees Celsius hotter than the average temperature that Philadelphia will have at the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.

    The current average summer high temperature in Orlando is 1.6 degrees Celsius hotter than the average summer high temperature that Philadelphia will have at the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.

    Mickey wondered why any sane person would move to Orlando, Florida, when it is currently far, far hotter than Philadelphia would be at the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.

    Mickey thought about this for a while, and then he saw the answer to his question. All of the people who live in Orlando, Florida, are mad.

  7. 1957
    Mack says:

    @81 Barry Finch

    It’s quite amazing how these “greenhouse gases” with their “springy covalent bonds” suddenly decide at this man-made abitrary point called the tropopause, I’m not going to be a greenhouse gas anymore,I’ve decided to hang around in some of these other spheres, including the thermosphere, and shield the planet from the 1360 watts of radiation blazing down from the Sun 24/7.

  8. 1958
    Mack says:

    @164 Astringent

    “blackbody radiation” …. black body… black…
    Nothing to do with colour….riiiight I hold a black ball and a white ball in either hand facing the Sun. The black ball gets hotter…. but it’s nothing to do with colour…riight.
    What colour is a red parrot, Astringent? That’s right… it’s blue. Norwegian blue.

  9. 1959
    Mack says:

    @ 162 BPL

    You don’t quite get it ,do you, BPL. It’s 1360watts/sq.m at the top of the atmosphere NOT your 340watts/sq.m., as depicted in Trenberth’s looney EEB diagrams. The 1360w/sq.m is a real measurement from real satellites…. your 340 w/sq.m at the TOA is just imaginary, concocted on the blackboard, calculated crap. You’ve geometrically whittled down the 1360w/sq from the Sun before it even arrives at the TOA. … you’ve got only 340w/sq.m arriving at and passing through the TOA.
    The 1360w/sq.m at the TOA is a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE, BPL. It must remain as it is… It’s the nett result of a flickering, waxing and waning Sun. They wait one year to get that result. You’re surely intelligent enough to realise that a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE cannot be mathematically worked on any more. You’ve already got the answer, the maths is over. You’re already at the bottom of the page…you’re trying to muck round with the number at the bottom of the page with the double lines under it. …the 1360w/sq.m.
    It’s reality… a measured reality, its even now observed in the thermosphere where nitric oxide and CO2 molecules are seen to glow red hot, with an active Sun. (SABER study) .. no way is that 340w/sq.m of yours,CALCULATED at the TOA, capable of achieving that. .. the 340w/sq.m. at the TOA is total bollocks.
    It’s 1360w/sq.m at the TOA, BPL. Harden up and get used to it.

  10. 1960
    Mack says:

    @91 Ravenpaw

    I always thought it was called the “RADIATIVE greenhouse effect” Good luck with trying to slow the speed of radiation from the air molecules to the spaces between them and further into space. Einstein would have been very impressed if you’d managed to refute his constant for the speed of light.

  11. 1961
    Victor says:

    Just a few timely reminders, lest we forget:

    Significant temperature rise from 1910 through ca. 1940 while CO2 levels remained relatively low (“[Research] has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.” Spencer Weart, “The Discovery of Global Warming.”)

    Global temperatures dropped or remained steady over a 40 year period, from ca. 1940 through 1979, while CO2 levels rose significantly.

    Global temperatures rose only slightly from 1998 through early 2016 over a period of 18 years (the notorious “hiatus”), while CO2 levels soared.

    Hence: NO correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures for the last 110 years at least.

    The rate of sea level rise has decreased rather than increased as expected, since 1992 ( Fasulo et al.: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245 ).

    ” . . . many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. (“Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world” – published by the Royal Society, 2016 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/)

    According to this graph, as presented in a recent study published in the journal Nature, there is no evidence that droughts worldwide have been increasing in either frequency or intensity since the survey began in 1982: https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fsdata.2014.1/MediaObjects/41597_2014_Article_BFsdata20141_Fig5_HTML.jpg?as=webp (The darker the color the more severe the drought.)
    See https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141 for full paper.

    As for hurricanes, we see no obvious trend for either hurricane frequency or intensity since 1970, as illustrated in the following graph: https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/dam/imageserve/5e172e9f888ec00007eac964/960×0.png?cropX1=-1&cropY1=-1&cropX2=-1&cropY2=-1&quality=75&fit=scale&background=000000&uri= (source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/09/tropical-cyclone-landfalls-around-the-world-over-the-past-50-years/?sh=39f7b1a63b00 )

    And yes, of course, as we know very well, each of these findings can be “explained” in various ways and by various means. Nevertheless, it’s important to note that in each case the raw evidence does NOT appear to support the current state of alarm over “climate change” that is currently sweeping the world, prompting draconian demands that could easily destroy civilization as we know it.

  12. 1962
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #110 21 Dec 2020 at 6:49 AM Barton Paul Levenson says: “BPL: Start here” to, I assume, believe that he is answering my call for the empirical experiment, that is repeatable, that demonstrates that the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth trace gas, that makes up only between .03-.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is 1.6 times more dense than that rest of the atmosphere, CO₂, has the ability to change the Earth’s climate.

    These experiments listed here could be done; so, why can’t what I ask for be done and reported on?
    Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out:
    Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=room-temperature-entanglement

    Speaking of Albert Einstein, he had an answer for those continually trying to claim that there is a consensus for their flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate change or whatever the charlatans now call it: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth” Albert Einstein.
     
    Here are some other experiment that HAVE been conducted.
    Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html#jCp
     
    Jasper Kirkby photographed inside the CLOUD chamber.
    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2009/47/News%20Articles/1221077?ln=de
     
    “New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578359850108689618.html
    How close are we to finding dark matter? http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24987749
    “Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxstzCXSMH0&feature=player_embedded

    Meanwhile this is what Barton Paul Levenson offered up to answer my call for valid experiments regarding CO₂;
    “However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well­mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2”. That sure proves nothing about CO₂ causing the Earth’s climate to change, much less its temperature to rise.

    “Here we present observationally based evidence of clear­sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2”.
    How does the purported, “clear­sky CO2 surface radiative forcing”, explain the Earth’s temperature hiatus?

    Although the absolute probability of a 20-year hiatus is small, the probability that an existing 15-year hiatus will continue another five years is much higher (up to 25%). Therefore, given the recognized contribution of internal climate variability to the reduced rate of global warming during the past 15 years, we should not be surprised if the current hiatus continues until the end of the decade. Following the termination of a variability-driven hiatus, we also show that there is an increased likelihood of accelerated global warming associated with release of heat from the sub-surface ocean and a reversal of the phase of decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2531

    Barton Paul Levenson’s ‘proof’ that CO₂ causing the Earth’s climate to change & its temperature to rise reminded me of these assertion made by Mark Twain about the alarmist take on what they call their climate change ‘science’.

    “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts.” Mark Twain

    “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.” Mark Twain
     
    “The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. … How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!” Mark Twain

  13. 1963
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #214 25 Dec 2020 at 2:06 AM nigelj says: “The Bering sea is a small part of the arctic, so the records are of very little use. Did you even read it? Proper reconstructions show the following”. Did you even read this where what you copy/pasted says this; “To gauge what Arctic sea ice was like before then, scientists use a combination of historical records and proxy measurements such as marine sediment cores”. And then they go on to offer up this unsubstantiated bit of conjecture; “Taken together, these records indicate that the current Arctic sea ice decline is unprecedented in the last several centuries.” which is total nonsense, that some uneducated folks seem all too willing to believe.
    The National Academies of Sciences report, “Dispatches from the Front Lines of Climate Change”, has this picture with no explanation regarding the date that this occurred on so I looked it up and it was on Apr. 19, 2004. Naturally the report did not want to tell us that on 11 August, 1958 the Skate had become the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.
     

     
    North Polar Region (Apr. 19, 2004) – The crew of the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Hampton (SSN 767) posted a sign reading “North Pole” made by the crew after surfacing in the polar ice cap region. Hampton and the Royal Navy Trafalgar class attack submarine HMS Tireless took part in ICEX 04, a joint operational exercise beneath the polar ice cap. Both the Tireless and Hampton crews met on the ice, including scientists traveling aboard both submarines to collect data and perform experiments. The Ice Exercise demonstrates the U.S. and British Submarine Force’s ability to freely navigate in all international waters, including the Arctic. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Journalist Kevin Elliott. (RELEASED) (Photo by JOC Kevin Elliott)
    https://www.csp.navy.mil/Blog/Blog-Post/Article/691920/uss-hampton-surfaces-on-top-of-the-world/

  14. 1964
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #214 25 Dec 2020 at 2:06 AM nigelj needs to notice that it actually looks like there was less ice at the North Pole when the USS Skate surfaced there on 11 August 1958 than when the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Hampton did the same thing on Apr. 19, 2004. That would take some miracle for nigelj to come to understand that what he has been telling me about the Arctic and its ice has been simply false crap of the worst kind, that due to his brainwashing sessions on the amazing powers of the trace gas, CO₂, nigelj believes without question.

    USS Skate (SSN-578) Becomes the First Submarine to Surface at the North Pole

    By NHHC

    USS Skate (SSN-578) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.
    USS Skate (SSN-578) hung below the Arctic ice like a matchstick suspended an inch from the ceiling of a large room. A knot of sailors in the control room stared intently at an instrument inscribing patterns of parallel lines on a rolling paper tape. The pattern looked like an upside down mountain range.
    “Heavy ice, ten feet,” said one of the sailors.
    Suddenly the lines converged into a single narrow bar. “Clear water!” the sailor called out.
    Commander James Calvert, the skipper, studied the marks on the paper closely. He stopped the submarine, ordered “up periscope,” and peered into the eyepiece. The clarity of the water and the amount of light startled him. At this same depth in the Atlantic—180 feet—the water was black or dark green at best, but here in the Arctic, it was pale blue like the tropical waters off the Bahamas. The crew laughed nervously as Calvert reported seeing nothing but a jellyfish.
    https://www.navalhistory.org/2011/08/11/uss-skate-ssn-578-becomes-the-first-submarine-to-surface-at-the-north-pole
     

  15. 1965
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #214 25 Dec 2020 at 2:06 AM nigelj copty/pasted: “Taken together, these records indicate that the current Arctic sea ice decline is unprecedented in the last several centuries.”
    When the people that put together the report in question here “National Snow and Ice Data Center :: Advancing knowledge of Earth’s frozen regions” actually try to hide the truth about what the historical aspect of the Arctic sea ice situation is. That is criminal dishonesty, no matter how one looks at it, and for this to funded by my tax dollars is infuriating.
    “NSIDC’s research and scientific data management activities are supported by NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal agencies, through competitive grants and contracts.”

    To get the true view of what has happened with the Arctic and its ice we can look to industry and in this case the Crowley shipping company that supports the petroleum industry that the kinds of fools that put together these fraudulent reports would like to see closed down. The petroleum industry provides commodities that the public needs and demands. What do the lies that the National Science Foundation put out do for us; not a damn thing is the quick answer?
     
    Crowley Celebrates 50 Years of ears of
    Service in Service in Alaska
     
    “When oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay, the oil industry turned to Crowley. Beginning in 1968, utilizing the earlier pioneering experience in the Arctic, Crowley began the summer sealifts to Prudhoe Bay. Since then, 334 barges carrying nearly 1.3 million tons of cargo have been successfully delivered to the North Slope, including modules the size of ten story buildings and weighing nearly 6,000 tons.
     
    With pipeline construction well underway in 1975, the Crowley summer sealift flotilla to the North slope faced the worst Arctic ice conditions of the century. In fleet size, it was the largest sealift in the project’s history with 47 vessels amassed to carry 154,420 tons of cargo, including 179 modules reaching as tall as nine stories and weighing up to 1,300 tons each. Vessels stood by for nearly two months waiting for the ice to retreat. Finally in late September the ice floe moved back and Crowley’s tugs and barges lined up for the slow and arduous haul to Prudhoe Bay. When the ice closed again, it took as many as four tugs to push the barges, one at a time, through the ice. In 2001, Crowley transported the largest modules ever made in Alaska from Anchorage to BP Explorations, Inc.’s Northstar Island and oil field on the North Slope. Another, single-barge sealift is planned for this summer. Nineteen-seventy-five was also notable for Crowley’s initial foray into environmental services and general freight services. Crowley Environmental Services was a growing concern from 1975 to 1987 providing oil and chemical spill response, training, product sales and technical consulting services to industry and government.”
    http://www.crowley.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Alaska-50-Years.pdf

  16. 1966
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #283 30 Dec 2020 at 1:56 PM MA Rodger says: “The clueless troll continues with his demonstration of incompetance @266, but now he appears to have run out of things climatological to say.
    Even so, what he says in attempting to summate his time with us here still doesn’t add up”.
    If this were to get beyond the moderator, it will be interesting to get MA Rodger’s view of how I have come to understand the part that the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth, CO₂, that is 1.6 time more dense/heavier than the rest of the atmosphere that it is contained in and what part that it could play in the Earth’s temperature or in changing its climate.
    I realize it would amount to MA Rodger having to deal somewhat with what the subject of this conversation should be; such as about CO₂, and not about someone that MA Rodger appears to be obsessed with degrading, me, because I hold a different view of this subject. This is another quote that I’m sure that MA Rodger, as well as others in this discussion, will take exception to.
    “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much”. Walter Lippmann

    There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 338 ppm of CO₂ to 414.68 ppm of CO₂ and I hope that this information will help the alarmist to sleep better at nights.

    A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
    A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
    are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
    per gallon.
    Some other things that are one part per million are…
    One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
    One inch in 16 miles
    About one minute in two years
    One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
    One penny in $10,000.
    I know that you understand that these 76.68 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 414 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
    At 414.68 parts per million, CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂ impoverished.
     
    Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)

  17. 1967
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #283 30 Dec 2020 at 1:56 PM MA Rodger says: “The clueless troll continues with his demonstration of incompetance @266, but now he appears to have run out of things climatological to say.
    Even so, what he says in attempting to summate his time with us here still doesn’t add up”.
    If this were to get beyond the moderator, which it will not be able to do, it will be interesting to get MA Rodger’s view of how I have come to understand the part that the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth, CO₂, that is 1.6 time more dense/heavier than the rest of the atmosphere that it is contained in and what part that it could play in the Earth’s temperature or in changing its climate.

    There is no greenhouse effect caused by CO₂. The Earth is warmed due to the pressure of the gases in its atmosphere that is reflected in how much mercury that pressure will displace which amounts to the barometric pressure at various altitudes and that is directly reflected in the temperature range at that altitude. I know much about this relationship between altitude and temperature from having went over the 17,769 ft Tharong-La pass on the Annapurna circuit in Nepal and also on my hike to Everest Base camp in Nepal & also when on Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Then we have alarmist maintaining that; “This research has improved our understanding of how much the world will eventually warm if the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is maintained at double the level of pre-industrial times”. Plus this nonsense; “There is much greater certainty that, if left unchecked, global warming would be high enough to bring very severe impacts and risks worldwide”, when in fact there is no evidence that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s temperature or its climate. I enjoy seeing what other fable that someone who is so illogical and gullible to believe that the trace gas, CO₂, that is only .03-.04% of the total atmosphere of the Earth has the unbelievable ability to now do to the planet since it became a tool of the unscrupulous people to use to try to control the citizens of the world. In today’s world, who controls the energy controls the world’s population.
     

    Altitude Above Sea Level        Temperature         Barometer In. Hg. Abs. Atmospheric Pressure
    500 feet 57⁰F         14⁰C          29.38         17.48 PSI
    15,000 feet          6⁰F -14⁰C         16.89                  8.29 PSI        
     

  18. 1968
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #51 Jan 2021 at 2:21 PM mike says: “I was pleased to see JDS dispatched to the crankshaft. He was begging for that assignment, as are some others here”. It appears that ‘mike’ is among a shrinking group of alarmist that will not ever accept the truth regarding his hoax about the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth, CO₂, NOT being what can change the Earth’s climate.
    What you alarmist ignore is this truth. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation, ‘mike’? Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation, ‘mike’? Of the two, the sun or CO₂, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate? The people associated with the essential for the survival of modern civilization, the fossil fuel industries also know the correct answer and will continue to supply the resources that are in demand.
    What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
    How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
    Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot! http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-

  19. 1969
    J Doug Swallow says:

    Is 2021 going to be another record hot year?
    LNG PRICES HIT RECORD HIGHS AS SEVERE COLD INTENSIFIES ACROSS ASIA AND EUROPE JANUARY 8, 2021 
    “What has triggered the rally is colder than normal weather in Asia and Europe and a complete lack of availability of LNG tankers while supply outages have really tightened up the market,” said Samer Mosis at S&P Global Platts. https://electroverse.net/

    CITY OF BEIJING JUST RECORDED ITS COLDEST TEMPERATURE SINCE 1966 JANUARY 7, 2021 Furthermore, 10 out the 20 national-level meteorological stations in Beijing registered their lowest-ever early-January temperatures Thursday morning.
    https://electroverse.net/

    KUGAARUK, CANADA SUFFERS A RECORD -47C (52.6F) WITH A WINDCHILL BELOW -60C (-76F) JANUARY 6, 2021 
    Extreme windchills have also buffeted the Nunavut communities of Shepherd Bay and Taloyoak in recent days, with both registering lows of -62C (-79.CF).
    https://electroverse.net/

    Historic snow engulfs capital Madrid just 2 days after Spain registered its coldest temperature on record January 10, 2021.
    https://watchers.news/2021/01/09/historic-snow-madrid-coldest-temperature-spain-storm-filomena-january-2021/

    Powerful blizzard affecting areas along the Sea of Japan, JMA urges residents to remain cautious January 08, 2021
    https://watchers.news/category/blizzards/

    Heavy snow engulfs Jammu and Kashmir, cuts it off from the rest of the country, India January 05, 2021
    https://watchers.news/category/blizzards/

  20. 1970
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #72 8 Jan 2021 at 12:23 PM MA Rodger says: “The full year 2020 averages +0.807ºC, just pipping El Niño-boosted 2016 to top spot, although close enough for folk to declare the two equal top”.

    Your warming trend, which amounts to about 1°C (1.8°F) since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, or 270 years ago, is so well documented that there is no reason for all of this hype that people now use to try to claim that it is CO₂, by some strange act of magic, can cause the planet to warm. It never had that ability to do so in the past and it does not have it now, in spite of what some folks are trying to get ignorant and uneducated folks to believe now. Would illogical people like MA Rodger be more content if this below was the condition that prevailed on the planet that they know nothing about, Earth, during the LIA, or are they happier claiming that the planet is getting too hot because of the use of fossil fuels that has done more for humanity that a few alarmist complaining about 1.8°F of warming since 1750?
    This is about the Island that you now reside on, MA Rodger. 
    “Famine in those days meant that people died of starvation on a massive scale and as brutal as they were, famines and hunger were familiar occurrences in Medieval England; the main years of famine include 1315 to 1317, 1321, 1351 and 1369; though hunger was nothing new either; for most people, the poor, there never seemed enough to eat and life expectancy was relatively short and many children died.
    According to records of the Royal family, amongst the best cared for in society, the average life expectancy in 1276 was 35.28 years; between 1301 and 1325 during the Great Famine it was 29.84, whilst between 1348 and 1375. during the Black Death and subsequent plagues, it went down to only 17.33.
    The Great Famine was mostly restricted to Northern Europe, which included the British Isles, northern France, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Germany and western Poland.
    During the Medieval Warm Period, the period prior to 1300, the population of Europe had exploded, reaching levels that were not matched again in some places until the nineteenth century, parts of France
    today are less populous than at the beginning of the fourteenth century.
    However, the yield ratios of wheat, the number of seeds one could eat per seed planted, had been dropping since 1280 and food prices had been climbing; in good weather the ratio could be as high as 7: l,
    whilst during bad years as low as 211, that is, for every” seed planted, two seeds were harvested, one for next year’s seed and one for food; by comparison, modern farming has ratios of around 30: l.
    The Great Famine:
    http://www.halinaking.co.uk/Location/Yorkshire/Frames/History/1315%20Great%20Famine/Great%20Famine.htm

    JANUARY 8: UK’s highest recorded temperature for this day was the 14.9C (58.8F) set at Aber (Gwynedd) in 1988.
    Climate is cyclic, never linear.

  21. 1971
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #73 8 Jan 2021 at 12:42 PM MA Rodger says: “So what are these “certain parts of Earth” you speak of?” It is obvious the one that has held the world wide record of having had the highest temperature on Earth recorded on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA of 56.7°C (134°F) also had more atmospheric pressure than other areas because it is -178 feet below sea level. If you could have examined at my #68 post of world record high temperatures with an open mind, you would come to understand that they all share one common trait, they all occurred at very low elevations. I hope that you are aware that the normal air pressure at sea level is 14.7 pounds per square inch.

    It seems fair that I should be able to ask MA Rodger some questions about his believe that the trace gas, CO₂, that is at its present level of 414.91 ppm on the Keeling Curve, is now causing the Earth’s temperature to become dangerously high globally? I trust that you will acknowledge that the official high temperature, according to the World Meteorological Organization, that was set at the Greenland Ranch on 10 July, 1913 of 134°F. On 10 July, 2021, that will be 108 years ago. While MA Rodger is coming up with perhaps another name to call me and attempting to explain the question regarding the all-time high temp, he can look into what I submit below.

    There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 338 ppm of CO₂ to 414.91 ppm of CO₂ and I hope that this information will help the alarmist to sleep better at nights.

    A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
    A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
    are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
    per gallon.
    Some other things that are one part per million are…
    One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
    One inch in 16 miles
    About one minute in two years
    One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
    One penny in $10,000.
    I know that you understand that these 76.91 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 414 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
    At 414.91 parts per million, CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂ impoverished.
    MA Rodger should picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches).
    In another post I will show MA Rodger why CO₂, being 1.6 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere, is very important when discussing the life giving trace gas.

    JANUARY 11:
    UK’s highest recorded temperature for this day was the 16.1C (61F) set at Balmacara (Highland) in 1971.
    Climate is cyclic, never linear.

  22. 1972
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #91 10 Jan 2021 at 2:48 PM Mal Adapted says: “it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect one “experiment” to be citable as “the proof.” That should read as “evidence” that your manufactured devil in the sky, the trace gas that is absolutely essential for all terrestrial life on earth, CO₂, that is between .03-.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. CO₂ is now at 414.91 ppm according to the Keeling Curve at Mauna Loa and you true believers have no idea how insignificant that number is in relationship to the real world. If one million inches were laid out on the ground, that number would create a line 16 miles long. Now scatter 414.91 ppm of CO₂ at random on this 16 mile long line and then maybe you true believers can get some idea about why your devil in the sky, CO₂, after 107 years, has not caused the all-time high temperature record to be exceeded of 56.7°C (134°F) that was set on 10 July 1913. I do not know, nor care, what the CO₂ level was at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) California, USA, that I have been to, that is -178 feet below sea level; but, it is very safe to assume that it was less than the present level of 414.91 ppm at Mauna Loa. It is for Mal Adapted, Kevin McKinney, & the other true believers, to explain why this record still holds, if they believe with no evidence to verify the claims, that the trace gas that is 1.6 times more dense than the rest of the Earth’s atmosphere (I presented the evidence to verify that fact in comment #104) is going to change the planet’s climate and raise the temperature to extreme levels unless some kind of action is taken to stop this manufactured climate emergency of runaway increasing temperatures.
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
    Please, to put parts per million into the proper perspective, there are one million minutes in two years’ worth of minutes.

    I was up in the Eiffel Tower in Paris in 1991 but when we were there in 2019 we did not go up in it because of the lines.
    The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)

  23. 1973
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #103 11 Jan 2021 at 7:58 AM CCHolley says: “RE. J. Doug Swallow @88
    why I would go with what Richard Lindzen opinions are regarding this topic of the Earth’s ‘warming’.
    Too funny. A trial judge in Minnesota ruled that Lindzen was a non-creditable witness when it comes to expressing an opinion on climate sensitivity to CO2”.

    Not surprisingly, given the mind set of alarmist, that CCHolley would consider this judge’s opinions to be more valid than what Richard Lindzen’s are:
    “This matter is pending before Administrative Law Judge LauraSue Schlatter
    pursuant to a Notice and Order for Hearing filed by the Public Utilities Commission
    (Commission) on October 15, 2014.1” So,CCHolley, just how qualified do you believe that Judge LauraSue Schlatter is, given her education, to render any decisions on this matter?
    LauraSue Schlatter
    Judge Schlatter has been a Contract Administrative Law Judge since September 2020.
    EDUCATION
    J.D., Magna Cum Laude & Order of the Coif, University of Minnesota Law School
    M.F.A., Playwriting, Time/Warner Fellow, Brandeis University
    B.A., Theater Arts with English minor, Cornell University
    https://mn.gov/oah/about-us/judge-profiles/administrative-law-judges/laurasue-schlatter-detail.jsp
    It is really “too funny” isn’t it, when a person who has a B.A., Theater Arts with English minor, Cornell University &
    M.F.A., Playwriting, Time/Warner Fellow, Brandeis University can make decisions on how a state’s electricity will be generated?
    Refresh yourself on the qualifications of the person that you seem to want to vilify now because he knows the truth about this anthropogenic climate change hoax.
    Richard Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983, when he joined the faculty at MIT, until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology.
    https://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/rlindzen

    This ruling by people who have no idea what they are dealing with is like this beyond stupid ruling by the Supreme Court that CO₂ is a pollutant.
    “But the Court decided that greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA capacious definition of “air pollutant”, and the EPA has statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. It was a split ruling, with five judges voting in favor and four dissenting”.
    I wonder if any of the five judges voting in favor of this idiotic ruling realize that each one of their wasted exhaled breaths contains this “air pollutant”, CO₂? How long would life exist on Earth without CO₂?

  24. 1974
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #93 10 Jan 2021 at 8:48 PM nigelj says: “This is the same JDS who on last months UV thread @208 posted a list of various hottest year claims to try to support his climate science denialism. Its such a huge and hilarious contradiction even by his standards”. The other gibberish that he presents is hard to understand what nigelj’s point was, if he even had a point. Perhaps nigelj can find the time to elucidate on what that very hidden point is because I will again post the #208 world record high temperatures with this clarification regarding the El Azizia, Libya temperature that was changed.

    1. Previous record of 58 degrees celsius recorded at El Azizia, Libya was reviewed (2010-2012) by a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission of Climatology (CCl) special international panel of meteorological experts. Their conclusion rejected the long-held record, citing (a) problematical instrumentation, (b) a likely inexperienced observer, (c) an observation site which was not representative of the desert surroundings, (d) poor matching of the extreme to other nearby locations and (e) poor matching to subsequent temperatures recorded at the site.
    Source: World Meteorological Organization.

    208
    J Doug Swallow says:
    24 Dec 2020 at 7:14 AM
    What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
    North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F)
    Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
    Australia, Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
    Europe, Seville, Spain, Aug. 4, 1881 (122F): (for whatever reason, this one has been changed to what is shown below)
    Europe        Athens, Greece (and Elefsina, Greece)        July 10, 1977        118.4        48.0
    South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
    Canada, Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
    Oceania; Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
    Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
    Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
    South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
    Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
    Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30’s?
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
     
    I have been to New Zealand three separate times and encounter some very nice, intelligent folks on both islands. It is now obvious that I never met nigelj.

  25. 1975
    J Doug Swallow says:

    #93 nigelj seemed to have a well-hidden point to try to make where if one presents temperature records, in his mind, that is “climate science denialism”. An astute person would have noticed that the dates of these high temp records are this; July 10, 1913, June 21, 1942, July 7, 1931, Jan. 2, 1960, July 10, 1977, Dec. 11, 1905 & Jan. 5, 1974. nigelj should have no problem explaing why and how this record for the coldest Temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was recorded on 22 December 1991 in his world with a terrible fever.
    New Coldest Northern Hemispheric Temperature Record
    WMO has recognized a temperature of -69.6°C (-93.3°F) at an automatic weather station in Greenland on 22 December 1991 as the lowest ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere.
    https://wmo.asu.edu/new-coldest-northern-hemispheric-temperature

  26. 1976
    J Doug Swallow says:

    I should have added this record to the one that I had presented to #93 nigelj about the coldest Temperature in the Northern Hemisphere that was set in 1991 to get his kindly appraisal of what it means in the broader picture of his world that is about to be incinerated because of CO₂.
    “New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica
    Scientists measure lowest temperature on Earth via satellites
    […]Using new satellite data, scientists have measured the most frigid temperature ever recorded on the continent’s eastern highlands: about -136°F (-93°C)—colder than dry ice.
    The temperature breaks the 30-year-old record of about -128.6°F (-89.2°C), measured by the Vostok weather station in a nearby location.
    Although they announced the new record this week, the temperature record was set on August 10, 2010.”
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131210-coldest-place-on-earth-antarctica-science/