This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Soaring Debt To GDP Is More Reponsible For Global Warming Than Rising CO2 Levels

Tyler Durden's picture


Because the latest fad amongst the voodoo shamanry known as econ Ph.Ds, especially those who have a blog in uber-liberal daily publications courtesy of a nominal gift from the status quo for valiant efforts in preserving the status quo, is to always and without fail assume that correlation is and always implies causation, we make, with the help of John Lohman, the following argument: since global leverage (via Debt-to-GDP) has a greater correlation to the "Temperature Anomaly" aka Global Warming, at 0.79, than CO2 concentration, at 0.69, it is obvious that global warming is purely a function of ever increasing leverage, and not, as is widely accepted by various ecological consultancies, carbon dioxide concentration. And now you see how easy it is to make idiotic, and totally spurious statements (which however serve as fodder for even more idiotic peer-reviewed white papers and journal submissions this keeping lots of people employed while contributing absolutely nothing to society), which given enough time, will become religion to a new breed of shamans once the old ones are forcibly kicked out of their comfortable corner offices.

h/t John Lohman


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:38 | 2052195 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:27 | 2052402 economics1996
economics1996's picture

One of the things I love about my economics professor job is telling students it’s all a big fucking lie.  I leave out the fuck part.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:29 | 2052416 economics1996
economics1996's picture

Especially that fucking Y = C+I+G+NX shit.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:55 | 2052504 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

is it all a BIG lie? or just a "big lie" with lot's of little untruth's to "tidy it all up"? either way it sounds highly disappointing if it's your chosen profession. there was a book i read about totally off the wall economics....Freakonomics I think it was called...loved it! talked about "hookers in Chicago" and "why is it so expensive to buy a house?" etc..., etc...perhaps if you went down that path?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:28 | 2052613 economics1996
economics1996's picture

Freakonomics was a PC book that glossed over some hard realities.  That being said exposing the public to the usefulness of regression analysis is good.  Overall it was a positive book.

I reject about 50% or more of the macroeconomic text out there.  I was into regression analysis a few years ago but have been getting my intellectual fix with Rothbard, Salerno, von Mises, North, and a little Murphy.

I like the monetary theory, probably because Freidman was my idle in college, and it keeps me out of trouble with the PC police.  If they ever let me loose I would get into massive trouble with the politically correct assholes of the world, best to stick to MV=PQ.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 02:30 | 2053592 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

where the correlation causality probably jumps best is the debt co2 relationship.  the human species is leveraging its metabolism such that its wastes grow exponentially.  however the connection between debt and warming is not as well defined as between co2 and warming:

on a poetic level, why wouldn't something as potent as fossil fuels for making man a little god also doom him?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 06:56 | 2053772 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

I think it would be more poetic if the idiots running the CO2 profit scam got their payday, and the fools looking to save the human race through reduced CO2 output got their payday of global crop failures, and then humanity gets another war over the struggle for resources, and the over-population of idiots will be reduced progessively.

In the meantime, the human race will continue to produce its basic feedstocks and continue to be able to breathe the atmosphere through an endothermic reaction (i.e. global cooling).  They should really consider taking that "truth" and shoving it up their "models" before they are exposed as the next iteration of  idiocy and fraud that brought the human race such innovations and established science as CDO valuation and HFT market effiency increases.    


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 11:04 | 2054328 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Wow, the CO2 profit scam, now, that is rich as the only profits in C02 are by the fossil fuel guys...

Rather strong words from a faith-based denier it seems, where did you get your deep insight, was it Rush or Glen?

BTW, I do agree that Cap N' Trade is a scam...

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 11:17 | 2054387 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Take your faith in math nerds' models and shove it where the sun doesn't warm.

You insult ad hominem attacks futher down in thread, and then toss them out yourself, while ignoring the argument .

Since you haven't responded to my explicitly argument on endothermic reactions (or the more nuanced one)- then either your science or your intellect is faulty.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 11:20 | 2054423 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Your argument is so nuanced as to be completely wrong... please see

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010

And your hypothesis has been directly refuted here:

Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in the Earths' energy balance


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 11:36 | 2054511 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

First one-

"When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations"

So over a short period of time ,and after we played with the data, the temperature was something other than absolutely unchanged... There is nothing in that article  which comes close to proving my argument wrong, much less addressing it, unless it's so buried that I couldn't uncover it in a three minute read through of nine page article

Second One-

"Based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we demonstrate"

I'm not paying $18 for five page article that couldn't properly footnote the one sentence above. 

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 07:57 | 2057653 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

So Foster and Rahmstorf are arguing that "man" (not co2) has caused the temperature of the earth's atmosphere to rise by 1/2 degree in 30 years.

For purposes of framing a debate, we have to start somewhere, and that's a good a place as any...

The Huber and Knutti research does pique my interest, especially in regards to the conservation of energy.  Following up on my rushed and incomplete thought on the co2 cycle before I had to step out last night.  "Man" does a lot of things which correlate to co2 production and which directly produce global warming (especially relevant in the context of the conservation of energy), among them-

1) The heat energy generated by the billions of gallons of petroleum burned each year for transportation.

2) Coal and Natural Gas fired power plants are also adding Yxxx btu of heat per year into the earth's atmosphere.  In addition, (and getting away from conservation of energy and back to relative spectroscopic properties of h2o and co2) as the number of increased efficiency combined cycle plants and even geothermal increases- the volume of water & water vapor directly trasferred from the surface to the atmosphere increases.

3) Electricity (end use vs production).  "Man made" "Climate Control" produces net a heat gain.  Running the furnace in winter is obvious, but even in summer while air conditioners and heat pumps lower the temperatue inside, they raise it outside. 

4) Industry itself generates huge btus of heat (regardless of whether it's Google data center or a Steel Mill) - all this heat has to go somewhere...

So looking at the paper-

The tansition from "thus suggesting an even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming" to "We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85 degrees of warming" srikes me as an unsubstantiated leap off the cliff of logic.  Digging deaper-

Since Knutti is here in Zurich, I might write him to see how the issues identified above are incorporated into the data set of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity.  Needless to say any- response including "proprietary" or "priveledged" would reaffirm my view that revoking funding and shipping all the climate con artists to the ICC for a proper debate on pre-emptive justice (which I don't personally believe in) would be a far more constructive use of public dollars.

The graph which reflects "positive forcings of stratospheric water vapour and nitrous oxide, play only a minor role in the cumulative forcing budget" seems to show water vapor in the atmosphere decreasing since 1900 in addition to showing another "hockey stick" co2 attribution,

The methodology of "The model results for 19502004 are shown in Fig. 2c,d and compare very well with recent observational estimates2, partly as a result of calibrating the model to the observed total ocean and surface warming" when coupled with "Furthermore, uncertainties in ocean heat uptake are large and differences between various reconstructions are significant18. The near constant ocean temperature over the past five years are not simulated by the model and its causes remain unclear10." needs further clarification.

The relationship between the "estimated" heat acculation on which the paper is based and the "range of uncertainty" bears repeating, and is a useful ruler the above sources depending on whether they are properly accounted for in the Bern2.5D climate model "Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 10^22 J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 10^22 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2"

Then there is whole issue of deforestation and the resultant reduction in global cooling and co2 removal from the atmosphere.  So the devil is in the details and the math... and not in the published paper.

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 12:52 | 2058475 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

First off, I truly appreciate the effort you made to look that the papers.

In FH2011 there is no such explicit arguement made the warming is anthropogenic. Please, read the conclusion again.

They simply take 3 accepted sources of variation in 5 different temperature records, the ENSO, aka El Nino/El Nina Southern oscilllation, the AOD which incorporates the effect of aerosols from volcanos such as Pinatubo and the TSI, the satellite measured total solar output...

They do not assume the effect of each of the above factors, amplitude and lag are free parameters in the a multiple regression. They also include the possibility of a linear trend in the temperature but no constraint on the slope is imposed.

When you crank through the data (code and data available here  data and code if you want to play with it in Excel)  you get Figure 4. Figure 5 are the monthly averages, Figure 6 shows the trend that falls out of the regression with 2 sigma errors (95% C.L.) Figure 7 shows the effect of the the drivers on the temperature data. You can clearly see the huge El Nino of 1998, the effect of the volcanic eruptions and the 11 year solar cycle.

So you see, no fancy modelling, just inclusion of accepted drivers of temperature variation (i.e. noise in the signal). What comes out is the following:

1) Most of the variation is explained, compare Fig.1 with Fig. 5

2) The trend is stable and significant at the 7-8 sigma level in all data sets... i.e. we are warming at 0.16 K per decade (coincidently, completely consistent with AGW forcing from C02 but the authors do not say that it is explitly AGW)

3) The significance of the trend is also there since 1998, many deniers say warming "stopped" then....

Note that the residuals show that most of the variation in the data is explained by the 3 exogenous effects. If it did not then you would see structure Fig. 5 that woud be significant compared to the trend. This is clearly not the case

This means that whatever else may affect the temperature, the month-month variations produced are small and the net result is a positive trend (linear over these time scales). In other words, what ever you propose must replicate the observed trend.

BTW, in the UAH data there is a statistically significant acceleration term, i.e. the warming is getting faster.

The earth is warming.... Game, Set and Match...


I will disscuss the second paper later, I have an appointment that I have go into the city for and I likely will not be able to get back to this until tomorrow.

Once again, I sincerely appreciate and acknowledge your effort to look at the papers.


Fri, 01/13/2012 - 14:36 | 2061786 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

From your discussion of man made heat sources, i.e. so called waste heat; are you trying to imply  that the heat from generated from the burning of fossil fuels is not being included and is important??? See for example

The forcing from waste heat is 0.028 W/m^2 or 1% of the forcing from the C02 in the atmosphere.

BTW, This number is consistent with a back of the envelope calculationt that gives 9.4e12/(4*1.3e14) = An average global forcing of ~0.018 W/m2 (4*1.3e14 m2 is the surface area of the Earth and 9.4 is the global energy use from oil and coal in 2005 in TW). If you include natural gas, that number rises to ~0.025 W/m2.

In other words, it is tiny and can be safely ignored....

You then write:

The graph which reflects "positive forcings of stratospheric water vapour and nitrous oxide, play only a minor role in the cumulative forcing budget" seems to show water vapor in the atmosphere decreasing since 1900 in addition to showing another "hockey stick" co2 attribution,

Not quite sure what your point is... They are talking about water in the Stratosphere and not the Troposphere...different beasts and far as their forcing effects go... Also, are you implying  that you do not believe increased C02 and Greenhouse gases do not affect the global temperature? Or are you saying that the C02 levels have not increased? What is it??

The rest of your post seems to be a cut and paste with the conclusion "I don't believe it, the math is not clear". But I will try to make some sense of what you wrote:

From your post:

The relationship between the "estimated" heat acculation on which the paper is based and the "range of uncertainty" bears repeating, and is a useful ruler the above sources depending on whether they are properly accounted for in the Bern2.5D climate model "Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 10^22 J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 10^22 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2"

Not sure what your issue is with this cut and paste from the paper, when they estimate/measure the energy budget there is a uncertainty, however, that uncertainty is propagated forward, those errors bars you see reflect that. Have you ever done an error analysis??

You close with this:

Then there is whole issue of deforestation and the resultant reduction in global cooling and co2 removal from the atmosphere.  So the devil is in the details and the math... and not in the published paper.

The C02 measurements reflect the effects you point out. Again you seem to be implying that the measured C02 concentrations are wrong, is that the case? Finally for your your edification I found this on the Bern model

The cost-efficient, Bern 2.5-D physical-biogeochemical climate model [Marchal et al., 1998] is used, which has previously been applied to study global warming – marine carbon cycle feedbacks [Joos et al., 1999, Plattner et al. 2001]. The model consists of a zonally averaged, dynamic ocean model, coupled to an atmospheric energy balance model with an active hydrological cycle, and includes representations of the marine and terrestrial carbon cycles. Sediment processes are neglected. CO2 fertilization of the terrestrial biosphere is taken into account by a logarithmic dependence of net primary production on elevated atmospheric CO2. Model setup and simulations are as described in detail in Plattner et al. [2001]. Radiative forcing from observed historic and projected future atmospheric CO2, non-CO2 greenhouse gases and aerosols is taken into account [see Joos et al., 2001, for details].


So in conclusion, you have done nothing to show that the paper and its conclusions are incorrect.... Thanks for playing.

Edit: Edited to correct typos...

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 16:45 | 2055915 yt75
yt75's picture

Indeed all CO2 markets stuff are a joke (and can lead to stupid technical stuff like CCS, with a loos of 30% efficiency, while consuming so much more ressource).

The only sound policies regarding both peak oil/peak ressources and CO2/global warming is volume based taxes on fossile fuels, and high ones (to push the products cars and housing in particular in the right direction, more than as budget revenus).

And lower trade deficit in the process.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:33 | 2052636 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

Freakonomics is just another display of a lot of bullshit. Not all, but a bunch. That guy who thinks because he's an economist he can apply that academia to rising her child with monetary incentives, just to turn her into a money bitch? Or the failed attempt to bribe children into studying? The part about abortion is interesting. But most of it was about people way too detached with reality.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 06:35 | 2053754 Coke and Hookers
Coke and Hookers's picture

Freakonomics was a pathetic book. A couple of economists 'discover' what social psychologists have been doing for decades and become really excited. Then they cook up a few examples, draw conclusions about causal factors based on political correctness rather than the obvious, then write a shitty book. Freakonomics was an eye opening experience for me; it showed me how utterly clueless economists are and how far from 'science' the field is. Everything that's happened since then has reinforced that view.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:39 | 2052457 Pinch
Pinch's picture

Is Tyler Durden a AGW denier? This post seems to imply it.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:23 | 2052600 MiguelitoRaton
MiguelitoRaton's picture

Let's hope he's a denier, he does seem to rely on facts and appreciates the scientific method, both of which have no place in the AGW religion.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:26 | 2052611 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Is Tyler Durden a AGW denier? This post seems to imply it."

The only thing that can't be denied is the emails from college professor "scientists" coming to light promoting the suppression of any other scientific view in order to keep their federal grant money flowing.

Yet another criminal enterprise.

Want to help stop AGW? Quit breathing.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:40 | 2053167 Lower Class Elite
Lower Class Elite's picture

You first.  Bitch.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 07:15 | 2053788 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Thats another "Inconvenient Truth" about the Imperial Guards surrounding the states CO2 jewels.

They have zero sense of humor ;-)

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:02 | 2052749 midtowng
midtowng's picture

The "ultra-liberal blog" comment gave it away as much as anything.

It's sad to see normally smart people get stupid because they embrace partisan politics.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 00:18 | 2053321 Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

You admit that the tyler(s) are smart, yet in this instance you presuppose stupidity?  Why is the mocking of scientific dishonesty dishonest, but the scientific dishonesty itself gets a pass?  I've heard leftist groups heap praise on julian assange for leaking all kinds of government deception, and take umbrage at the leaking of the mann deceptions.  Who exactly is embracing partisan politics here?

Regardless of whether or not you believe in agw, you must notice that the culmination of agw is money - but not for you; for TPTB.  If that doesn't chill your hots for anthropogenic global warming, then sell your gold and go to huffpo.  Or, stay here and follow the $$$.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 01:09 | 2053472 Lower Class Elite
Lower Class Elite's picture

The culmination of agw is money?!  Dude, the Koch brothers spend more money on fucking underwear than Michael Mann's entire department gets in research grants in any given year .  Are there greedy opportunist fucks trying to cash in on the climate change bandwagon?  Most certainly.  But that shit is chump change compared to the segments of the economy (umm, pretty much all of it) trying to cash in on keeping you believing that your high energy high consumption high waste lifestyle and all the dirty underhanded fucked up shit corporations do to serve it up to you is not just perfectly harmless to the great big ol' forgiving Earth, but in fact your God-given right.  Get a motherfucking clue, people.     

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 02:34 | 2053599 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

what s/he said.  and a toast to the lady in the red hat while we are at it.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 07:38 | 2053805 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Of course the culimation of AGW is money...the UN spends more money in a year promoting AGW than the Kochs and all others have spent in total opposing this fraud.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 16:44 | 2055909 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

What does high waste life style mean? It certainly doesn't mean AGW, so what does it have to do with proving your point that AGW is valid?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:39 | 2052908 Dorky
Dorky's picture

This should not be a surprise because the more debt there is, the more industrial production and consumption will be in place, which is a cause of global warming.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:54 | 2053232 downrodeo
downrodeo's picture

omg, so it IS bullshit...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:38 | 2052198 BrocilyBeef
BrocilyBeef's picture

Speling erors are more reponsibly for Global Apathy than Rising c03 lvels

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:40 | 2052200 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Soaring Debt to GDP is responsible for my hemorrhoids.

And the correlated causation hurts like a mother f**ker.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:10 | 2052341 Don Birnam
Don Birnam's picture

A most unfortunate comfort anomaly. Perhaps a new investment thesis is warranted...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:39 | 2052202 lemosbrasil
lemosbrasil's picture

It doesnt matter what they gonna do with Q3........


Dow Jones is in a down channel pattern......

There are many possibilities, but the firt target 1-3 months is 9.800, after a hard pullback until 10.700-11.700, and finally after a hard and deep crash until 6.400-7.000


See here:

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:06 | 2052320 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Your waxed lips to God's ears.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:39 | 2052205 tallen
tallen's picture

The level of bull-shit/methane being given out by politicans is reaching new all time highs. Remember, Methane is 20x more effective in trapping heat than CO2.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:50 | 2052251 Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

But, but the politicians are trying to figure out how to tax farting cow's. I shit you not..............


Cow's/Cattle that produce methane. The mfer's are completly insane.

The new debt reduction plan, tax rancher's that raise cattle which are farting, whoop's excuse me, methane gas production from livestock.  

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:15 | 2052356 Rollerball
Rollerball's picture

Shitting me would cause your asshole to expand into a black hole, which would then engulf all your problems. 

WGAF.  Tax cattle ranchers into oblivion.  I'll eat chicken.  Tastes just like human.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:22 | 2052385 Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

Hope, Hope and Change!!! Chant it, chant it, yes you can, yes you can.


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:21 | 2052380 Hi Ho Silver
Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:37 | 2052662 nmewn
nmewn's picture

And the decaying trees and any other organic matter that has the gall to die and emit CO2 to feed living green things as well.

An Estate Tree Tax is clearly called for now!

They're getting away with murder here, these young tree heirs! ;-)

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:07 | 2054090 TheThirdBifurcation
TheThirdBifurcation's picture

You show a deep understanding of both carbon cycling and fossil fuels 

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:40 | 2052207 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Good, keep selling bonds and soon the New England shore will become a tropical paradise.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:42 | 2052214 thatthingcanfly
thatthingcanfly's picture

Nah, it's all George Bush's fault.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:43 | 2052223 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Fucking brilliant

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:46 | 2052232 steveo
steveo's picture

You could get me to believe that leverage spurs economics activity which creates greehouse gases

But more likely sunspots, the less there are the hotter it is, and vice versa


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:48 | 2052241 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

a message for all you goldbugs apparently. "no matter the debt load i can still pump more oil to compensate...mofo's. and look! look at the the good we do!! when the temperatures warm...prices go down and demand goes even higher! a virtuous circle! (now if you want to see a Polar Bear we still have them at a thing called a "zoo.")"

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:25 | 2052395 Rollerball
Rollerball's picture


I get it.   But most don't.  So that's a bad thing? 

Who the fuck needs polar bears anyway? 

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:58 | 2052520 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

i put these things..."in quotes"...because i'm not sure i agree with the evil thing that resides in my mind that causes me to dream this stuff up. i'm glad it makes you laugh though cuz whatever "it" makes me laugh too!

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:49 | 2052243 Rainman
Rainman's picture

Global warming was/is/hopes to be the next big trading con. That is all.

OT, even the hedge funds are wary of the invisible hand in the market.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:50 | 2052250 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Climate instability. It's coming. 

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:55 | 2052279 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Climate volatility?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:35 | 2052436 James-Morrison
James-Morrison's picture

What comes next?

 Debt-GDP Tax (to bring down CO2 to more reasonable level)?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:00 | 2052524 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

taxing "brain farts." that should help close the gap.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:58 | 2052288 Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

EPA instability is here.

This is actually a true story. I know Sackett, the fricking lot they where going to build there home on is a gravel pile the EPA say's is a wetland AFTER the land was purchased. EPA has him charged with over a 100 million in fines. 

And our gubernment wonder's why we have a deficit. 

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:49 | 2052245 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Herman Cain on Tuesday scolded the Republican presidential candidates for attacking each other, citing Ronald Reagan’s “eleventh commandment” — except he was confused about the number.

“Look, these candidates have broken the Reagan’s rule from the beginning. Reagan’s ‘thirteenth commandment’, you know? Don’t go negative against another Republican, but they did it anyway!”

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:50 | 2052248 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture



Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:50 | 2052254 savagegoose
savagegoose's picture

you also find the more industrial pollution a country makes, the  lower child mortallity goes.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:52 | 2052264 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Yes, Darwinian. What won't kill ya will make ya strong

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:30 | 2052420 Rollerball
Rollerball's picture

No retard, it makes child labor law(yers) stronger.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:56 | 2052508 Theosebes Goodfellow
Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

I'm sure this will hopefully be a source of enlightenment for you, Rollerball, but for the rest of us it's old news. Around here we can always tell when someone is a troll. You see, they're the ones who engage in name-calling for no other reason than to "top" the previous poster. If you can't refrain from this behavior, do the rest of us a favor and either go elsewhere or simply STFU.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:51 | 2052256 Conrad Murray
Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:53 | 2052270 piceridu
piceridu's picture

Absolutely many tree huggers ever thought of carbon emissions in those terms. My

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:53 | 2052273 IED
IED's picture

eat your heart out Al Gore

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:58 | 2052291 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:41 | 2052676 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Awww hockey sticks. I wanted to say that.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:55 | 2052277 chump666
chump666's picture



Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:55 | 2052280 Luke 21
Luke 21's picture

I actually think you are on to something, Tyler. Call me crazy, but it seems logical that global warming and increased CO2 emissions would be connected to high debt to gdp ratios. High debt debt to GDP forces an unsustainable rise in economic growth (and a rather wasteful economic growth) that increases CO2 emissions.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:01 | 2052304 Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

You are correct imho. 

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:34 | 2052432 Rollerball
Rollerball's picture

Politicians are leverage. 

Vote for me if you have the time to waste.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:58 | 2052977 widget
widget's picture

Crazy Luke -

You are crazy.

What part of "Soaring Debt To GDP Is More Reponsible For Global Warming Than Rising CO2 Levels" is so hard to grasp? For there to be causality CO2 levels would have to cause debt/gdp levels and debt/gdp levels cause warming. (Maybe low oxygen levels in central bankers' brains causes them to make more loans and that releases energy that causes heat? Nah, I don't think they care about their weather since they're gods anyway)

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:59 | 2052294 AldoHux_IV
AldoHux_IV's picture

In a funny way it does make sense-- afterall how does one pay for all the pollution creating machinery that is industry? Why on debt of course.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:08 | 2052295 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Anyone out there want to debate me regarding this result:

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr?1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

A synopsis and description for the layman is available here:


The results are consistent with this recent nugget:

Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in the Earths' energy balance

with a synopsis here


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:08 | 2052334 FOC 1183
FOC 1183's picture

Since 1979? You do realize the planet is 4.5 billion years old?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:11 | 2052343 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If you read the paper, you would know why it is 1979....

Sorry, but you will have do better than come up with some asshat flippancy to win this one...

Next please. 

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:37 | 2052407 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

I'm looking at Spencer's/NASA UAH global satellite temperatures here and I am wondering why global temps have decreased since the peak in the 1998 El Nino and have remined flat or falling ever since. Of course that's just the satellite record and it might not be as biased as HadCrut which is derived from NOAA and NASA GISS which is derived from NOAA HadCrut and the sats...

RSS also looks like it's seen warmer days...

Anyway... things were at least as warm as today during the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) around 1,000 years ago and were much warmer during the Holocene Optimum a couple of thousand years ago so I'm not going to get too worried just yet...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:38 | 2052453 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

No, quoting a flawed Spencer argument  don't do it. Explain why the above paper is incorrect.  That was the challenge.. (it was the 1998 El Nino BTW)

The above paper conclusively shows warming since the 1998 El Nino (did you ever read the abstract where it states 2009 and 2010 were the warmest years in the series (Taking into account the TSI). You do know that the Sun does effect the temperature, do you? The sun is near a cycle minimum, here is a link a "skeptics" page showing the TSI

In case you don't know Bob Tisdale is "skeptic" trotted out at WTFUWT....

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:46 | 2052481 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

It's not an argument Flakemaster... it's DATA!!!

OK.. one more question then.

Why is there a fully grown spruce tree emerging from glacial ice at Columbia Glacier in Alaska? The point being if the planet has never been warmer as Mann, Jones, Tamino would have us believe then how did a mature specimen like this grow in the first place?

The tree is over 1,000 years old and as you can clearly see there isn't so much as a hint of a blade of grass growing here?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:56 | 2052499 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why don't you look at the UAH data in the above paper? Is it because the the UAH data also shows it. Read the fucking paper and explain why it is wrong. Is that too much to expect of a skeptic, as opposed to a denier??

As for Spencer, I am very leery of climate researchers that have a history of accepting money from fossil fuel interests.... An honest judge would recuse himself, but not our boy Roy...

Now as to the data, did you account where we are in the solar cycle? Is it El Nino/ El Nina??? If the raw temperature is flat, and you have two period forcings that favor cooling are prevalent, what do you think happens when they reverse?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:08 | 2052532 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Hey looky looky... a National Geographic article on GLOBAL COOLING IN 1976!!!

Of course BEFORE global warming became a billion dollar hoax industry you can see that temperatures were WARMER in the 1930's and 1940's than they were in the 1970's. One can also clearly see that temperatures in the 1970's were at least as cold as the 1890 to 1900 period.

And when you look at Mann's bullshit HOCKEYSTICK Graph for the IPCC look at how those temperatures were adjusted and REDUCED after the fact!!! The 1970's were NO longer as cold as the late 1800's. Care to explain THAT anomally?


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:10 | 2052556 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nice try buddy... you are a "galloping Gish",  all over the place. At this rate you will use every discredited denier arguement out there in about 35 minutes...

The challenge was to refute or explain why the paper I linked was wrong...  You cannot, much as I expected.

Why don't you read the paper and try to explain why it is wrong. I am patient, I can wait...


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:37 | 2052655 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

The paper you linked is actually a CGM modelling exercise and therefore it's impossible to critique especially when they do not archive their data or release the code for their climate models.

The sun is the primary driver of our climate. The oceans are the reservoir for over 90% of the accumulated heat energy. The largest ocean cycles Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) provide the for largest surface and tropospheric temperature trends (El Nino & La Nina amongst them).

The ARGO system (in place since 2003) says ocean temperatures are curently flat... as in NOT RISING. Meanwhile we have a very quiet solar cycle on the go... so we can now see how powerful CO2 actually is!

All we have to do now is wait.

My guess is that the planet is about to get up to 1 degree C. colder in  the next 20 years. Not warmer.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:50 | 2052705 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The first paper is *not* a CGM modeling exercise.... You are wrong. I won't tell you what it is, maybe you can figure it out. If you cannot, then you really should STFU and you have no basis to form any opinion you might have on GW and AGW.

BTW, the TSI was included in the analysis. You do know what the TSI is, do you??

How much do you want to wager on your climate bet? I will wager $5000 than in the next 10 years we will have at least 2 of the warmest years on the record. Tyler can be my witness. I will bet that the global temperate will be at least 0.1 C warmer....

So, please explain why the paper is wrong? Can you even state what the conclusions were???

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:08 | 2052780 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Oh fuck where do I begin?

When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced.

When you adjust and play with DATA it's CALLED MODELLING A-HOLE!!!

It's bad enough that they do not even QUANTIFY the nature of the the adjustments they make (as per usual) however did you also notice that they did not include the algos they used?

Anyway... Grow the fuck up and try to learn climate mechanics before you start posting.


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:15 | 2052807 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Could you explain what the paper is about?

Since you seem to be the fucking expert, write one paragraph describing what was done?

I bet you can't.... Surprise me.


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:25 | 2052827 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

I thought you knew?

One paragraph ... hmmm. Shit. OK.


The paper is about your gullability and ignorance generally.


Anything else I can help you with? Have you found the AGW signal at the tropical tropopause perhaps as you CAGW models suggest? Perhaps maybe Trenberth's MISSING HEAT?

Thought not.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:28 | 2052860 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

As I thought... you are out of ammo and left to hurling insults... Shit, you let me down, I had hopes for you above all the rest here...

What is the paper about??? What did they do???

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:39 | 2052896 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

You are doing more than an adequate enough job of insulting yourself.

If you let me redo their 'study' (if they had the guts to open source the data) I could make it dance and sing and do anything just by understating or overstating the UHI effect alone.

These guys are frauds. Some may mean well perhaps... but they are frauds none-the-less!

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:46 | 2052928 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why can't you discuss the paper? It is very simple but you can't understand it? Is that it?

From you, all I see is just more strawmen and red herrings....

There are 5 temperature records used, throw out Phil and HADcru, even Roy's fav UAH shows the effect....

Face it, you cannot even comment on it, because even a *simple* paper is way over your head....

Maybe you'd like to comment on the recent BEST results???

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:07 | 2053031 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

BEST was PR crap as you know... they only used the surface stations not the sat temps in the process. (30% of worlds surface) Since NO adjustment was made for UHI effect the reslts are complete trash. Measuring temperatures in parking lots is NO way to conduct climate science. As cities grow they get warmer... hence the warming signal.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:26 | 2053104 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are an out and out denier....

Is the planet warming? Do you deny GW or is it just AGW? Which is it...

The UHI effect was blown away..... GW is there in the rural data, the satellite data, all the fucking data...

and their spokesman's comment:

In October 2011, Muller wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, concerning his work with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.
Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.[12]
Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:57 | 2052721 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Here is an article that states bigfoot exists.  Please debunk it using no outside data, no bigfoot denier arguments,  no real evidence of hoaxes or data manipulation, no history, or no thought.  Thanks, Zerohead, well done!

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:07 | 2052774 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Anthropogenic Bigfoot bitchez!!!

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:16 | 2052812 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

We are not yet certain that Bigfoot is a sub-species of Homo anything... Sapiens, erectus, sexual or otherwise. Hence utterances of the use of 'Anthropogenic Bigfoot' should be reserved to describe our domestic security organizations (police army etc.) that like to play 'footsie' with us little people.


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:16 | 2052815 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, thats the level of your intellectual discourse....very shallow and superficial, but I already knew that....

Comment on the paper, or not at all. I defy you to, because I bet you can't.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:19 | 2052824 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Perhaps you would like to comment on how people who hide behind lots of jargon cannot see through a simple wealth distribution scam.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:30 | 2052869 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I will not defend people with misguided agendas on what we do about AGW... My only argument is about the science.

You are not a dumb guy, you explain what the paper is about.... One paragraph...  

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:43 | 2052917 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

I actually did read the paper.  I have to laugh when they claim they can account for all variables other than CO2.  One tiny example is when the air conditioner exhaust is 10 feet from the monitoring station which is also 10 feet from a gas grill.  Google urban heat island effect if you want.  I also tend not to believe the figures because there has been proof of forgery and data manipulation.  If you refuse to examine the motives of those involved, you might miss something.  Follow the money. 

Tell ya what.  I'm going to bed because I have a cold, so you can have the last word.  Goodnight and God bless, Flak.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:47 | 2052935 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You really don't get it do you?

And the UIH was demolished by the BEST collaboration results...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:43 | 2052919 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Better yet how about some graphs?

Below you will see some IPCC Climate projections versus the actual observed planetary temperatures. You may noy like the results.., perhaps Tamino's 'paper' can help? :)


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:49 | 2052940 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What are you babbling about now???

Comment on the paper in an intelligent manner or forever brand yourself as a hysterical fool...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:12 | 2053045 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Hey you're the dude thinking that the planet is going to heat up and burst into flames... not me!

I'm just the guy telling you that you have bigger things to worry about like pending economic collapse.


So who's the fool now? :)

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:28 | 2053114 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you practice being a clown?

Maybe I can hire you as a jester after TSHTF, I'll pay one ASE per week but you have to be funny..

BTW, great strawman asshat... 

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:35 | 2052886 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Oh look its another paper by our best & brightest!!!

Care to comment on why "scientific" AGW supporters don't condemn obfuscation & lies? How much money would you say has been pilferred from europeans by taxing CO2 since this all started? Two-three billion?

What is the result? Who was enriched? What has been achieved by this taxation?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:38 | 2052901 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Quit with the strawmen....

Comment on the details of the two very recent papers I linked....pure science and math, no ideology.

BTW, do you know what PCA is?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:46 | 2052925 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

How are those IPCC future climate projections from the past working out for you lately?

As George w. Bush would say... this sucker is going DOWN!!!


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:49 | 2052944 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you know what PCA is? Have you ever used it?


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 07:55 | 2053826 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Flaky is a religious AGW kook who like to impress others on ZH with his supposed erudition.  Just another loser...

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:11 | 2054108 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And what pray tell is your claim to fame?....

I am athiest with a Ph.D. in physics...

Can you comment on the paper? If not STFU

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 13:53 | 2055087 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Yeah Thank you Zerohead, I do not have to waste time arguing with the faggotmeister.  If faggy spent less time with al gores dick in his mouth, he might learn something...but I doubt it.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 13:57 | 2055110 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nice, another intellectual tour de force on your part and you even gave yourself an up vote...

Voting for yourself, now that is a pathetic narcissist!

Going to make an ass of yourself again like last time?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:57 | 2052507 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:49 | 2052492 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Since I cannot paste figures, here is a rebuttal of your MWP

Globally, the MWP was at a lower temperature than now... see Fig. 1 above. *Locally*, there is indeed evidence that the NAO was warmer....

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:49 | 2052698 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

You have got to be shitting me.

If there was NO MWP how did Greg Wile's (Dendrochronologist BTW) 1,000 year old spruce log manage to exit ice from the Colombia Glacier when the climate then as you state was COLDER than now?

I am very familiar with pollen reconstructions from the beginning of the Holocene as they pertain to North American lakes and bogs up to today. (10,000 years) You sir are an idiot. The planet has been up to 2.8 degrees celsius wamer during the holocene optimum than it is today. I don't know of any paleolab in the world that would deny the existence of the earth having been warmer during the Holocene Optimmum.

Except for the MannGassers. Even Trenberths corrupted Yamal series showed us as much.

Look again buddy... things have been much warmer in the recent past...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:07 | 2052772 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Note that I did not say there was no MWP, I said it was a local phenomena. And even then, it was cooler than now.

Re: the Holocene, digging out Easterbrooks, eh?? You are referring to local temperature proxies, not global.

Here is a rebuttal of the Holocene based argument:

Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.

This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. The depths of his misunderstanding are made clear in a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:

The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland.

Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.


Look, stick to the challenge.... explain why the paper I first quoted is wrong... You don't even understand it, which is ironic because it is very elegant and simple paper...

Show me you are rational skeptic and and not ideologically based denier...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:51 | 2052946 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:51 | 2052953 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Here are some ice cores from the Holocene. I think that you can clearly see that several thousand of the past 10,000 years have been much warmer than now.

Or are you blind?


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:53 | 2052961 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Where is the link????

And do not show Easterbrooks flawed work....

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:04 | 2053025 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes.... as I thought the Easterbrook data where 1855 becomes the year 2000...Are you aware that temperature proxies have limitations?

Fuck man, I even predicted what you were going to show...try again...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:15 | 2053059 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Are you aware that temperature proxies have limitations?


You should tell that to Mann and Briffa. Apparently they are blissfully unaware that tree ring growth corresponds to to the limiting factor of precipitation NOT temperature.

TREEMOMETERS do not exist. But thanks for trying!

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:31 | 2053125 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Not only a clown but obtuse as well... I said proxies have limitations and proper error analysis reflects that....

Do you get your science from the Bible? Do you think technology is magic?? What is the highest level math or science class you have taken?


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:46 | 2053176 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Can you at least admit that Mann spliced post 1980(?) instrumental temps onto his paleo-reconstruction that even Keith Briffa had problems (and a heart attack apparently) with? The Yamal series were a farce in cherry-picking and one set of tress was (errantly?) inverted to make a better case for 'no temperature changes' in the last 1,000 years.

As for a background in science... I do have one in Earth Sciences. I used to believe in AGW until Manns IPCC hockeystick graph came out a deade ago. Then I questioned everything since it looked nothing like what I had seen in Paleoclimatology before or even after. I thought everyone knew that the Vikings lived for 500 years in Greenland during the MWP when temps were warmer before dying out around 1400 AD due to cooling conditions.

These guys are professional liars and clowns.

Enjoy SC24 and then SC25. Most solar physicists predict low ones.

Let's see where the temps go from here. I say down.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 00:21 | 2053332 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, Manns original study was "flawed", not dishonest.  You see in science, when you do something for the first time, you get cut some slack. In some sense, you stick your dick on the table and every one gets to take a whack with a hammer....Now, all subsequent paleo reconstructions agree with Mann's orginal and Mann has been cleared so many time over it is not even funny....

The MWP was a local  effect and current global temps. are higher than *global* temps then.

Do you dispute GW? Or is it AGW?

GW is accepted by everyone, only a few cranks dispute it. The argument is about AGW.


Now, if you know science, you also know that young bucks want to make their names. You don not get a name by being a sycophant... If it was easy to blow a hole in AGW, then competent researchers would do it. Lord Monckton is not a competent researcher...

Now, do you not agree that any researcher that could destroy the AGW hypothesis would be a wealthy man? He could name his price from the fossil fuel industry... The fact that no *frontline* climate scientist has done so should be telling you something.

I mean, if they are so cheap to buy off, then why hasn't Exxon thrown each of them $500,000 to be quiet...(that is 0.5% of Exxon's profits the last decade, assuming 1000 scientists) or about what the last CEO walked away with as a retirement package....


Yes, we better hope that the Sun stays quiet, do you have any idea what 2010 would have been like if we were at the peak of the 11 year cycle and not the bottom?

Thats it I;m off...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:00 | 2052744 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it's a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN's director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them". Readers can judge whether CLOUD's lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss's warning."

As for your paper...if the data is misinterpreted it means the conclusion is wrong. Period.

Kinda like a ton of manned weather staions in Siberia going off line because of no money to pay anyone to man them when the Soviet Union imploded.

But I'm sure your results will vary ;-)

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:17 | 2052785 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Blow it out your ass,  stick to the paper I brought up. And, BTW the CERN cloud results are inconclusive anyway, one way or the other....

What data is wrong? The agreed upon temperature record, recently vindicated by the BEST collab? The same collab that was hailed by Heartland and WTFUWT as the guys that would skewer GW???

You are full of shit and have no idea of what you speak....

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:21 | 2052830 nmewn
nmewn's picture

lol...blow it out my ass? Isn't that a contributing factor according to you? What do you take me for, some sort of statist egomaniac bent on world domination?

I can assure you I don't derive any of my income from a rise in price to the consumer by promoting this nonsense.

And you? What is your interest?

I find you defending AGW and a general rise in oil energy prices on just about every thread you appear in. Whats your game Flak?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:35 | 2052889 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I don't have a game...

I do not give a fuck what we do or don't do about AGW...

I don't really care if AGW implies that your view of the world is flawed, that is for you to reconcile...

All I care is that people recognize what the science is telling us...that is all.

Pure rationalism...

Call it the Separation of Science and Ideology...



Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:57 | 2052965 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Science is telling us that you are an idiot.


If you scroll down the series you can see the planetary temperatures over the last half million years or so. It might snap you out of your brainfart.

It comes from real scientists doing real science. Forget your Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming computer models where Garbage In equals Garbage Out OK?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:02 | 2053012 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"I don't have a game..."

I'm not so sure Flak. Who appears with a "white paper" in hand demagouging everyone to disprove "their evidence" on the spot?

That would be you.

You brought up Heartland. Here is a senior fellow there...

"When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are."

"Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models."

Now, why is it, that deep within the bowels of a "shovel ready jobs bill" would the American people find funding for a brand new "climate modeling" franchise for NASA?

Could it possibly be that the old models didn't work?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:11 | 2053051 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

C'mon, you are going to look me straight in the eye and tell me that the Heartland Institute which recieves significant funding from fossil fuel interests, esp. coal, is going to be objective about AGW and C02... really?

This is the same guy that complains about Wall St. buying off the system and the attendant corruption but he will take the Heartland Inst., a mouth piece of big-coal, over the concensus of 1000 or so climate scientists whose combined annual research budget is maybe 1 hr or so the fossil fuel industry profits....

Do you know how much of a fool and hypocrite you come across as? I mean, show some credibility and rationalism...

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 08:00 | 2053832 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

I remember that Flak posted his resume on a thread awhile ago listing his credentials as a climate scientist. Why don't you repost it?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:00 | 2052992 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

CERN's director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them". Readers can judge whether CLOUD's lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss's warning."


BTW nmewm,  I have meet Jasper Kirkby and have had lunch with him a number times..... and and as for  RDH, I have used him as reference numerous times..... Would you respect and accept RDH's opinion on AGW straightup or would you insult him to his face?? How about Richard Feynman? Do you think he would also get it wrong?


Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:08 | 2053040 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"BTW nmewm,  I have meet Jasper Kirkby and have had lunch with him a number times....."

Uh, whut?

Wouldn't this put you in the "game"?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:16 | 2053069 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why don't you google dear old Jasper and find out what he does and what he has done?

There was an experiment called L3 that he was involved in many years ago... 

But that is what I expect from you, innuendo and bluster and general bullshit...

Hey, with ideology you are allowed to have misguided opinions, but facts are a different matter...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:39 | 2053164 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

Junked you for being an arrogant ass tonight.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 00:32 | 2053376 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I don't really fucking care what you think...

I posted a recent simple elegant paper that was data, not model, driven and asked people to have a rational discussion....

No one appeared to read the paper or the laymans synopsis I provided... but they all had strawmans and ad hominums ready... 

Hell the hardcore deniers could have looked it up at WTFUWT to at least get some talking points, but that rebuttal was a hopeless hash of shit that was laughable (I mean the guy had to provide updates as he fucked things up so badly). In the fact the rebuttal is more convoluted than the paper...

My point was made, the GW deniers here at the Hedge show their hand every time... I only respond in like to them...

You may recall that once upon a time, there were only a few Peak Oil aware posters here at the Hedge... at least no called anyone a stupid cunt tonight... or maybe you forgot those days...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:51 | 2053206 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Your words..."I don't have a game..."

Whats your occupation Flak?

You've had lunch with "dear old Jasper", yes? I can honestly say I've never had lunch with "dear old Jasper". I'm gonna go out on a very long limb here tonight and state with complete confidence that 99.9% of the people here at ZH has never had lunch with "dear old Jasper".

Mostly because this is not their or my "game". And I didn't need a "white paper" to prove it ;-)


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 00:02 | 2053260 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Japser apparently used to believe that the sun was responsible for 50 to 100% of the global warming that we experienced.

Then he found his research dollars drying up. This is an interesting piece!!!


Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature. Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice. –Lawrence Solomon, National Post, 23 Feb 2007


Looks like the bucks has turned him  into a believer!!!



Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:47 | 2054264 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Make up your mind....the CLOUD data was supposed to explain what was going on and refute warming at least according to the press releases...It was a nothing burger...

BTW, Jasper was always a little out there, smart guy though....

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:33 | 2053118 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

The CERN results are clear the reson Svensmark was not allowed to test his own theory there is however NOT.  The Svensmarks cosmic ray theory lives!!!

Perhaps Popular Science is in the pay of big oil?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:46 | 2053140 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are still running around like a chicken without a head....

Show me a credible analysis showing a long term correlation between temperature records and cosmic ray flux...

Go ahead make my day....

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:56 | 2053218 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Yup... they were counting a lot of neutrinos back a couple hundred years ago weren't they?

Are you as stupid as you sound?


Hey... just between you and me... where did Greg Wiles 1,000 (+) old hemlock log come from then?

The ice movement suggests from an even higher (and thus colder) elevation level. And how many years of a stable warm climate would it take to grow such a hemlock forest. 200? 500?

Answer that question and I will present you with a prize!! :)


World is experiencing a fever... temperatures have never been warmer. You are an idiot for not even LOOKING at the evidence that is in front of your eyes!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 12:07 | 2054691 Flakmeister
Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:59 | 2052948 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Ah, but who gets to decide how far back "the agreed upon temperature record" should go for such purposes?  If you go back far enough you can see that ice ages come and go in semi-regular cycles.  Human civilization began after the last one ended ~11,000 years ago. 

Has the cycle of ice ages and inter-glacial warming periods been suspended simply because humans are such hyper-aware, iPad toting, hot shits right now? I doubt it.  So even if anthropogenic forces really are driving global warming right now they will almost certainly be overwhelmed by much larger forces at some point because that's what happened the last time and the time before that and the time before that.  Your Prius isn't going to stand between NYC and 1000 ft. of ice.

It's at least as likely that AGW is buying us time rather than dooming us but in any case we're talking about literally the largest and most complex dynamic system in the world here so no, it's not too hard to deny that any particular interested party can predict much of anything in this field of study beyond a coin flip level of certainty.

Besides, some of us have had quite enough of trading liberty for "security" with central planners thank you very much. Sorry but these folks have rather lost their credibility lately. Fix the real estate market y'all fucked up first and then get back to me about those crappy light bulbs...

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:38 | 2053162 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So when all is said and done, AGW is wrong because it will be a trade of "liberty"....

Do you understand the science? Are you aware of the lastest data?

So, in the context of much larger forces, the fact that we have dumped 200 million years worth of sequestered C02 into the atmosphere is a space of 200 years doesn't connect with you??? Ice Ages come and go over a very long time scale, not 200 years....

All I say is respect the science and what it is telling us....

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 08:06 | 2053842 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

There is no science, just a political fraud designed to enrich a small group of insiders at the expense of everyone else. You can pull all the numbers out of your ass that you wish, no one believes you except for other AGW religious kooks like yourself.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!