he's one cool dad! Tight rope lunges with DB's!

Impresive

Awesome pic. Awesome article on the farce that is global warming. When are people going to realize that ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY?! I'm glad crossfit understands.

Is that little kid doing ring dips or attempting an L-sit?

Either way totally awesome pic all around.

Making up the clean & jerk wod on rest day... First time trying heavy jerks.

The posted global warming article is a classic bait and switch. Just because "global climate has not raised in the last 15 years" does not negate global warming. Visit this link ( http://skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html ) if you are interested in understanding why.

wow!! Insane picture. Guy is shredded.

I read through the rest day article regarding the fact that the earth has not warmed in 15 years. I thought it was an interesting read, however, if the article is accurate, why have the polar ice caps and many of the worlds largest glacial fields seen unprecedented retraction in the last decade? It feels like climate science is a lot like politics with two polar opposite viewpoints and no middle ground or logical voice of reason. Looking forward to the rest day!

Great photo

Lunges on a tight rope.... squats on a bosu ball... im not sure i like where this is heading...

that being said it is very impressive

I didn't notice the tight rope at first and was already impressed and when I did see it, my jaw dropped, I can't even imagine the amount of effort he must have put into getting his balance as good as it is!

GREAT PIC!

The climate article is a classic bait and switch.

Google "going down the up escalator" and find the skeptical science post if you want to know more about how global warming and the statement "global temperature has not risen in the last 15 years" are not at all contradictory.

Put 20.00 in the jar dad.

That pic (which is impressive!) shows some functional fitness! Love it!

Why can't I register for the open yet?!?!

has anyone been able to register for the open yet?

I have a feeling that some of us might meet on opposite ends of the battle field, when the time comes, even the our training is the same... Global warming a farce? Really?!

I filled out my log in for the open on January 31st. I signed in on February 1st. Is there anything else I need to do to register for the open? There isn't a register button in the profile I am missing?

I'll be 56 in March, when I grow up I want to be like him, impressive, from the hart d to impress!!

For those who would scare the public with human caused global warming for fun and profit, the last year or so has been bitter. Among the widely publicized events are these:

• a couple of large groups of scientists coming forward to dispute the proponents claims of a consensus in favor of manmade global warming (as if consensuses were scientifically meaningful)

• the "hockey stick" proxy temperature reconstruction from tree rings intended to show that the modern era was unprecedented (as if being unprecedented were scientifically valid) shown to be incompetent at best and fraudulent at the worst;

• the manipulation of the peer review process, including ostracization of authors and journals and getting journal editors fired, all by IPCC authors to assure publication of no papers critical of the global warming dogma;

• the unpredicted collapse of Earth's average temperature rise over the last decade or so, plus this year's record low temperatures in regions of the Northern Hemisphere, all while man's CO2 emissions continue unabated;

• preliminary analyses of satellite measurements showing that the sensitivity of global temperature to carbon dioxide was running below the possible range predicted by global climate models.

Now comes the news featured in the subject article that the Sun's radiation is flagging, and may fail to reach the lowest level ever measured, covering the last 275 years and encompassing the Little Ice Age. Whether this proves to be true will require another decade or two of measurements, but it is certain fuel for government inaction -- to cool their ardor for ameliorating CO2 emissions. Some will say that Earth might just need more CO2 in the atmosphere for humanity's sake.

David Rose's article is a news piece written to gloat -- to stick the bad news to the IPCC and the warmers. But a few graphs do not make it a scientific paper. It refers to "a paper issued last week by the Met Office", but without an actual citation. A search of the Met Office publications uncovered no such paper, however last week it did issue a press release that seems to fill the bill. Here's a link:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research

A press release is not a paper either, so giving this matter a proper scientific vetting is not yet possible. Press releases and news articles are simply not good enough. The subject article, for example, notes that

>>We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call 'Cycle 24' —which is why last week's solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual.

Not having a fully developed peak for Cycle 24 did not have that effect at all. Instead, the Coronal Mass Ejection was the largest in about the past seven years, and it was directed toward Earth. That is why the aurora borealis was so intense to be seen further south.

The article referred to

>>magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the Sun's surface.

Man has no instruments anywhere near the Sun's surface.

The article says,

>>According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830.

The probable Met Office article says only this with a percent attached:

>>"The most likely scenario is that we'll see an overall reduction of the Sun's activity compared to the 20th Century, such that solar outputs drop to the values of the Dalton Minimum (around 1820). The probability of activity dropping as low as the Maunder Minimum - or indeed returning to the high activity of the 20th Century - is about 8%." Quoting Professor Mike Lockwood.

With nothing else in support, did the author mistake the 8% figure for its complement, the 92% probability that the event does not happen? Did he mistake the Maunder Minimum of the last half of the 17th Century for the Dalton Minimum of the 18th Century? Whatever the case, the subject article can't be verified.

Neither CO2 nor the ocean is a source of heat. The only source of any significance is the Sun, which Earth's surface temperature follows reliably and accurately with a major lag of 134 years and a minor lag of 46 years. See the article on SGW (Solar Global Warming), www.rocketscientistsjournal.com. The first graph in that paper shows the flattening of Earth's temperature since about 2000 was predictable from the best model for solar radiation, the model created by Wang, et al (2005).

Over the past few centuries, to point to the solar output and conclude anything about the temperature at the same time would have been a mistake. That is an error repeated with regularity by manmade global warming advocates. For that reason, and many more (see also IPCC's Fatal Errors on the Rocket Scientist's Journal), the matter must be understood by studying original scientific papers.

The ocean's have the effect of averaging the effects of the Sun over about a century, a span of about 10 solar cycles. A weak Cycle 24 followed by a missing Cycle 25 is going to make for some chilly days over land, but the ocean will compensate to keep the climate from plunging into another ice age, at least for a long while. Climatologists, once they disentangle themselves from their failed Global Circulation Models, will have a lot of time to update Wang's solar model, to speculate about further solar cycles, and then to update their temperature predictions.

Talk about being prepared for anything!!! Nice work!

Whoa! What is going down in San Diego? Our wee man is doing L-sit ring pull ups. Dad is slacklining with weight. Parents leading by example. All respect.

Feeling very humble. Solid work.

Scott

It's not called tightrope walking, it's "slackline" walking. Big difference!

With that said, slackline training is great! I noticed a 30 pound increase in my back squat after I had been slacklining for only a month. My guess is my mind learned how to fire up more muscles neurologically from the slackline training. I now use the slackline as part of my regular warm up. Good stuff! Great photo!

wow. just wow. i really need to quit being lazy and start training again. i want to do tight rope lunges someday too

I will be a dad like that some day! =)

Really enjoy "From fashion to crossfit", No pretty lady have an excuse for not doing a WOD this days!

Go crossfit!!

Guys, whilst I appreciate that there are different view points on this issue, please don't make the mistake of attaching any significance to articles from the Daily Mail. It is little better than a comic.

Come on people! Global warming gets more talk time than Laura Dziak in the Fashion to Fitness video?! She is smoking hot!

#27 i'm totally with you on this one Tom!

Venus is hotter than Mercury because of its atmosphere, even though it is farther away from the Sun.
Understanding the gasses in our atmosphere and how they affect temperature are crucial for understanding the history and evolution of our planet. Everything else falls short in explaining this history.

"Some will say that Earth might just need more CO2 in the atmosphere for humanity's sake."

--God Help us. I can forsee Big Oil and their PR cronies running wild with this one.

awesome pic, awesome dad and son

That picture rocks! Seeing it made me want to ditch work, go pick up my daughter from daycare and find something to climb with her.

Very impressive fitness, and way to go creating an environment where your kids can play their way fit. I am feeling very inspired now.

@ the upsetter, I totally agree. As if the earths purpose is to serve us alone. You'd think Crossfiter might be a little more appreciative, and respectful of the environment and nature. Considering we thrive in it. Even if the earth is not warming, even if the climate changes are not an issue, what about all the collateral damage from our massive consumption of non renewable resources and the death sentence we give other living creatures every day? Another non issue? Train hard, so when we meet, I will walk away.

Check out those horoscope ads next to the 'science' article though. I don't know which to take more seriously...

Slacklining!! I love it. Knew I should have sent in a pic of slacking before someone else! ha Such an amazing activity. Frustrating at first but once you get it down your hooked. I love to see how he's using the 1" webbing instead of the Gibbon 2" Keep it up!

It has been observed that Americans are among the most confused people in the world on climate change fact versus fiction. Crossfit, you've made a mistake in adding confusion with articles like this. If I want quality analysis on topics, I don't reach for the Daily Mail. It's owned by the largest media conglomerate in Europe. Some folks here comment about conspiracies and stuff like that. I'm not sure why anyone thinks the Daily Mail has any less of a corporate agenda than any of the media outlets in the US. If you're really concerned about getting the facts straight, the research and analysis on climate change from all over the world is open and freely available to the public, ready for scrutiny. Please scrutinize what can be measured and repeated, and not each other. Personal attacks and promoting fear about the trustworthiness of science needlessly perpetuates this already long and tedious debate.

Please stick to what this site is good at. WODs and small interesting tidbits from around the web. Not political or ethical debate.

98% of the scientific community believes in Global Warming. The facts believe in Global Warming. Every other country in the WORLD believes in global warming. And to all of the sun people out there. The sun has been going through a minimum which means the temperature is less, the sun will get hotter now. The nine hottest years in history has come in the past 12 years and the ice are melting at unprecedented rates.

Hey CrossFit HQ... I love CrossFit and live it everyday. However, POST AN ARTICLE THAT SHOWS THE OTHER SIDE ONCE!!! I get that you guys don't believe in it, but the enlightened community that is CrossFit needs to be open to all sides.

Daily mail? Really? That's the most credible source you could find?

Why do they need to "POST AN ARTICLE THAT SHOWS THE OTHER SIDE ONCE!!!" when you claim just about everyone "believes"? Seems like they are taking exactly the right tack here.

this is what happens to the world. it will warm then encounter another ice age. its a repeated cycle

It's funny how many people think there's any validity at all to claims that an Ice Age is coming. The fact that such rubbish science is published in a tabloid should tell you something... Carefully subsetting short-term data to make it seem like global warming has stopped barely qualifies as clever. It's like weighing yourself on two consecutive days, seeing that the numbers are the same, and concluding that your weight will stay the same forever.

Nick Massie, where are you????????????????
My culinary selection needs a pick me up.

Maybe a Valentines recipe for some dark chocolate covered bacon? Mmmmmmm.

For evan (6:41 am) and Alex (6:51 am):

Global warming, meaning incorrectly anthropogenic global warming (AGW), morphed from a scientific conjecture in the '30s (Callendar) into a movement of the left. It doesn't even qualify any longer as a conjecture – it's no longer a scientific model (being invalid for failing to fit all the data in its domain). The troublesome bulleted problems above, including the subject Mail article, are all media oriented. The target of the left, like radical Islam and much of the mainstream media (and you can throw in much of the entertainment community ("from each …, to each …", except when it comes to copyrights), academia and its Post Modern Science, big government, political correctness), is the successful US, which accounts for Americans being the most confused.

98%? Is that a typo? Where are your data? Didn't you mean 99%, the revolting proletariat rising up against the 1%, the oppressive bourgeoisie? You know, Occupy stuff, Oakland, their grandpas in the Sixties?

And it doesn't matter how many in any community believe in something. Belief systems are outside science. Science is not about voting, and it advances one man at a time. That's why it puts names on theories and laws.

CrossFit's "corporate agenda", obviously evil, is to teach, and especially to define and teach fitness. CrossFit is a science; it is based on facts (measurements). It defines fitness as "work capacity across broad time and modal domains". That's not just physical fitness, manual labor. It includes mental fitness. That's why CrossFit posts articles from the "other side" as it does, one day in four, soliciting comments, and that's why it has seminars. Being physically fit is not going to help you much if you're just going to be outsmarted.

You're not entitled to your own opinion.

Made up yesterday's workout this morning. Results posted there.

Curious how folks deal with others' reactions to CF/fitness related changes -- what do you do with diet or appearance comments?

Sample: Lately, getting a handful of comments along the lines of "you look gaunt." I tend to interpret that as "yeah, the norm is overweight, so normal/leaner probably does look gaunt to you." That's all internal, and I usually just say something like, "Doing pretty intense workouts and eating well" and leave it at that.

@Julie J, I couldn't think of a better Valentine's Day gift ;)

WTF does crossfit have to do with global climate change? People are rediculous sometimes.

Is that Mr. Bean directing the symphony in the Chopin Video?

I'm a student in the UK and just so you know i wouldn't base your opinion on global warming on an article from the Daily Mail, its pretty much a farce as newspapers go (the fox of the news of the british media) they will have selected a few statements from a press release and manipulated them into a sensationalist argument which i'm sure if you read the relevant paper would be disproved very quickly.

On another note I don't understand why stuff like this is put on a fitness website, crossfit (which is absolutely fantastic) should be the single focus. Stop abusing the power of running a high traffic website by bringing your political ideological bias into it.

"every other country in the WORLD believes in global warming"

Really? China too?

I think you could dial back on the hyperbole and your argument would be stronger.

One of the major problems with the Global Warming jihadists is that they were caught trying to stifle opposing viewpoints and then using the argument that no serious scientists--i.e. published scientists--believe that the earth is not warming.

I'm not an expert on the subject and there are plenty of reasons to conserve resources and develop alternative sources of energy whether the earth is warming or not, but stifling opposing research just makes the so called scientists look insecure and undermines their arguments.

Daily Mail...lolz

(yes, i said lolz)

reminds me of a book called: Its Not News, Its Fark

25 / M / 5'9" / 137lbs

Clean and Jerk 1-1-1-1-1-1-1

135-145-145-145-150PR-150F-135

#47 Yes, China, too.

From the document titled, "China’s National Climate Change Programme" released by the People's Republic of China National Development and Reform Commission in June 2007:

"To address climate change and promote sustainable development, China has carried out various policies and measures, such as economic restructuring, energy efficiency improvement, development and utilization of hydropower and other renewable energy, ecological restoration and protection, as well family planning,
which has contributed significantly to the mitigation of climate change."

The complete document is available at http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File188.pdf

hey crossfitters! Love the site...minus anything representing a political statement. I have been doing WODs for about six months now with some decent equipment in my garage...and I am totally addicted! I've been working out for years and I feel like a neanderthal for ever doing anything else.

I started a paleo diet this week and am feeling good. However the first half of the week was rough. I felt "off" and struggled though the WODs. Any advice or experience to share? A must read book on paleo? Are many of you doing this or a modified version? Thanks!

Well done on presenting a refute of global warming based on science rather than rhetoric and speculation. It's good to see these kinds of things to stoke the conversation. Although, (I'll put on my devil's advocate costume) the fact that there were photo links to celebrity tabloid journalism sites bordering this article didn't do much to buttress its credibility. (huh huh, butt...)

Had to do tabata with my friend today. Got close to my first pukie experience.

Pull ups - 8
Push ups - 15
Sit ups - 12
Squats - 19
Back Ext - 9

= 63

Rest day... I needed this one!

M/52/153/1-1-06

5 Rope Climbs
40 Straddle hops
21 Thrusters 95#
60 Straddle hops
21 Thrusters 95#
40 Straddle hops
5 Rope Climbs

16:35

Rest day as rx'd...first crossfit WOD as 100% prescribed.

What's the best way to fix the blisters on my hands? Saw something with salt but can't find any reasoning

Whats the deal with pouring salt on blisters?

@#55: jon

If you by fixing blisters, mean how to make them heal up, I don't have a relly good answer. I think that small cuts and blisters and stuff heal the best if they are somewhat humid. There are a kind of band aid that has sort of a plastic film that seals the whole thing in, that might work. Or putting some sort of moisturizing creme on it perhap. Maybe aloe vera might help. I never heard about salt, and highly doubt it.

If you mean, how to prevent from getting blisters, I would recomend removing calluses. Soak hands i warm water and shave it of with something like a razor or so. Don't go too deep.
If you've got blisters (maybe halfway healed) you might want to use gloves.

I have a pullup bar outside that I use, and in the winter I use skigloves (thin , with suede in the palm). Works perfectly.

Rest day?? I did "The Drench" (in your own juice:) for my Crossfit workout today. Preceded by 2 Rnds of 30 squat jumps and 10 HS Push ups. My first for HS Push ups and my first time completing all 200 DU during the workout.

There are hundreds of millions of cars pushing CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY DAY and there are more all the time. Do you think that's not making a difference in the climate? Is this at all natural? With all the emphasis on scientific proof Crossfit seems to give, what about this doesn't add up to climate change? Ice melting, water levels rising, species dying off and migrating, plants growing closer to the poles. This doesn't add up?

Nine of the top ten hottest years since 1880 were in this century.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jan/HQ_12-020_2011_Global_Temp.html

Did anyone else notice that Junior has his own slackline at the bottom of his outdoor gym? That is incredibly cool.

Billcorno, 2/2/12, 8:22 & 8:33 PM:

Man's CO2 emissions are not natural, of course, but they amount to only about 6 GtC/yr (billion tons of carbon per year) compared to about 90 GtC/yr from the ocean and another 120 GtC/yr from the land. IPCC's climatologists say that man's CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, while claiming that the two natural sources do not. This is impossible. It violates physics, and in particular Henry's Law for solubility, which IPCC does not even use. The two gases differ only in their isotopic mixture, they mix in the atmosphere, and cannot be separated by any process back into natural and anthropogenic parts. Furthermore, the mixed natural and manmade CO2 do not accumulate in the atmosphere, but in a matter of 1.5 to 3 years, are absorbed in the ocean. Nevertheless, these impossibilities are necessary for IPCC to blame the rise in CO2 for the modern temperature increase, and then to blame it all on man, and especially on Americans.

For some event or process to be the cause of some other effect, the cause must precede the effect. The rise in atmospheric CO2 does not lead the observed rise in temperature, but lags it by about a millennium. Further, the CO2 concentration follows the curve for solubility of CO2 in water, showing that it comes from the ocean. CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming, but instead is an effect of it. IPCC has yet to measure this lead lag relationship.

Climatologists say that Earth is still in the throes of the last Ice Age because it still has its ice caps. They run to the Equator during the depths of each Ice Age. They have disappeared completely in the past, and are sure to do so again in the future. They were much further back during the Medieval Warm Period (980-1100) when Greenland got its name, and the Vikings were farming there. Regardless of the proportion of record highs in the last century, Earth was much warmer a millennium ago with the help of no internal combustion engines.

For IPCC's model of Anthropogenic Global Warming, its climatologists showed that the Medieval Warm Period didn't even exist. To do so, they used tree rings as proxies for temperature, to which they added modern thermometer measurements to make the tree ring reductions match much of anything. That exercise has been a mortal embarrassment for the warmists, and the fact that the World has stopped warming over the most recent decade while man's CO2 emissions are at an all time high is but another shot to the heart of the movement.

Earth's climate, which is a 30 or more year average, might be warming, or it might be cooling. It's always moving. Man has nothing to do with it, and changing it is well beyond man's capabilities. Meanwhile, CO2 is a benign, beneficial greening agent.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coordinates a couple dozen or so Global Circulation Models (GCMs, formerly Global Climate Models, except they couldn't predict climate) around the world, all taxpayer supported, and mostly US taxpayer supported, to change the truth about climate. That is what is meant by Climate Change.

Looks like he's "Toe-ing the line"

Thank you, Pukie, for posting FREE content that I can choose to accept or reject (in part, or in whole) that will challenge me physically and philosophically.

Another example of man-made climate change is the retroactive adjustment of temperature records to impart an upward trend that the original figures do not show.

This is manifested both in the instrumental record by downward adjustments to the very warm temperatures of the 1920s to 1940's warming period, and by the Hockey Team's attempt to erase the Medieval Warm Period.

These adjustments are a profound fraud. In addition to imparting the spurious trend, their true purpose is to minimize the scope of natural variability. The purpose of doing that is to more readily claim the recent warming is outside the bounds of the fraudulently constrained natural variability and to then attribute the warming outside those fraudulent bounds to man.

Thus, the major instrumental datasets, which all derive from the GHCN, show the 1930's as cooler than the present. In the late 1990s, those datasets showed the 1930s were warmer. The retroactive adjustments have solved those pesky high temperatures from the 1930s. Except that there are uncorrupted records such as number of record highs and lows by decade, number of heat waves by decade, etc., and in those records the 1930's are still the champs. The exact same pattern exists in arctic temperatures. The major datasets have the arctic cooler in the 1930's than now. The local weather records from arctic communities clearly show the 1930s were warmer, and there are a huge number of contemporary accounts showing ice melt and glacial recession far in excess of the present.

This fraud extends to the Medieval Warm Period. There are thousands of papers documenting its existence. A big problem for the warmists. One of them said "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." Michael Mann and the Hockey Team stepped up to the plate and did that with their infamous and fraudulent Hockey Stick, exploited by the IPCC and Al Gore.

The attempts to airbrush natural variability from the instrumental and proxy records were fraudulent attempts to rig the data to rig the models to attribute recent warming to man. The fraud is continuing as there are ongoing recent retroactive downward adjustments to temperature records from the 1930's in the high northern latitudes.

A plenitude of fraudulent conspiracies to rig peer review, present fraudulent data, rig the IPCC, destroy the careers of critics, obstruct normal scientific inquiry, obstruct FOIA requests, and present a unified, false and scary picture, are all laid bare in the Climategate emails.

The theory of AGW is invalidated in dozens of ways, but the litany of predictions that are falsified by observations is overwhelming. Among the most prominent are the missing tropical upper tropospheric hotspot - a kill shot if there ever was one, cooling in Antarctica instead of "polar amplification", regional rather than global warming, warming within the bounds of natural variability (see above), no trend in hurricanes, droughts, floods or other extreme events, no predicted change in precipitation, no predicted change in humidity, no predicted change in temperature, no predicted change in territorial range of flora or fauna, no predicted change in sea level, no predicted change in ocean heat content, no predicted change in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, no drying of the Amazon, no Himalayan glacier melt in 30 years, and on and on and on it goes.

@Jeff Glassman:
Despite the fact that I think it's pretty below CF standards to link to a Daily Mail article in the hope that it would 'help' the climate change discussion - CF is otherwise up to high standards, why not on this topic - I'd like to comment on Jeff's last post, because I think his comment is misleading.

Jeff says, "Man's CO2 emissions are not natural, of course, but they amount to only about 6 GtC/yr (billion tons of carbon per year) compared to about 90 GtC/yr from the ocean and another 120 GtC/yr from the land. IPCC's climatologists say that man's CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, while claiming that the two natural sources do not. This is impossible."

I don't know which proper climate scientist would claim such a thing (I'm pretty certain none of the contributors to the last IPCC report would do), because this is wrong. Yes, vegetation releases about 120 TgC/yr and oceans 90 Tg/C yr but they also take up about the same amount. BUT, when they take up CO2, they don't distinguish between naturally emitted CO2 or anthropogenically emitted CO2, they just take up what's in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, we're adding more and more C to the Earth system, about 250 PgC (in CF terms, that's a a heavy deadlift of 250kg times 1000x1000x1000x1000 of C added to the atmosphere) over the time of the Anthropocene (the epoch, we currently live in).

If the vegetation and the oceans could just increase their uptake year by year at the same rate as we increase our CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would stay stable. Unfortunately, the C sinks cannot keep up with our emissions, therefore a fraction of the annually emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere. This fraction is likely a mixture of natural and anthropogenic emissions. And this is what leads to increasing CO2 concentrations that cause an increase in global temperature.

'Impossible' is just what you're saying Jeff!

Another statement that is wrong: "Global Circulation Models (GCMs, formerly Global Climate Models, [...]" In fact, it is the other way around. Scientist started off developing General Circulation Models, only later on the term Global Climate Models came into use.

Really sore today, so did some skill work.
5k row: 20:49.
135lb DL x 5
135lb clean x 5
135lb clean & jerk x 5

From comment 69: "the fact that the World has stopped warming over the most recent decade "

So your facts are better than NASA's? (see Comment 64.) My response is: prove it.

I just know, when I was a kid you couldn't grow apples in Alaska.

Slackline+dumbbells oh yeah

F/41/5'6"/150

5K: 28:42

Smackerel, 2/3/12, 10:18 am:

Lots of people would agree with you. CRU (the University of East Anglia, Climate Research Unit) has published and revised global temperature reductions from time to time, causing some minor furors here and there. The last best estimate for GAST, the Global Average Surface Temperature is the HadCRUT3 series, according to IPCC, the owner of the AGW movement. That temperature record follows the Sun as modeled by Wang, et al., (2005) (IPCC's best) with a simple transfer function (a realizable filter) with an accuracy almost equivalent to CRU's smoothed estimate (an unrealizable filter) for GAST. This fit tends to validate both Wang's solar model and the HadCRUT3 representation. Those two models are a credit to climatology, but together they invalidate AGW. CO2 cannot be causing the temperature variation seen on the Sun. The transfer function GAST also shows an end to the rising temperature record in recent decades, confirmed by measurements, and not contained in CRU's smoothed estimate.

AGW is a model for the rise in GAST, which IPCC attributes to man's CO2 emissions. The Cause is man's CO2 emissions, and the Effect is a rise in GAST. What happens locally in three dimensions and to weather is irrelevant except as they contribute to 30+ year global temperature averages. These events meaningless to AGW include the troposphere and regional surface temperatures over land or sea, the Southern Oscillation Index (El Niño/La Niña), storms, flooding, sea level, and so on. If some climatologists actually predicted these extraneous effects, their predictions would be immaterial. On climate scales, Earth has been warming. That is according to Hadley/CRU, GISS, GHCN, Ice Core reductions, IPCC, and any other source. Changes in such things as the troposphere, SOI, and extreme weather events, are evidence of nothing, either way.

Man's tiny addition of CO2 surely warms, but the effect is too small to be measured. IPCC has measured CO2 at Mauna Loa over the last half Century, reconstructing it into the Keeling Curve, and through a couple of steps of phony physics, interprets it to be a global rise in CO2. IPCC also calculates the rise in GAST and observes it over the same period as the MLO CO2. It then speculates that the CO2 was the Cause and the GAST the Effect. This is the classic mistake of assuming correlation means causation. If that causation were valid, then the CO2 would have to lead the temperature. That is the scientific principle of causality. IPCC doesn't know how to compute the lead/lag relationship, and doesn't know it needs to demonstrate causality. Besides, it couldn't make the calculation if it wanted to from the Keeling Curve because it excludes the fine structure of CO2 variability. However, other evidence exists that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by about a millennium. IPCC recognizes that relationship, but does not mechanize it in its models.

And that is far from the end of grave omissions and errors in IPCC modeling.

Jeff, you are talking to several walls here. These same people also believe that Barak Obama had more Executive business experience than any Republican president since Eisenhower. At my age of 58 I have given up trying to explain anything to this crowd.

Rita Wania, 2/3/12, 1:13 PM:

Why in the world would you think a Daily Mail article below CrossFit standards? It's a lousy article, making technical errors and failing to link to the Met Office paper it discusses. CrossFitters need to know how to read such stuff.

The emission numbers I quoted are from IPCC. AR4, Figure 7.3, p. 515. If your restriction to "proper climate scientists" is to exclude IPCC authors, I would agree. They are technically limited, and their intimidation of authors, journals, and editors to keep criticism of their dogma out of peer reviewed journals was unprofessional, unethical, and perhaps criminal.

You compared my emission data in units of GtC/yr with total emissions in PgC. The units need to be the same for a comparison.

You compared my emission information to net flux, and then claimed what I wrote was wrong. You changed parameters from a flux to a mass, delegitimizing your comparison.

You say that "we're adding more and more C to the Earth system, about 250 PgC … over the time of the Anthropocene." Do you have a reference for that number and time period? As IPCC said and I cited, man is adding about 6 GtC/yr. AR4, Figure 2.3(b), p. 138. At that rate, man would have had to been adding CO2 for 40 million years to meet your figure. The Anthropocene is only 14K years long, tops.

Even at that, the Anthropocene era is much too long for consideration of man's effects. IPCC initiates its models in 1750, the approximate start of the Industrial Era, when man's emissions were far below today's trivial levels. AR4, FAQ 2.1, p. 100. IPCC provides a chart for how it thinks man has added CO2 to the atmospheric, all since 1750, where it increased from 280 to 380 ppmv. Id., FAQ Figure 2.1. IPCC estimates that man added 165 GtC since 1750. Id., Figure 7.3. Your number is 1.5 million times bigger than IPCC's.

You say, "If the vegetation and the oceans could just increase their uptake year by year at the same rate as we increase our CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would stay stable." That is not true. First, the climate and emissions have no stable point. That mishandling of equilibrium is characteristic of IPCC's mistaken modeling. Secondly, atmospheric CO2 concentration is primarily determined by surface water and Henry's Law of solubility, a law IPCC not only does not use, but concealed when it popped up unexpectedly in its data for the Revelle Factor. Because Earth has no stable points (contrary to IPCC modeling), the climate has no resistance to following the Sun, integrated over a half to 1.5 centuries, and the CO2 follows, lagging by about a millennium. IPCC expects the surface to absorb 100% of its emissions each year, while the ocean absorbs only about half the anthropogenic emissions. This is necessary for IPCC to show that man's emissions will trigger a catastrophe. This result and its conclusion are contrary to physics. The absorption rates of the two species of CO2 are not significantly different, the two species cannot be differentiated to be absorbed differently, and the larger flow dominates the rates.

IPCC puts leaf water flux at 270 PgC/yr (270 GtC/yr). TAR, ¶3.2.2.1, p. 191. That is a huge number, 30% greater than the budgets for land and ocean combined. However IPCC omitted leaf water from its carbon cycle model. Is that an error of omission? Should leaf water be included in a surface water total, or scored as a terrestrial flux? The half life estimate of 1.5 years includes leaf water, and the 3.2 year figure does not. Much of the carbon cycle involves plant and soil respiration, which are poorly understood, especially regarding their sensitivity to global temperature. Ice core reductions over 420,000 years show that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is well-represented by the temperature effects of its solubility in water, coupled with ocean currents, empirically supporting a flux model that treats terrestrial/atmosphere and ocean/atmosphere fluxes alike. Perfecting the handling of leaf water and respiration will not change the empirical fact that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature. The rise in CO2 is an effect of the increase in global temperature. The AGW model is invalid. It's time to quit worrying about CO2.

IPCC used the term Global Climate Model in its First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, but not Global Circulation Model. The latter first appeared in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001. Today, IPCC's official name for GCM is General Circulation Model -- neither global nor climate. TAR and AR4 Glossaries. IPCC seems to be moving away from the name Global Climate Model, and but for the IPCC, there would be no global warming crisis or CO2 pollution.

O.K. I'll try it from a different wall. Let's look at global warming from the "if I'm wrong" point of view. So if I'm wrong, that global warming isn't happening, what have we lost? We have cleaner air, less dependency on foreign oil, more sources of clean technology developed.
And what if you're wrong? As somebody else said, good planets are hard to find.

Billcorno, 2/4/12, 5:44 pm:

The "If I'm wrong" method is a variety of subjective Bayes analysis, a Post Modern Science variant of Modern Science's objective Bayes. In Objective Bayes, two or more hypotheses, including notably the null hypothesis, are assigned realistic probabilities, called à priori distributions, and realistic costs. These are enough to define the expected cost called Risk, which can be analyzed in several instructive ways. In Modern Science, the "what if I'm wrong" method is a fallacy.

In PMS Bayes, costs and probabilities are all made subjective, representing beliefs, and directed to produce a desired outcome. Chaos theory and fat tail distributions with the Black Swan analogy are examples. The Wikipedia article on "Bayes inference" is PMS Bayes. Dr. Judith Curry, quoted in the subject Mail article, reveals on her commendable blog Climate Etc. that she is a Post Modern Scientist, entertaining notions, including subjective Bayes, to meld them with a timid degree of scientific skepticism unknown among her fellow, highly placed, warmists.

The "if I'm wrong" criterion is equivalent to raising the cost of the feared outcome, AGW, as high as necessary to overcome all resistance, including that AGW, in fact, does not exist. That is what IPCC does with its floods, droughts, rising sea level, and extreme weather events. "Oh, the humanity!" Some have put the cost of ameliorating CO2 emissions, as in the Kyoto Accords, at $30 trillion, exceeding the World's GNP, but never fear, it is mostly to be paid by the US.

The AGW movement is political. It is an anti-Western, anti-technology, anti-knowledge movement, so is focused mostly on bringing the US into the fold of the more highly Marxist West. We'll have equality of outcome when we kill all the successful, achieving the idealized egalitarian state under a single benevolent dictator. Amelioration of CO2 is on the rise, but is destined to become extinct long before $30 trillion can be expended. It has no measurable effect on climate, and the global chill of the last decade that seems to be deepening this year, is going to be cold enough to chill even the political ardor of a Dennis Kucinich. That chill, coupled with Obama's Marxist experiments threatening the US and the rest of the world with Great Depression 2.0, means the handwriting is on the wall for AGW. Obama is sneaking up on the $30 trillion at over $4 trillion per term.

So what happens if enough billcornos prevail? The life of the experiment will be extended, the world economy and the people will have to suffer longer, and the inevitable extinction will be delayed. Economies and standards of living are proportional to energy expended. Our dependency on foreign oil, a cliché of submission, of lack of will more than reality, will be prolonged. The quality of air, a peculiarly Western virtue, will be unchanged. Experiments with uneconomical green technologies will last longer only because, like GM, Solyndra, and the others, the US expropriates them to subsidize them, and not because they make any free market sense. The left will be in power longer.

And what happens when the billcornos no longer prevail? The left is going to be run out of office. The economy will boom. The velocity of money will be restored, and the inflation Obama baked into the cake will materialize with a vengeance reminiscent of the end of the Carter Administration. The Republicans will take the blame, because like warmists, incompetents think effects follow causes instantaneously. What the Democrats need to keep warm is their seats.

Wow! I came here looking for fitness information, and discovered denialist conspiracy theories. Thanks for warning me off guys, I'll find my fitness tips in the real world instead!

Terry Peters, 2/5/12, 7:36 am, uses the word "denialist". For readers who might not be familiar with warmista-speak, denialist is a word of propaganda. It means that AGW is settled science, implying that settled science exists. It also implies that skepticism, a virtue in Modern Science, is not to be tolerated in Post Modern Science.

Terry smartly coupled denialist to conspiracy theories, doubling down on ad hominems, adding a dimension not discussed previously on this thread. Background: good evidence of a conspiracy theory is where the practitioner takes the absence of evidence as evidence of a cover-up.

That might have been the case with peer-reviewed climate journals when Naomi Oreskes earned her bones. She published a study in which she concluded that scientists were unanimous in support of AGW. Out of 928 pertinent climate abstracts, none was skeptical. Her data actually showed instead that none of her peer-reviewed climate journals published such papers. Her data were OK; her analysis was faulty.

IPCC climatologists were ecstatic, figuratively carrying Oreskes around on their shoulders -- still. That's an image more like a pirate and his parrot than of Newton, who stood on the shoulders of giants. Post Modern Scientists stand on the shoulders of pygmies. (Apologies if that is a protected, disadvantaged group now. Sir Isaac started it.)

The lack of evidence of skepticism was not evidence of the lack of skepticism. That belief would have been a conspiracy, and perhaps held by some naïve climatologists working down in the bowels of the AGW movement. But the leaders, the IPCC authors, knew better. They, along with their surrogate blog realclimate.org, were actively engaged in a conspiracy to prevent skeptical articles from being published. They ostracized individuals, published ad hominems amounting to professional liable, shunned non-conforming journals, and managed to get a half dozen editors fired. And through it all, they left an email trail.

Now the conspiracists point their gnarled fingers at the scientists to hiss, "conspiracy theorist". This is much more than the pot calling the kettle black. It's criminals calling the righteous illogical. This is a corollary of the rule (Rules for Radicals?) under which Occupiers burn buildings to protest police brutality.

So Terry's off to the "real world" in search of a better class of mental fitness tips. Here's one: try for a teaching post at Berkeley.

It is a great time to be alive. We will be able to tell our grandkids that we were around in a time when most people were scared into believing that the gas we exhale from our bodies, the same gas that plants breathe to survive was destroying the earth and that the only way to fix the problem was to tax wealthy Americans and stop using our most energy efficient fuel sources.We were there to witness the AGW religion exposed as one of the biggest myths/frauds of all time. Before AGW we could only dream of how our ancestors felt when they where told that the earth was not flat but in fact round or that the sun and stars do not revolve around the earth. Add another debunked theory of conceited, primitive human observations to the list ...AGW= THE MOST EPIC FAIL OF MODERN TIMES.
Take note people, it really is an amazing thing.

Victor:

That's an exciting way to look at ignoring science! Keep fighting the good fight! Defeat the liberal factions conspiring to destroy America!

- LOLs

@Victor:

Major LOLs. It's JUST LIKE when people averred the world was flat.

- Lols

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1254834/Nasa-reveals-detailed-images-Earth.html

Two points re the exquisite NASA pictures linked by billcorno at 2/5/12, 8:52 pm.

First, note the extensive cloud cover. Cloud albedo is the most powerful feedback in climate because it gates the Sun on and off. Nothing else has near that power. IPCC GCMs model cloud cover as a constant, meaning they don't model cloud feedback. Albedo stabilizes Earth's climate at its present warm value, and locks it into its cold state in the depths of the Ice Ages.

Cloud cover burns off at sunrise, and burns off in proportion to solar activity. The hotter the Sun, the greater its radiation that gets past the clouds to the surface. This is a fast, positive feedback built-in to the atmosphere, and a feedback reported in a couple of peer-reviewed papers without giving the source. One was Stott, et al, "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?", 2003, which was dismissed by IPCC from AR4 on irrelevant grounds. The other was Tung, et al., "Constraining model transient climate response using independent observations of solar-cycle forcing and response", 2008 (post AR4). IPCC has underestimated solar variability by a factor of about 2 to 4 according to these independent papers.

Clouds form from humidity condensed on Cloud Condensation Nuclei. On the average, the atmosphere has a surplus of CCN, some of it created perpetually by ocean salt spray. As a result, clouds form reliability from humidity, which is proportional to global average surface temperature. (A corollary is that modulation of CCNs by Galactic Cosmic Rays, the Svensmark effect, is not 100% but only a few percent, a second order effect.) Thus the warmer the surface, the more the cloud cover, and the less solar radiation reaches the surface. This is the same powerful feedback, but which in this case is negative and as slow as global warming. Cloud cover mitigates warming from any source, including the GHGs, including, most notably, water vapor and CO2. IPCC GCMs increase humidity with increasing temperature to capitalize on extra warming in the greenhouse effect because CO2 doesn't have enough of an effect to scare the public. Those GCMs ignore that the increased humidity increases cloud cover to turn down the greenhouse effect. The result is that the GCMs computation of the sensitivity to GHGs is too large by a factor of about 3 to a maximum of 10. This loss of sensitivity is now being confirmed by sketchy calculations from satellite measurements. Instead of 3ºC for a doubling of CO2, it's turning out to be around 1ºC, well below IPCC's least possible figure. This sensitivity is a GCM prediction that is proving invalid, which is having the same effect on the whole AGW model.

Note in NASA's pictures: "'Earthrise' was taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders during the Apollo 8 mission". Earth is a synchronous satellite of the Moon. It wobbles about 10º or less, but it does not rise or set. See all the superstitious hoopla, from the astronauts to the Postal Service, about this "event" in the Wikipedia article, Earthrise, without quotation marks, and with a lot of weasel words, especially in the last paragraph, to rationalize the original misconception. NASA's mission includes teaching the little children. It needs to get its facts straight about geometry and climate (e.g., James E. Hansen, PhD, NASA GISS).

Tyson whats up. Your skills have gone up since working out at Doctors ambulance stations. Take care