Global Warming / Early Spring

May 21, 2010, 9:50 am

I wish. This is Rock Creek Lake, California, on May 20, 2010. In a normal year our campground there would have been open a month ago.

Postscript: Save the “weather is not climate” lectures in the comments. I understand.

Category: Current Weather

83 Comments

Jay:

Its odd, isn’t it?

NOAA claims that Jan-Apr 2010 world-wide is the warmest ever on record since 1880. They also claim Arctic sea ice coverage in April is 2% below average, but covers the largest area since 2001. NOAA claims China had their coolest April since 1961, while several Chinese cities reported record lows in April. In Dallas, Texas, we had more snow events this winter than I have ever seen in 50 years. We had the 5th coldest winter on record. We set a 2nd place record for the most day in a row below 90 at almost 180 days.

Weather and climate are tremendously chaotic, each subject to billions of variables, the interactions of which which are poorly understood. The fact that there has been no measurable increase in the average global temperature (as stated by Dr. Jones himself in the recent CRU investigation hearings) in the past decade demonstrates the utter futility of creating computer programs and claiming they can model climate changes decades into the future.
May 21, 2010, 10:55 am
ADiff:

Unless I’m mistaken my reading of NOAA’s pronouncement is based on surface measurements, a record for which good case has been made is badly off-track and might be considered less objective measurement than self-fulfilling prophesy.

Perhaps you might consider larger black-top parking lots, concrete buildings and such. Then you might manage to open a bit earlier each season!

And be sure to properly ‘adjust’ your thermometers….so potential visitors don’t get the wrong perception!
May 21, 2010, 1:10 pm
Waldbrrrrrr:

****”Save the “weather is not climate” lectures in the comments. I understand.”

Soooooo…why did you even post this, Mr. Meyer?

Is this more of Mr. Meyer’s “science?”
May 21, 2010, 4:04 pm
hunter:

“Postscript: Save the “weather is not climate” lectures in the comments. I understand.”

Quite obviously you don’t.
May 21, 2010, 4:14 pm
Waldter:

***”Quite obviously you don’t.”

No, I was just ignoring his directive. Besides, my post is not a lecture, it’s a question. I was simply asking why Mr. Meyer was posting something he knew to be incorrect or, more precisely, why he fell into the dumbassedness of posting something one knows is patently irresponsible to imply.

Methinks it’s you who doesn’t understand, my friend.
May 21, 2010, 4:22 pm
papertiger:

Sacramento California. Normal temps for May 20th are 83 for a high and 55 for a low.
Actual temps for May 20th, 2010 were 74 and 50.
Same has been going on since March, inspite of NOAA claims of early spring and heat anomalys.

Straight up fucking liars. Not even trying to hide the hot spot in a remote area anymore.
May 21, 2010, 5:08 pm
hunter:

Waldter – who was I quoting? Who, therefore, do you suppose my comment was directed at? It’s actually not hard to work these things out, with a moment’s thought.
May 22, 2010, 8:37 am
mike:

Hunter and Waldter I have been reading this blog and your posts for a while but never before made a comment. I think you should both examine your motives and methods. In this case you have both been so desperate to attack Mr. Meyer that you managed to both miss his point and attack each other. Please understand that your approach does your cause huge damage in the eyes of people like me who are interested in this issue but not caught up in it.
May 22, 2010, 10:58 am
Ben:

The point here is that we are told that 2010 is the warmest year ever by NOAA, and in evidence everywhere, its colder then a witches teet.

Either the monitoring is off for some (still unexplained reason) or the data is being corrupted. Until this is explained, all temperature study should be suspect to scrutiny. Of course, this has been studied by climate “sceptics” much more then the main players who have funding, so one does have to wonder… “why is this reported when it is not explained”…

And here is something to ponder…

Is weather really not climate? Lets face it, climate today is the weather around the globe averaged over a long time period. And the fact that climate models attempt to predict weather in the future including everything from droughts to hurricanes is the worst hypocrisy ever. Then we hear about how April is the warmest month from our media stooges. Why not report about how cold it is in May or even March if you are going to do that?

The fact is, the science has been compromised so much and differing opionions are thrown out so regularly that this is no longer questioned. Science will take years to recover from this. Instead of arguing terms, why not argue the logic and reason behind people’s ideas….

Anything with weather in it is thrown out by the AGW croud simply because they have this what I would call fallacy that “weather is not climate.” But we do have to ask ourselves at some point, is this a real correct statement?
May 22, 2010, 12:43 pm
netdr:

This is off topic but I have always wondered:

The alarmists love to say “Climate change is much worse than we predicted”

Since according to Phil Jones of CRU fame “There has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years”

When did they predict less than ZERO warming in the last 15 years ?

Since all climate change depends upon warming, no warming no change ! Blaming cooling or staying the same on CO2 is mentally challenged.

If they predicted less than zero warming they must have whispered it very quietly into a closet so no one would hear them. I have asked for citations but never got any.
May 22, 2010, 4:11 pm
Shills:

netdr,

“There has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years”

This does mean less then zero. I think Jones said it was actually pretty close to achieving significance; just below. So I think there was some warming just not quite enough to claim it statistically during that 15 years.
May 22, 2010, 6:11 pm
netdr:

So a tiny amount of warming occurred. [Statistically insignificant]

Where did they predict an even tinier amount of warming ?

Did they whisper their prediction into a closet ?

Why should I be alarmed ?
May 23, 2010, 5:28 am
AnonyMoose:

One week to Memorial Day Weekend!
Relax, roll the grill out on the snow, and grill some burgers or chicken. Enjoy some tasty food even if you can’t eat it outside this year.
May 23, 2010, 7:18 am
MrCannuckistan:

Weather is to climate as food is to health. Without weather there can be no climate. Without food there is no health. With good food and good weather we have good health and good climate. With bad food and bad weather we have poor health and poor climate. Define for yourselves what you consider good and bad weather.

Around my parts we had a warm spell in late March or early April. People were making elevator small talk about the weather and how nice it was. People’s faces changed to the ‘deer in the headlights look’ when I retorted with, “Damn Global Warming.” Everyone hates cold weather and they love warm weather. Global warming is in conflict with that attitude.

Lastly, I can’t see how more snow is not consistent with a warmer world. More water vapour may be consistent, but for the precipitation to fall as snow it must be cold(er). Otherwise the snow will just fall as rain. For areas to be getting colder and facilitating more snow is not consistent with a warming world.

MrC
May 23, 2010, 11:11 am
Waldorama:

****”Waldter – who was I quoting? Who, therefore, do you suppose my comment was directed at? It’s actually not hard to work these things out, with a moment’s thought.”

Oh sorry, you’re the hunter who takes the skeptics to task. Right. The other denier hunter usually posts inarticulate, inaccurate, poorly thought-out responses directed at anyone who dares to criticize the might Mr. Meyers. On preview, good post.
May 23, 2010, 11:16 am
Drew:

mike – I think there was a misunderstanding there between Waldter and hunter. That’s pretty obvious to see so I’m not really sure how that misunderstanding relevant to any merit Mr. Meyer’s ‘argument.’ In fact, Mr. Meyer didn’t even make a point, he just blatantly skirted the issue which is “climate is not weather.” I suggest you re-analyze your motives and methods.
May 23, 2010, 12:21 pm
Drew:

Ben – Record temperature and other weather data are NOT broken far more often than they are. Yet it’s becoming increasingly more apparent that records are being broken much more frequently than they used to. Also, I just want to point out that Rock Creek Lake, California is in the Eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains. It’s gonna be cold there sometimes.

“Some still unexplained reason?” Really? That is the best you’ve got. Not only can you not explain your reasoning, you’ve put it in parentheses, thus emphasizing your lack of understanding. Here’s a third option as to why NOAA has 2010 has the warmest year ever. Because it’s the warmest year ever. I’m far more inclined to believe NOAA’s statistical data than you’re gut feeling and terrible reasoning.

All temperature studies ARE subject to scrutiny. That’s called peer-review. As for your claim that this topic has been studied much more by “climate deniers” than actual scientists is at best, laughable, and at worst, indicative of our culture’s hostility to expertise.

No, weather is not climate. That is a fact by virtue of your own definitions and any reputable dictionary. You cannot draw the same conclusions from climatological data that you can from meteorological ones. Also, I fail to see the hypocrisy in climate modelling. Climate predictions are not the only objective of modelling.

I totally disagree with you that science has in any way been compromised. However, the public’s understanding of science has been greatly compromised over the last few decades. You can’t argue with logic or reason if you don’t understand the terminology being used by climatologists. Case in point: You.
May 23, 2010, 1:02 pm
Waldo:

Hello Drew,

My motive for posting is to counteract, as far as I am able in my limited capacity, the agitprop that is Climate Skeptic.

Mr. Meyer and the CS tribe use a fair amount of propaganda and poorly reasoned, poorly researched (or un-researched) misinformation for the simple reason that they wish to discredit the climate science community, no matter how.

There are, by the way, two “hunters.” Both are a bit reactionary. I was confused about which one I was talking to.

I appreciate your post – very nicely put.
May 23, 2010, 1:15 pm
Fred from Canuckistan:

Waldo . . . spoken like a good little warmonger, like someone well versed in greenie, hairy-scary fear mongering of any weather event that supports the stupidity that is the anthropogenic global warming theory.

So Warren uses “agitprop” eh ?

What would you then call crapola like “An Inconvenient Truth” or incessant NYT headlines of rising seas, increased hurricanes & tornadoes and fading Arctic ice ?

MEGA-SUPER-DUPER-BIGGEST-BADDEST-AGITPROP ?

There is no need to try an discredit the global climate science community . . . they do it every day to themselves in spades. It is almost like they enjoy digging their own scientific & political graves every time the torture their data and publish their faked scientific papers, peer reviewed by their fellow travelers.

Anybody who would trust anything written by Michael Mann or the rest of his ilk would likely trust bridge salesmen.

But no worries . . the great scam is soon to be history. Even the UN is now saying climate change is not as big an issue as biodiversity. They are already trying to dream up the next great Fear & Scare campaign to take over, just like they invented AGW to pick up when The Population Bomb & The Club of Rome faded away under the barrage of truth & reality.

But hey dude, if you still want to believe in AGW, to bow & scrape at the altar of St. Al Gore, to worship NOAA & the NASA/Hansen scammers, the Hockey Team, the East Anglia Tricksters, the IPCC Reports . . . well just fill your boots & enjoy it, wallow it, marry it for all anyone with more than two brain cells will care.
May 23, 2010, 2:17 pm
Walfred:

Why yes, Fred, I would lump Al Gore and his much-touted movie in with the whole charade which has become the global climate conversation. I suspect the infamous, inconvenient movie and the subsequent books are accurate, but they have ceased to work in the way they were intended and now appeal primarily to the opinionated and monolithic denier community as the focus of their myopic and reactionary worldview (and I always have to wonder if this is actually a blog about Al Gore and not climate science). I wish Al and Mr. Meyer would do the same thing, shut the hell up and let the scientists do their work.

Which would be my same advice for you, but after reading your last post I know that would be a silly thing to suggest.

How about this: everything you say is a generalized, unsupported exaggeration. The global climate science community has not necessarily been discredited among thinking people, and has only been discredited with the herds of sheep in the deniosphere because of agitprops such as the one I am now posting on and not because of science. And you are the gullible public that falls for it.
May 23, 2010, 3:46 pm
Fred from Canuckistan:

“I suspect the infamous, inconvenient movie and the subsequent books are accurate”

’nuff said.
May 23, 2010, 4:17 pm
Shills:

netdr,

‘Where did they predict an even tinier amount of warming ?’

No one made any predictions based on a 15 year time scale. It is too short. Something closer to 30 years is what the science uses to look at trends.

That particular 15 years thing was just a skeptic’s cherry-pickin’ in a question posed to Jones, from what I understand.
May 23, 2010, 5:02 pm
netdr:

Shills: wrote

netdr,

‘Where did they predict an even tinier amount of warming ?’

No one made any predictions based on a 15 year time scale. It is too short. Something closer to 30 years is what the science uses to look at trends.

That particular 15 years thing was just a skeptic’s cherry-pickin’ in a question posed to Jones, from what I understand.
***********************
15 years is a good long time and it ends today which is the best time to assess the future. [With the most recent data]. Computer models predict that slight cooling will continue for another 20 to 30 years. You do believe in computer models don’t you ?

Contact me then [in 30 years] and see if you still believe in CAGW!

The reason I picked that particular cherry is because it is the most recent and it is backed by a true believer in global warming.

I could easily have picked dozens of similar time periods but the most recent is the most important.

It has long been argued that there is something “special” about the most recent warming, in fact the whole alarmist argument hangs on that premise but it is false.

Here is another quote from Dr Jones:

Question: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Dr Phil Jones:” An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

[This indicates that the recent warming is not exceptional. Moreover, even if it had been “exceptional,” that would not prove it is due to greenhouse gas emissions?]

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/#more-16418
May 23, 2010, 7:02 pm
Shills:

netdr,

you say: ’15 years is a good long time and it ends today which is the best time to assess the future.

15 years is too short, look it up. it even implies that in the Q n A.

Those measures of prev. centuries might have other temp forces at work, like volcanoes, solar etc. Or inversely the more recent measures might be lacking known climate forcers like those mentioned. Those ideas are implied in the Q n A. However, none of this proves, disproves AGW.

Don’t waste time cross examining an interview. Get some of your denier buddies together and submit a paper for peer review.
May 23, 2010, 8:29 pm
Waldlove:

These are also from the same BBC interview, netdr.

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Lets look at that last point: “Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

In other words, one can cherry-pick any shorter period of time to say whatever one wants – either to indicate that the Earth is steaming into a hotbox or that the Earth is cooling significantly. As an engineer, netdr, you should know this. As a teacher you should know that any evaluation should take in the whole of as much available information as possible.

Then there is always the question, who should we believe – a retired weatherman with a blog? Or a world renowned government scientist who actually works in the field? And once again we see Climate Skeptic informed by another blog with an axe to grind. So I find this Q&A to be particularly interesting:

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

And then there is always Shills’s suggestion to submit your findings to peer-review (perhaps you and Fred, netdr).
May 23, 2010, 9:08 pm
Waldohate:

BBC: Sceptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) suggest that the official surface record paints a different story from the actual station records. To restore trust, should we start again with new quality control on input data in total transparency?

Jones: First, I am assuming again that you are referring to the surface record from both land and marine regions of the world, although in this answer as you specifically say “station” records, I will emphasise the land regions.

There is more than one “official” surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The GISS data and their program are freely available for people to experiment with. The agreement between the three series is very good.

Given the web-based availability of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), which is used by both NCDC and GISS, anyone else can develop their own global temperature record from land stations.

Through the Met Office we have released (as of 29 January 2010) 80% of the station data that enters the CRU analysis (CRUTEM3).

The graphic in the link below shows that the global land temperature series from these 80% of stations (red line) replicates the analysis based on all 100% of stations (black line).

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/data-graphic.GIF

The locations of the 80% of stations are shown on the next link in red. The stations we have yet to get agreement to release are shown in grey.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/locations.GIF

I accept that some have had their trust in science shaken and this needs the Met Office to release more of the data beyond the 80% released so far. Before all the furore broke we had begun discussions with the Met Office for an updated set of station temperatures. With any new station dataset we will make sure we will be able to release all the station temperature data and give source details for all the series.
May 23, 2010, 9:09 pm
GP Hanner:

For the past two winters the Hawaiian islands, especially Oahu and Kauai, have been experiencing lower than normal temperatures. One of the residents on the north side of Kauai told be they were having night time temperatures in the mid-50s. That’s cool when you don’t have a source of heat other than the sun.
May 23, 2010, 10:32 pm
netdr:

How long of a time period is significant ?

The thermometer was invented at the end of the Little Ice Age and it has gotten slightly hotter since then.

Well DUH !

If we go back 20,000 years or more we see that it has been much hotter and much colder. [BTW: did the polar bears tread water for hundred's of years ?]

Just picking the time since the end of the LIA is just “cherry picking”! In the grand scheme of things today’s temperatures are pretty normal.

The original post said:

“So a tiny amount of warming occurred. [Statistically insignificant]

Where did they predict an even tinier amount of warming ?

Did they whisper their non scary prediction into a closet ?

Why should I be alarmed ?”

Even if you double or triple the timescale there is still a trivial amount of warming even with the help of parking lots and UHI. The more recent warming is not confirmed by satellites. In fact with some admitted cherry picking I can show periods when satellites show cooling while ground stations show warming ! The more recent time periods show exactly that, which you would expect since there are no parking lots in space.[yet]

Here are the predictions of 9 climate models stating in 1990

http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/charles/wpe6.gif?PHPSESSID=5bad55a0170f76d1bc284698bb3d4f35

Here is the temperature data to evaluate them against.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

As of 2009 :
One model predicted no warming and is clearly the winner!

The rest predicted between .25 and .75 o C warming.

So the one predicting no change is clearly the winner

The error of the others about 1000 %.

My Ouija board can do better.
May 24, 2010, 6:10 am
wally:

Shills,

“15 years is too short, look it up. it even implies that in the Q n A.”

There is no time peroid in which you are sure to acheive statistical signifigance. It depends on just how much warming or cooling is happing. If you saw 4 degrees of warming in 5 years, I’m sure it would be significant. Like wise if you saw .25 degrees of warming over 100 years it may also be significant. So its disingenuous to just say the time peroid is too short. The time peroid is only too short in combination with the warming. While it might be true that this amount of warming would be significant over just another 5 years, but you don’t have that data. In that amount of time it very well may cool to keep us in this statistically insignificant range.

Saying something was nearly significant is fine, but implying its only because of the time peroid is not correct.
May 24, 2010, 8:29 am
mbabbitt:

Our winter in the Pacific Northwest was a very warm one but we are now paying for it with May being one of the colder ones. Usually in May, we have some sunny streaks with a few mid 70′s and even a day or two touching the 80′s, but this month has been more like April than May with the temps in the low 60s if we were lucky; too many days in the 50′s. June is usually a disappointment in that we return to clouds and back to the upper 50′s and low 60′s. This year June could only be equal to May and perhaps even an improvement.
May 24, 2010, 8:44 am
ADiff:

Very good cases have been made the surface temperature records significantly diverge from accuracy. This record is uniquely at odds with records of satellite and balloon temperatures over very long periods, suggesting there are issues with this record. In addition it appears, based on statistical analysis, that this record has been repeatedly subject to ‘adjustment’ that appears more an artifact of observation bias than correction. The same observation bias has apparently begun to creep into the latter two records as well, but not as dramatically and not as early as the surface record. The surface temperature record, especially, appears to very likely be suffering from the effect of a ‘we need to fix this because it doesn’t reflect what we KNOW it has to be’ thinking…..

As is true of any Faith, if you look for evidence of your beliefs you will find it, one way or another….
May 24, 2010, 9:24 am
Waldorama:

Wally, I think the point is that one can cherry-pick a smaller section of the overall temperature record to prove whatever one wants regardless of what the long-term record is indicating.

netdr, you are an interesting character. You’ve now posted the same two graphics for a third time. If history repeats itself, you will now disappear (I posted a number of questions about your interpretation of the graphics once before…)

And ADiff, where do you get your evidence? What “cases” are you posting about? Dr. Jones seems to disagree with you.
May 24, 2010, 5:40 pm
Shills:

@ Wally,

You say: ‘There is no time peroid in which you are sure to acheive statistical signifigance.’

Not what I’m saying.

Basically, dido what Waldo just said. And check out a page on climate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

30 years is the time scale used mostly.
May 24, 2010, 6:28 pm
papertiger:

SacBee – Keep your sweater – and umbrella – within reach.

The chilly weekend temperatures were among the coldest in more than a half-century from Redding to Stockton, the National Weather Service reported Sunday.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/24/2771679/persistent-cold-wet-weather-stunts.html#ixzz0ou5skkBR

Merced SunStar
Cold weather isn’t imaginary … we’re setting records for late spring
Low of 40 Saturday was coldest for Merced.

KHSL TV 12 serving Chico, Redding, North State California
The run of unusually cold and wet weather has put a damper on a previously bright almond forecast.

Warren, how do you get all these Californian newspapers to play ball, reprinting your propaganda and such?
May 24, 2010, 7:27 pm
Justa Joe:

Since so called climate change doesn’t manifest itself in any change in the weather (as “climate isn’t weather”) then climate change is really nothing to worry about.

I wish that the climate isn’t weather brigade were as vocal when the press was presenting every day with an above average temperature as proof of “global warming”.
May 24, 2010, 8:05 pm
Justa Waldo Tyger:

Well Tigre, on the other hand, worldwide this was one of the warmest winters on record:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1842508/fifth_warmest_winter_on_record_worldwide/index.html

Furthermore: “The NOAA reported in February that the past ten years have been the warmest period on record, surpassing the previous hottest decade — the 1990s — quite easily.”

But you’d rather look at the local weather. Okay. Today it was 80 degrees by 8am in my neck of the woods. Is it possible that climate is not the same thing as weather? Hmmmm…

And Joe:

****”I wish that the climate isn’t weather brigade were as vocal when the press was presenting every day with an above average temperature as proof of “global warming”.”

Can you give us an example of this? Or were you simply exaggerating?
May 24, 2010, 8:29 pm
ADiff:

Just about every press mention of extreme weather in the past decade has touted a connection to Global Warming or Climate Change. Just a brief Google search makes it very clear that almost every note of any notable weather claimed connection or reference to such. And yet anything contradicting or calling into question such connections was almost universally ignored. An entire chapter in Climate of Extremes is dedicated to this phenomenon. Those begging strawmen be documented might make reference to the citations of that one source, perhaps to their personal edification, or at least enough to abjure rhetorical appeals to (referential) authority, especially on matters of speaker’s common knowledge. I watch the news and read the papers. So do others. They do not need references satisfactory to Trolls to legitimate their own first-hand knowledge, I would assume. But then I do not pretend to be arbiter of righteousness, as so so many in thrall to some ’cause’.
May 24, 2010, 11:12 pm
WaldoTiger:

By the same token, ADiff, a brief Google search will net countless stories about the CRU crisis or any number of supposed scandals or “proof” that AGW is a hoax or some such. So any victimization scenarios of the deniosphere are patently and provably silly.

But that’s not really the point.

The point is that Joe and his ilk routinely exaggerate these claims or simply make unsupported blanket statements like the ones above as if these were proven talking points.

The bigger point is not what the media reports anyway – we know the media is going to get it wrong – but what does the science say?

And this, “I do not pretend to be arbiter of righteousness,” is just plain BS, my friend. You are as righteous as anyone on these boards. You simply have gotten much more vague recently…maybe you’re tired.
May 24, 2010, 11:29 pm
ADiff:

Perhaps you should refer to the citations instead of just endlessly Trolling in service to your cause. Try the book I’ve recommended. You might actually learn something.

If that’s possible. But I rather suspect you already know it all…..
May 24, 2010, 11:40 pm
netdr:

Waldo

What I was commenting on was the “bait and switch” tactic employed in the phrase “SLR [insert favorite metric here] will be much worse than we predicted.

Using SLR as an example the reader thinks of the 20 foot SLR predicted by Al Gore and they think ” My god it will be even greater than that.”

First problem “will be” — No it probably won’t be the model hasn’t been correct yet so why start now?

Second problem treating a prediction like a fact. A prediction is a prediction and doubling it changes nothing. [except to make it more wrong]

If the speaker had said SLR measurements are greater than what our models predicted that would have meaning, but they will never say it because all models are too high ALWAYS. A workmanlike set of models should bracket the truth some high some low but why are they always high ?

SLR is 3 MM per year or 1 cigarette length in 30 years. Since 2006 there has been no SLR perhaps because there has been no warming.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
May 25, 2010, 4:06 am
papertiger:

“But you’d rather look at the local weather. Okay. Today it was 80 degrees by 8am in my neck of the woods. Is it possible that climate is not the same thing as weather? Hmmmm…”

Congratu-fucking-lations on reaching average, dipshit.

Why is it when Waldork makes something close to a declarative statement of fact, when you go to check it always ends up being a lie?
Is it some sort of rule that global warmers have to be invariable liars?
May 25, 2010, 4:59 am
hunter (the real one):

papertiger,
The answer would be ‘yes’.
May 25, 2010, 5:55 am
Wally:

Shills, Waldo,

30 years is no magical number. It may be that given typical year-year variation leads to stistical significance given the historical rates of change in GMT, but that doesn’t mean a 30 year window tells you anything terribly important. Look at the changes we see on the 1000 year time scale, even 100,000. And you’re gonna tell me you can’t also cherry pick a time scale on the order of 30+ years to mean what ever you want?

This is exactly what climate scientists and the politicos that attach to did with the global warming scare. They also did the same thing 30 years ago or so with globabl cooling.

So yeah, you’re exactly right, you can cherry pick just about anything you want out of short term climate changes, and that cuts to both sides of the debate.
May 25, 2010, 7:44 am
Waldalakeshoredrive:

My heavens, Paperkitty, I didn’t make anything up – I simply posted a link that claims that ’09-’10 is the fifth warmest winter on record globally. So that’s a lie? Can you prove them wrong then? (If it is “a lie,” you can reveal it, right?) Interesting glimpse into your thinking there that, because the link does not conform to your faith (yes, the term applies to you), it must be a “lie.” (Sore loser) But rather than deal with it, you simply post another weather anomaly. This is particularly relevant because we all know that weather is not climate right? So the temperature in the Sierras might not be as significant as, oh I don’t know, the global temperature records?

But that’s fine.

I do have to wonder if there are changing weather patterns. If the planet’s climate is changing, isn’t one of the effects the change in weather patterns?

How did netdr get onto SLR? And are you sure, netdr, that you read thost graphics correctly?

So Wally,

****”you can cherry pick just about anything you want out of short term climate changes, and that cuts to both sides of the debate.”

Then I guess the intelligent thing to do would be to look at the long-term weather record, correct? Then why haven’t you called out Lindzen for this tactic? Or Mr. Meyer? I always have to wonder why you are so critical of only one side of the debate. And if, as the scientists posit, the long-term weather indicates that our current weather is a unprecedented (and yest this includes the MWP etc), shouldn’t we be alarmed?
May 25, 2010, 9:50 am
Justa Joe:

And Waldo:

****”I wish that the climate isn’t weather brigade were as vocal when the press was presenting every day with an above average temperature as proof of “global warming”.”

“Can you give us an example of this? Or were you simply exaggerating?” -waldo

Ding… ding… ding… Give that man a cupey doll. You figured out that I was exaggerating a bit. Your abhorrence of my exaggerating seems to be a tad mis-placed as the outlandish claim and the wild eyed exaggeration is the main tool of the CAGW industry. before you mindlessly demand an example you may want to consult http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

You want me to present an example of a hot day, a record hot day, or some extreme weather event as being presented as proof of AGW? I’m not going to acquiesce to your demand because everyone alive today have heard these types of reports. Heck I just got through listening to this crap from a purported climate “expert”. Listen to the guy with the glasses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ0iDoZhLKk&feature=player_embedded

I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t bastardize my name. We’re not friends, and I’d prefer to not have my name associated with climate crank-ism.Your tactic is to mindlessly nay-say everything. It’s clear.
May 25, 2010, 10:55 am
Justa Joe:

I encourage you to continue to spout this month, year, decade… whatever is the hottest eva… blah… blah… blah! People are going to hear this and look around and notice that the temperature(s) aren’t anything extraordinary and dismiss your BS alarmism all the more rapidly.
May 25, 2010, 11:00 am
hunter:

Justa Joe is right on target with this. The ‘highest levels evah!’ that are trumpeted are so trivial in nature and often so counter to reality as to make the catastrophic AGW promotion machine look more plainly like the chicken littles they are.
John Maddox in ‘The Doomsday Syndrome’ pointed out the tradition of over stating risks threats and challenges by those misusing science to justify their positions.
May 25, 2010, 11:25 am
Wally:

Waldo,

“And if, as the scientists posit, the long-term weather indicates that our current weather is a unprecedented (and yest this includes the MWP etc)”

This is a false statement, or at the very least something still uncertain. Can you show me unbiased and unadjusted data that rivals the MWP? How about the various warm periods ~100K years ago and more?
May 25, 2010, 11:39 am
George:

I am coming to the conclusion that everyone, and I mean everyone, concerned with the Global Warming debate has a distorted concept of time and what “long-term” means, and I include all of the climate science professionals. Fifteen years, 100 years, 1000 years, whatever, these are not significant terms for determining trends. One famous climate scientist (frequently quoted on this blog) once called himself a “Paleoclimatologist” because he had looked at temperature proxies back as far as 1000 AD. Well, think of that! All the way back to 1000 AD! When he has reviewed temperature data (and violent storm data) for 5000 or 10000 years I will begin to listen to him. Yes, such data do exist, and they do not paint quite the picture the anthropogenistos want us to see.
May 25, 2010, 12:31 pm
Jason M. Nichols:

Hello,

I find your theories very interesting. I’m trying to find some of your work in the scientific literature to incorporate into a literature dossier I am compiling to inform myself, and my colleagues, on climate issues. Could you please send me some of your peer-reviewed work describing how current models over-estimate CO2 sensitivity? I would be most interested in any alternate models you have published in peer-reviewed journals that account for recent trends relevant to climate change.

Thank you for your time,
Jason
May 25, 2010, 5:24 pm
Shills:

Wally,

You say: ‘This is exactly what climate scientists and the politicos that attach to did with the global warming scare. They also did the same thing 30 years ago or so with globabl cooling.’

My guess, Wally, is that 30 years is used to avoid any known noise in short term phenomena, but still be small enough to give us a decent idea of the trends responding to known climate forcings. In terms of achieving stat. significance, who would focus on the 15 years, or 30, 50 years, that did not achieve significance when the overall trend shows warming?

Again, just guessing this stuff. But if you really think there is something up with the choice of time frame, and no one has bothered to critique it for 30+ years, then go explain it to a climate scientist or submit a paper.
May 25, 2010, 5:30 pm
hunter:

30 years is used because few people remember specifically back much farther.
May 25, 2010, 8:39 pm
WaldoRockNRoll:

Joe you linked to a rather large catalog of links on a site that claims on its homepage that it’s “All about the scares, scams, junk, panics, and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats, so-called scientists and others who try to confuse you with wrong numbers.” Is this a credible source or is this a source that, like you, takes an exaggerated view of the issue as a cornerstone of your belief system?

So George, since “such data do exist, and they do not paint quite the picture the anthropogenistos want us to see” why don’t you peer-review an article on this information? Blow them darn alarmists out of the water! Otherwise this sounds like a lot of hot air (play on words, get it?).

Well Wally, I think the 2001 hockey stick goes back to the year 1000. I know that you do not believe in the IPCC, but so far I have not seen anything that convincingly discredits them or their work. So no, I do not think I made a “false statement” but rather one that you disagree with and dislike, which is no more convincing to me than the stick is to you.
May 25, 2010, 10:43 pm
Justa Joe:

“…Is this a credible source or is this a source that, like you, takes an exaggerated view of the issue as a cornerstone of your belief system?”

Oh Waldo, What a cop out. You’re the only person on this site peddling a “belief system”. Everyday the public is treated to a barrage of outlandish claims put forth in tax payer funded “studies” by “scientists”. The public is also treated to the media hype of said outlandish claims from said studies. You are denying that these outlandish claims exist? The warmlist compiles perhaps hundreds of articles from every type of media source most of which reference some “scholarly” study from some climate crank or at least some press release from some “environmental” group.

Don’t blame me. Blame them. I don’t make the outlandish claims I only read about them. Heck, even your beloved IPCC report(s) are chock full of debunked claims. The whole claim of malaria spreading due to AGW is presently in the news.
May 26, 2010, 6:05 am
George:

Perhaps I did not make myself clear: My point is that climate “scientists” (on both sides of the argument) invariably think in the short-term, but the climate of the Earth acts in the long term. By short-term I mean less than 1000 to 10000 years.

And, no, I don’t want to do your research for you. Since most of the long-term records are in the geologic literature, I suggest you look there. Try Google Scholar. There has been good and interesting work done on hurricane frequency along the Gulf Coast through most of the Holocene. My point that these data paint a picture which should make most anthropogenistos uncomfortable is that the frequency of violent storms seems to have declined in recent centuries, not increased. Yet I read from time to time about how hurricanes have recently increased in frequency and intensity. The geologic record does not support his claim (although it has been put forth by NASA).

Another source for global climate history, popularized for easy digestion, has been published by Prof. Scotese at one of the University of Texas locations. Worth a look.

For the record of relative sea level change, have a look at The Geology of Florida, Randazzo and Jones eds., which contains some interesting stuff about sea levels throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Then ask yourself, when the sea level was so high that all of the Florida peninsula was submerged, where were the icecaps? And when the sea level was so low that Florida was twice as big as it appears on a road map, where did all the water go?

Climate folks would do well to study a little geology, and learn a bit about the history of our planet.

As a item of trivia for your friends, point out that half of Florida is already underwater because of Global Warming (surprising, but an accurate statement!)
May 26, 2010, 7:49 am
George:

I meant NOAA!
May 26, 2010, 7:50 am
Wally:

Waldo,

“Well Wally, I think the 2001 hockey stick goes back to the year 1000.”

And its been manipulated to such an extent that its worthless. Further, efforts to replicate the hockey stick have failed. There is no reason read any more of your post when you really on the hockey stick.
May 26, 2010, 9:50 am
Wally:

Whoops, that needs to be rely not really.
May 26, 2010, 9:51 am
Wally:

Shills,

“But if you really think there is something up with the choice of time frame, and no one has bothered to critique it for 30+ years, then go explain it to a climate scientist or submit a paper.”

Despite the impression you may get on this board, I don’t have the time to write a paper for every criticism I have or gap in knowledge I believe there to be in every field I care enough to read up on. Further, one doesn’t have to submit a paper to still have a valid criticism.
May 26, 2010, 11:07 am
Justa Waldoe:

Well Joe, perhaps you don’t know my personal history with CS, but I have made a small career here questioning and challenging the tribe’s sources, most of which are incredibly dubious. Like the one you posted.

But fine, if you feel that, simply because someone posits a theory about AGW that “the public is treated to a barrage of outlandish claims put forth in tax payer funded ‘studies’ by ‘scientists’” (itself some pretty vitriolic hyperbole) I have to wonder – how do you know all this? All you’ve given us is a catalog of articles about GW – that in itself does not prove anything. How many of these can you actually counter, Joe? How many have you actually read?

This is exactly where exaggeration comes in and forms your belief system – I read a number of your links, and nothing there is particularly outlandish.
May 26, 2010, 8:07 pm
Walldy:

****”And its been manipulated to such an extent that its worthless.”

Well, see Wally, you say that – but for me that is not particularly convincing.

****”Further, efforts to replicate the hockey stick have failed.”

Are you sure about this?
May 26, 2010, 8:10 pm
Waldorge:

****”I don’t want to do your research for you.”

Why not do it for the world? Don’t worry about me – prove the IPCC scientists wrong for the sake of all the victimized taxpayers out there. Or perhaps you actually don’t have a valid criticism? (I imagine that the climatologists know a good deal more about geology and planetary history than anyone here does).

Tell me, folks, I’ve been attacked a number of times on these boards for “appeals to authority” – what is George doing?
May 26, 2010, 8:17 pm
Shills:

Wally,

‘Further, one doesn’t have to submit a paper to still have a valid criticism’

Maybe ‘valid’ but not nec. sound.

Who are the best peeps to judge whether the argument is sound? The experts.
May 26, 2010, 8:34 pm
WaldoWarm:

****”I don’t want to do your research for you.”

Perhaps you should George. This is “Prof. Scotese at one of the University of Texas locations” at http://www.scotese.com/moreinfo17.htm

“During the last 150 years humankind has increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouses gases, principally carbon dioxide. As a result, the gloabl climate is warming. As the Earth climate warms, the polar ice will melt and sea level will rise. This will decrease the amount of land and less energy will be reflected back into space. This additional warming will melt more ice and the seas will continue to flood the continents, resulting in more warming. It is likely that rapid global warming will trigger positive feedback mechanisms that will change the Earth’s climate mode from Ice House to Green House – like it was when the dinosaurs were around. The only question is how long will it take? 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years.”

Thank you. I’ll be looking into your other sources as well.
May 27, 2010, 8:57 am
Ben Kalafut:

If you “understand”, then what is the point of this sort of post? If you didn’t understand that’s one thing, but if you do understand, then it would seem that simple akrasia is at work.
May 27, 2010, 9:26 am
Ben Kalafut:

Jason M. Nichols FTW above!
May 27, 2010, 9:28 am
Wally:

Shills,

“Maybe ‘valid’ but not nec. sound.

Who are the best peeps to judge whether the argument is sound? The experts.”

The necessarily is the key there. So yes I’d agree, one doesn’t need peer review to have a ‘valid’ or ‘sound’ criticism.
May 27, 2010, 10:55 am
Wally:

Waldo,

“Well, see Wally, you say that – but for me that is not particularly convincing.”

Well, it isn’t just me saying it. Even the creator of it now says it should have been more of a field hockey stick. Regardless, you can look up criticisms of it, its common knowledge at this point.

“****”Further, efforts to replicate the hockey stick have failed.”

Are you sure about this?”

Yes, can you point me to one successful replication?
May 27, 2010, 10:58 am
ADiff:

Successful replication? Wally…of course there have been MANY… http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

Of course these were ‘Monte Carlo’ simulations, demonstrating that no matter what one fed in to Mann’s methodology one ALWAYS got a ‘hockey stick’.

Now as to anything supporting the hockey stick reflecting any actual physical phenomenon….that’s the ‘big zero’.
May 27, 2010, 1:35 pm
Wally:

ADiff,

Yes, that’s of course what I meant, data/analysis supporting that it was an actual physical phenomenon and not a product of “adjustments.”
May 27, 2010, 1:56 pm
Shills:

Wally,

You say: ‘So yes I’d agree, one doesn’t need peer review to have a ‘valid’ or ’sound’ criticism.’

In theory, yes. But in practicality, your ideas do no good just floating around your head. Communication is key to science.
May 27, 2010, 6:04 pm
Wally:

Shills,

Climate science has broken out of the academic world and into the political world (largely by their own doing, but also by politicos like Gore). And ultimately scientific findings have to be accepted by the public before public policy can be created around those findings. So, the scientists have to convince me, and others like me. Which is why we don’t need peer review in this case. One doesn’t need peer review to voice criticisms in such a public debate.
May 27, 2010, 6:32 pm
Shills:

Wally,

Not sure what your point is in relation to our discussion. I still maintain that little blog criticisms do nothing to contribute to the science.

However, you are reminding us all of how the denier groups are making it so hard for honest scientists to communicate with the public.
May 27, 2010, 9:00 pm
WaldoBaby:

****”ultimately scientific findings have to be accepted by the public before public policy can be created”

Yes, and this is why it is so disturbing when one finds a purported commentator, such as Mr. Meyer, who appears to be simply drumming up hastily conceived notions about science based upon dubious information from dubious sources. The public is often very easily misled by people such as Mr. Meyer.

****”One doesn’t need peer review to voice criticisms in such a public debate.”

Okay – but I always have the same very pertinent question: how does one know that one’s criticisms are, in fact, valid? I could concoct all sorts of “criticisms” about any number of subjects – and I would easily get a number of people agreeing with me whether or not my “criticisms” are valid.

For instance…

The park system in California is very poorly run. Parks are not opened in Spring when they are supposed to be – just look at Rock Creek Lake. Mr. Meyer is clearly deceiving taxpayers. If he wanted to, he could open Rock Creek Lake. Weather is just an excuse. I demand to see his records because I believe he is hiding something from us.

Is this a valid criticism? Are these valid demands?
May 27, 2010, 11:31 pm
Wally:

Waldo,

“how does one know that one’s criticisms are, in fact, valid? I could concoct all sorts of “criticisms” about any number of subjects – and I would easily get a number of people agreeing with me whether or not my “criticisms” are valid.”

There is no 100% perfect way to know which criticisms are good or bad, important or trivial. This is even true among the experts in any given field. People will disagree about such things and there is often not a “correct” answer. You seem to want the perfect answer, but not even the experts can give that to you.

“Weather is just an excuse. I demand to see his records because I believe he is hiding something from us.

Is this a valid criticism? Are these valid demands?”

Yes. Just about every request for more data is a good thing. Further, I don’t claim Meyer is really doing science. He’s more of an outlet for the public debate and occasionally he links to science or makes his presentations using other people’s science.

Now if you want more information about this park and are skeptical of Meyer’s data or what ever, I suggest you email him. He doesn’t read these comments, at least not often it seems.
May 28, 2010, 10:13 am
Wally:

Shills,

“I still maintain that little blog criticisms do nothing to contribute to the science. ”

Not sure how you got the impression I think I’m contributing to the science. I’ve never said anything like that, and if you interpreted something that way, you misunderstood. Though I think you’re now just trying to build straw men in an attempt to ‘win’ or ‘score points’.

What I’m saying is that one can have a valid criticism of some scientific work, but not go through peer review, and that while these comments likely don’t effect the science, they very well could effect the public debate (yes very minimally, but if they change one person’s opinion its something).

“However, you are reminding us all of how the denier groups are making it so hard for honest scientists to communicate with the public.”

If they are having trouble it is their own fault. If someone could present me with adequate evidence of a looming catastrophe I’d certainly be willing to change my behavior. I’m not sure why you alarmists go through so much trouble attacking the skeptics motives (even if in the round about way you did above). Do you think we want to see a disaster? If an asteroid where about to hit Earth (something that’s easier to know for certain), that would kill 90% of life on this planet, possibly leading the extinction of man, do you think we’d ignore it and try to tell people nothing is going to happen? Don’t you think I’d support relatively extreme taxation to fund a project to stop such an asteroid? I just don’t get it.

So to return to the point, the pro-DAGW scientists are running into my opposition because I do not fiend their data to support their conclusion, while at the same time they (and their politico friends) attempt to alter my behavior based on this faulty conclusion. If they had better data, and all round better science (including more open science), I’d have no issue with them.
May 28, 2010, 10:38 am
ADiff:

Mr. Meyer is doing what every good citizen should do, educating himself and others on the evidence (or lack thereof) in participation in policy formation. That’s the role of a citizen, as a layman. This involves assessments of the soundness, integrity, applicability and usefulness of evidence considered. He wisely refuses to simply accept the posited interpretations of those supplying the evidence (‘scientists’, interest advocates, special interest groups like WWF, the U.N. &etc). Scientists themselves are free, of course, to (very unwisely) assay centrally into the policy debate. Unwisely, because it corrupts their role as objective investigators ( i.e. as scientists) and they, as a class, are, and have been demonstrated historically, uniquely ill-suited to direct (or even influence) public policy. Not only are ‘scientists’, as a class, possessed of their own particular special interests, but they are inclined very destructively to confuse this with the general interest, tend to lack broad experience and knowledge outside of their specialties, group closely in a tightly knit highly unrepresentative sample of the larger population, and proceed from a dangerously myopic perspective in performance of the same layman’s role of participation in policy debate.
May 28, 2010, 12:11 pm
Shills:

Wally,

You say: ‘…and that while these comments likely don’t effect the science, they very well could effect the public debate…’

And this is the reason we have vaccine denial, tobacco denial, aids denial, evolution denial, holocaust denial, 9/11 denial, swine flu denial, and climate denial.

You say about Meyer: ‘…and occasionally he links to science or makes his presentations using other people’s science.’

So those presentations of his are borrowed ideas but he doesn’t reference??
May 28, 2010, 6:40 pm
Wally:

I’m sorry shills was listing off a bunch of “denials” supposed to mean something?

And yes, Meyer does reference, at least generally, I can’t say I’ve read everything he’s done. Is there something in his work you have a specific question about?
May 28, 2010, 7:35 pm
Wally:

ADiff,

Couldn’t have said it better regarding the self-education on topics that enter into political debate.

And regarding scientists’ roll in policy, ,y personal belief is that its one or the other. You shouldn’t be formulating political documents (ie. IPCC reports)and trying to guide the political debate with your own research, or while doing any research in that field. Along with the issues you bring up, this creates a pretty obvious conflict of interest.
May 28, 2010, 7:43 pm
Waldo3daywkend:

****”People will disagree about such things and there is often not a “correct” answer. You seem to want the perfect answer, but not even the experts can give that to you.”

Nope. What I want is honesty and integrity, from the scientists and the people who criticize the scientists. So far the scientists are far more honest and have a great deal more integrity.

What I also want is an honest evaluation from people who know the field and some respectfulness from the people on the fringes. I perfectly well understand that climate science is a brand new field that is still in the process of defining itself, and I understand that there are magnitudes of uncertainty about all sorts of things – things I don’t even know about (and probably neither does anyone else here). I even understand that the entire climate change debate may either turn out to be a non-issue for any number of reasons we are all familiar with or may turn out to be exactly what current scientific thought predicts.

But simply because not everything is known about the science of climatology, or simply because scientists (who are human) have made mistakes or even, on occasion, acted unprofessionally, I and people like me do not accept the notion that they are or are under the influence of “politicos” or riding the “gravy train” or, most importantly, that the science is faulty. There is virtually nothing on this website, or in the deniosphere in general, that conclusively implies any of these things, and certainly the sorts of charges made here and at places like Watts Up or Pete’s Place or Jo Nova or C3 are unproved and usually proved false – we’ve been debating them for months now.

Mr. Meyer is not a “commentator” and this is not “open review” science – look at the top of this page for a perfect example of what Mr. Meyer and the people here are involved in.

And no Wally, those are not valid criticisms above. I made them up on the spot. I could email Mr. Meyer or write the Ca. assembly or hire a lawyer or write a blog and accuse Mr. Meyer of all sorts of things. But that does not make any of these actions valid.

****”This involves assessments of the soundness, integrity, applicability and usefulness of evidence considered.”

That is not what goes on here or on sites like this one.
May 28, 2010, 9:16 pm
Shills:

Wally,

you say: ‘I’m sorry shills was listing off a bunch of “denials” supposed to mean something?’

Merely to show that many denialist movements have before focused on influencing public opinion rather than addressing the science properly. Just a possible historical analogy. You know, like you said, what we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat.

you say: ‘Meyer does reference, at least generally’

Is ‘general’ referencing good enough for you?? Look at his layman’s guide; very inadequate referencing. I don’t need to show you specific examples because just a quick browse over should make it apparent to you. You might even accuse me of cherry-picking.
May 29, 2010, 8:45 pm
Carol:

Global warming is a Hoax from the Left wing government!
June 13, 2010, 1:11 am

Climate Skeptic

Global Warming / Early Spring

83 Comments

Jay:

ADiff:

Waldbrrrrrr:

hunter:

Waldter:

papertiger:

hunter:

mike:

Ben:

netdr:

Shills:

netdr:

AnonyMoose:

MrCannuckistan:

Waldorama:

Drew:

Drew:

Waldo:

Fred from Canuckistan:

Walfred:

Fred from Canuckistan:

Shills:

netdr:

Shills:

Waldlove:

Waldohate:

GP Hanner:

netdr:

wally:

mbabbitt:

ADiff:

Waldorama:

Shills:

papertiger:

Justa Joe:

Justa Waldo Tyger:

ADiff:

WaldoTiger:

ADiff:

netdr:

papertiger:

hunter (the real one):

Wally:

Waldalakeshoredrive:

Justa Joe:

Justa Joe:

hunter:

Wally:

George:

Jason M. Nichols:

Shills:

hunter:

WaldoRockNRoll:

Justa Joe:

George:

George:

Wally:

Wally:

Wally:

Justa Waldoe:

Walldy:

Waldorge:

Shills:

WaldoWarm:

Ben Kalafut:

Ben Kalafut:

Wally:

Wally:

ADiff:

Wally:

Shills:

Wally:

Shills:

WaldoBaby:

Wally:

Wally:

ADiff: