Whither (wither?) climate science?

by Judith Curry

The title for this post comes from a recent presentation by Michael Morgan, Director of the Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Division at NSF.

Each year, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Sciences (UCAR) holds an annual meeting for its members in Boulder.  UCAR is the governing body of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

UCAR has a new director, Tom Bogdan, who seems to be shaking things up a bit, in interesting ways.  This post discusses some of the presentations a the UCAR meeting, and also some of Bogdan’s new initiatives.

The program for the UCAR annual meeting is found [here].  Bogdan’s overview presentation on UCAR is [here].  What I want to focus on in this post are two presentations, one by Michael Morgan and the other by Tom Bodgan, regarding the future of climate science.

Michael Morgan

Michael Morgan’s presentation, titled Whither (wither?) climate science? can be found [here].  Some excerpts:

Considerations:

  • Obscurity is not necessarily bad; the science would be well-served it it were not politicized.
  • Climate science is much more than climate change science; support for climate research has gone up–both in basic research and impacts

Administration priorities FY2014

Within the U.S. Glbal Change Research Program, agencies should give priority to new activities identified in the recently released 2012 Strategic Plan.  Particular emphasis should be gien to research that advances understanding of vulnerabilities in human and biogeophysical systems and their relationships to climate extremes, thresholds and tipping points.  This will require integrated cross-sectoral, biogeophysical, and socioeconomic observations as well as improved simulation and modeling.  Specific areas where progress is needed include observations to detect trends in extremes; integration of observation into models; attribution of change to human or natural causes; integrated research on Earth and human systems; simulation and prediction at spatial and temporal scale conducive to decision making; and adaptation responses to changing frequency and intensity of extreme events.

Administration priorities dictate research opportunities

  • Yes, the climate science budget has received increases due to concerns over climate change
  • This has led to modest increases in core activities, but more notable increases in funding from solicitations

Some of the key near-term science challenges in Climate and Large Scale Dynamics:

  1. Modeling and prediction of organized tropical convection’
  2. Tropical-extratropical interactions; storm tracs and moisture transports
  3. Role of atmosphere-ocean interactions in intraseasonal variability
  4. Systematic zonal flow variations: mechanisms and predictive implications
  5. Predictability of tropospheric wave guides and baroclinic wave packets
  6. Troposphere-stratosphere interactions; modeling and potential predictability
  7. Variabilitity of climate modes beyond ENSO and MJO
  8. Effects of global ocean conditions, e.g. tropical Indian and Atlantic Oceans
  9. Effects of land surface processes
  10. Warm season climate system and its predictability
  11. Potential implications of climate change

Attribution problems remain

  • Type 1:  How do you disentangle natural variability of the climate/earth system from ‘forced’ change?
  • Type 2:  Given that the climate system is changing due to anthropogenic effects, how doyou attribute particular events to the change?  What are the conditional PDFs?

Tom Bogdan

Tom Bogdan’s presentation titled Climate sciences: a return to relative obscurity or a rising relevance? is found [here]. Some excerpts:

We have two hypotheses for the future of climate research:

Inertia and desperation:  “It is about the battle between inertia (skeptics, people who don’t care, don’t understand, or put a low priority on such issues) and the need for action, where ‘now or never’ pleas are being made and ignored because they sound too desperate.”

Questions answered:   “On the other end, climate sciences may be on the way down because it has accomplished the mission that has stimulated its growth in the past 20 years; we have provided society an answer; but. . . unless we choose to work on impacts, we are not part of the solution.”

Inertia — really?  In spite of the noise, public views are now more accepting of the influence of climate on our lives.

The key questions are answered?  Not so fast

The science IS settled in terms of knowing that we are changing Earth’s climate, AND YET

There are still significant questions and impacts that merit continued and deepening work – examples include:

  • Regional climate
  • Adaptation planning
  • Understanding anomalies

Rather than declining relevance, our time is now if we adapt to a changed environment and playing field

FACE FISCAL REALITIES – Recognize government funding will likely be flat to down for the foreseeable future under most scenarios

– We must augment our traditional sources of funding for our work from those who will be affected by the changes across sectors

STOP FIGHTING THE LAST WAR – Spend less energy battling skeptics

With the science established, we must move to more direct solutions in service to society, directly supporting those on the front lines who can make the most of our insights

PLAY TO OUR STRENGTHS – We are among the most successful predictors the world has ever seen*

– We have to double-down on the life-saving and economy-enhancing work our community does at the heart of weather-climate nexus over longer timeframes.

JC comments:  As pointed out in Michael Morgan’s presentation, Administration priorities play a big role in determining what science gets funded, and climate scientists are pretty quick to figure out the optimal path for professional advancement in terms of recognition and funding.  I have to say that Bush 41 and 43 were actually the best presidents for climate science research, since they focused their administration’s priorities in this area on the actual science.

As highlighted in Michael Morgan’s presentation, there are a lot of remaining challenges in the field of climate and large scale dynamics.  His list is a good one, but by no means complete.  These issues are at the heart of scientific problems of attribution, regional climate variability, and extreme events.  We aren’t going to be able to adequately address those issues without focusing on Michael Morgan’s list.  And kudos to Michael Morgan for acknowledging that the attribution issues surrounding climate change are not settled, although in his last slide he seems to accept the AR4 main attribution statement.

The field is focused on regional climate variability and extreme events, i.e. applications of climate model simulations.  At the RS Workshop, I had an extensive conversation with Brian Hoskins about the lack of attention being paid to fundamental large scale dynamics, without which our understanding of climate dynamics will be stalled and our climate models will continue to be inadequate.

Tom Bogdan provides a good strategy for moving forward:

  • face fiscal realities
  • stop fighting the last war
  • play to our strengths

I think each of these points are very good, but I disagree somewhat with the subtext he provides.  Regarding the war against skeptics, this fails to acknowledge that the rational skeptics position pretty much are raising main of the issues that Michael Morgan has raised.  With regards to playing to our strengths, our strengths are in weather prediction.

Along these lines, Tom Bogdan is spearheading the unified call for a U.S. Weather Commission [link].   Moving the focus to seasonal and subseasonal weather/climate forecasting would be of enormous scientific and socioeconomic benefit.  The socioeconomic benefits are obvious.  The scientific benefits would address a number of Michael Morgan’s listed challenges, and provide the foundational understanding for tackling many of the others.

679 responses to “Whither (wither?) climate science?

  1. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Willis Eschenbach is entirely correct that if humanity never looks more than 20 years ahead, then each generation’s optimal climate-change strategy is “do nothing”.

    That is why a crucial moral and economic question is the discount rate associated to long-term harms of climate-change … and that is why it was surprising, Judith (or perhaps, unsurprising) that this crucial “hot potato” issue of longer-term versus shorter-term impacts is not addressed in any of the presentations that your post quotes.

    And yet in general, thank you for (yet another) outstanding, thought-provoking post! \rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\boldsymbol{\,\ddot\smile\,}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\boldsymbol{\,\heartsuit\,}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\boldsymbol{\,\ddot\smile\,}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • This is an area that the present top down IPCC structure does poorly at. The reason is that to get the discount rate below what the economists use requires, the “ask” paradigm, not the “tell” paradigm. We don’t need the IPCC for economics, we have economists who do it much better and fiscally have a good track record. The economics are straightforward: we do not have a good track record of predicting catastrophic or tipping point events, in fact the opposite. Scare mongering will not work because we are not psysic, and “buyer fatigue” has set in from all the failed catastrophic predictions. Thus at this point, what is left is “moral” opinions. But that is a can of worms. In a “tell” dialogue, different people means different morals, and these persons will be opposed to people telling them what the moral constraints are, especially with the hypocritical excesses that many of the “hollywood” set display. We all have earned our place here on earth by being alive.

      So, I do not think that Judith has an obligation to set the moral constraints, nor you fan. If moral is going to work, then it will have to be directed and accomplished across the board. That appears to be an area that the activists are incompetent. They do the “tell” part well. The “ask” paradigm they do poorly with wanting to claim the moral high ground and dictate. Many of their public high profile persons do not live the life they want others to live. This has repeatedly been shown to have an adverse effect on those who attempt to take the moral high ground, the “Art of War” comes to mind. That is why I find Dr. Curry’s position quite reasonable, and fan, I find yours to be immoral. You want her to do your work for you.

      • +1 You are right. The background of the new UCAR director, Dr. Tom Bogdan, eliminates any excuse for climate scientists to ignore findings that Earth’s heat source is a pulsar [1-3], not the steady H-fusion reactor climatologists assumed along the path to Climategate in 2009.

        - Oliver K. Manuel
        PhD Nuclear Chemistry
        Postdoc Space Physics
        Former NASA Principal
        Investigator for Apollo

        [1] Peter Toth, “Is the Sun a pulsar?” Nature 270, 159-160 (1977):

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v270/n5633/abs/270159a0.html

        [2] Oliver K. Manuel, Barry W. Ninham and Stig E. Friberg, “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, J. Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002): http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/

        [3] Oliver K. Manuel, “Neutron repulsion,” The Apeiron J. 19, 123-150 (2012):

        http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf

      • Contemporary science is founded upon the principle of induction: most people have seen a certain phenomenon precede or follow some other phenomenon most often, and conclude therefrom that it will ever be thus. Apart from other considerations, this is true only in the majority of cases, depends on the point of view, and is codified only for convenience.

      • “You want her to do your work for you.”

        The presumption there being that Dr. Curry and presumably others have not obligation to be moral or honest, and are free to deceive, obstruct, and distort, and it is the responsibility of other people with a moral sense to pin them down and defeat them.

        That’s nonsense. “Skeptics” are also obliged to try to be moral and honest, however antithetical to their natural character that might be.

    • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

      A fan of *MORE* discourse: if humanity never looks more than 20 years ahead, then each generation’s optimal climate-change strategy is “do nothing”.

      Why?

      I would say that the “optimal” strategy is not known. Some minimax strategies include research into a variety of technologies that might be useful in many conditions; and construction of facilities that will likely be useful no matter what happens. The claim that someone is advocating doing nothing is empty. What is called “business as usual” is continuous investment in new knowledge and technology.

      “Stop fighting the last war” is empty, as noted by Prof Curry and others. The only strategies to “win” the last war are to fill the gaps in the science and produce a long string of accurate predictions to demonstrate that the knowledge is complete enough and accurate enough.

      About this list:
      Modeling and prediction of organized tropical convection’
      Tropical-extratropical interactions; storm tracs and moisture transports
      Role of atmosphere-ocean interactions in intraseasonal variability
      Systematic zonal flow variations: mechanisms and predictive implications
      Predictability of tropospheric wave guides and baroclinic wave packets
      Troposphere-stratosphere interactions; modeling and potential predictability
      Variabilitity of climate modes beyond ENSO and MJO
      Effects of global ocean conditions, e.g. tropical Indian and Atlantic Oceans
      Effects of land surface processes
      Warm season climate system and its predictability
      Potential implications of climate change

      These research topics are important precisely because the gaps in the knowledge vitiate the claim that the last “war” has been “won”. The only “strategy” supported by current knowledge is the strategy of hedging bets about the future.

    • A fan etc…says that “…a crucial moral and economic question is the discount rate associated to long-term harms of climate-change …” Just exactly why do you think you know anything of those “long-term harms of climate change” if you have no idea of what long-term climate change to expect? If you disagree with me on that point, be kind enough and do tell us about your secret knowledge of long-term climate change that we are all ignorant of. Or simply shut up.

      • Arno Arrack,

        Just exactly why do you think you know anything of those “long-term harms of climate change” if you have no idea of what long-term climate change to expect?

        Excellent question.

        This question is the nub of the issue. The alarmists want to move on. They want everyone to accept that they now know that ACO2 will cause dangerous or catastrophic climate change. But they have no idea what are the consequences of ACO2 emissions. When asked they get defensive and try to divert from answering the question – like Steven Mosher’s reply to me here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/20/whither-wither-climate-science/#comment-270011

        So, as far as I can see, the CAGW alarmists, like Steven Mosher, are advocating ridiculous mitigation policies, with not the slightest clue about impacts of ACO2, the cost’s and benefits of ACO2 emissions, the real costs of the proposed mitigation policies not, importantly, what is the probability that the mitigation policies will deliver the beneficial changes to the climate they would like us to believe they will deliver.

        The more we look into this the more we realise how ridiculous are the mitigation policies they advocate.

  2. Once again, a thread that basicly assumes that CAGW is real. Once this assumption is firmly in place, there is not much of interest in the proceedings. However, I noticed one nugget, one sign of hope.
    Michael Morgan states “integration of observation into models;”. If this is an indication that some warmist recognizes that the empirical data is the only thing that is ever going to tell us whether CAGW is real or not, then it is a step in the right direction.

    • THese threads just suck the air out of the room. The CAGW hypothesis remains emphatically unproven. I just don’t see how discussions which assume it is are useful.

      • “The CAGW hypothesis remains emphatically unproven”

        The AGW hypothesis remains unproven.

        Andrew

      • Bad Andrew

        A bit less “emphatically”?

        Max

      • Fair enough. I was being kind.

      • nobody with power listens to you.
        “skeptics” were the last war.
        The battlefield will now be impacts.
        Cry all you like but those in power have moved on from doubt/
        You lost, but ou havent woken up to the fact.
        Those in power dont listen to you, or cripwell, or goddard or ball
        You have a sand box to play in here. But you are harmless

      • Steve writes– The battlefield will now be impacts.

        Imo that has always been where the “battle” should be waged. It is one where people allocate the limited funds available to do something (hopefully) useful.

      • Nobody with power believed that Armstrong was a cheat, or that Saville was a kiddie fiddler, etc…

      • Steven, you write “Those in power dont listen to you, or cripwell, or goddard or ball”

        I agree with you completely. But those in power are also starting to take no notice of Hansen, Mosher, etc. The economics of reducing CO2 emissions are such that no nation wants to commit economic suicide. So what is going to happen is……..absolutley nothing. Those in power will concentrate on jobs, and growing the economy. If you want proof of this, just look what is happening in the UK with the Energy Bill the Conservatives and the Lib. Dems. are arguing about.

      • Mosher is right. The people in power are not going to listen to skeptics. Being skeptical doesn’t mean being knowledgeable, nor does it give status. You can be a skeptic without having anything to offer.

      • “You have a sand box to play in here. But you are harmless”

        Well! Glad that’s all settled. Now maybe we can have some peace and quiet.

      • “nobody with power listens to you.
        ‘skeptics’ were the last war.
        The battlefield will now be impacts.
        Cry all you like but those in power have moved on from doubt/
        You lost, but ou havent woken up to the fact.”

        Didn’t all that happen many, many years ago? And what’s happened since? The UK is covering itself in windmills. Australia has a carbon tax. The EU and UK have ridiculous emission targets that they have no hope of sticking to. What else? Not much that I can see.

        Winning and losing seem very similar to one another in this instance.

        You can win all you want with those “in power”. And the Chinese will go on doing their thing.

        I think the main battle ground is what story will be told when we all collectively do nothing, and miraculously survive.

      • Haven’t left yourself a lot of room for manoeuvre if we enter a cold period.

        Still, it’s your choice.

      • Rob

        “It is one where people allocate the limited funds available to do something (hopefully) useful.”

        Yes.

      • Nope. It isn’t over now. It is never over. Just because the 47% who live on the lower half of the IQ bell curve voted for something they can understand, “free stuff!,” does not mean skeptics are done.

      • “jim2 | November 20, 2012 at 8:03 pm |

        Nope. It isn’t over now. It is never over. Just because the 47% who live on the lower half of the IQ bell curve voted for something they can understand, “free stuff!,” does not mean skeptics are done.”

        The bottom 1% of world-wide IQ’s comment with their crackpot theories on this site. I agree that you are not done, as it will take some effort to clean up the mess that they make.

      • WHT,

        “The bottom 1% of world-wide IQ’s comment with their crackpot theories on this site. ”

        I wouldn’t agree they are the bottom 1%. They’d probably be somewhere in the 50-70% percentile band. People who have enough intelligence to appreciate the seriousness of the threat and the potential political implications it could lead to, but not enough intelligence to appreciate it’s their political pre-conceptions, and crackpot theories, which are more likely to be wrong, rather than mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.

      • Steven, I don’t believe those in power ever listened to sceptical voices, and it’s always baffled me as to why you alarmists believed they did. There are no sceptics at the COP meetings, or any of the other jamborees organised to “save the world”, well, they may be there, but they’ve had no voice. As one of your, now despised, sceptics I came to the AGW war to find the “science is settled”, the entire policy plans driven by environmental NGOs, sceptics compared with flat-earthers and creationsists and generaly regarded as such by the public at large and a deliberate blackout of sceptical views by the MSM. We had lost the “war” before we were aware there was one.
        And yet the alarmists have been incapable of delivering the final blow to get full control, and for this they’ve blamed the sceptics giving the totally false impression that the sceptics have somehow had an effect on government policies. They haven’t, every government in the Western world has taken its advice on global warming from envirionmentalists and the IPCC, but they’re still unable to enact the draconian measures to reduce CO2 output.
        In case you’re wondering why it’s because the people won’t accept them when the true horror of what’s planned by the alarmists and their environmental friends dawns on them and the politicians know that.
        Bottom line, you won’t get the victory you yearn for in a democracy. Moreover, if you did, it will have no effect on CO2 emissions because the Indians, Chinese, Brazilians etc. aren’t going to stop bringing their people out of poverty because the scare stories emanating from the climate science community and their many camp followers producing papers that tell us the lower Mongolian cockroach will died out because of global warming, aren’t worse than the life the ordinary person has in those countries at the present.
        They’re not going to hold back their progress because of religious beliefs not matter how deeply held.

      • “It is one where people allocate the limited funds available to do something (hopefully) useful.”

        Like, increasing wealth.

      • Steven Mosher,

        What an arrogant, pompous twit you are. You tell others their contributions are worthless. Yet clearly you think yours are of some value. Yesterday and today you’ve clearly revealed that you make statements as if you think you are authority. When asked about your statements you reply in an apparent rage, like here:

        You still don’t get it. … It doesnt matter whether you get the answers to your questions or not. Nobody owes you an answer.
        You dont get to ask questions. If you had the power to decide, then your questions might be important. But you dont, so they are not. You get to play in a sand box. If you want answers about impacts and costs, go read WG2. If you have questions sign up as a reviewer. Ask away. The point remains that the conversation will shift to impacts. Other people will ask the questions. Not you. If you want to influence power, you supply answers. Get it. You have no power. Those in power get to ask the questions. To influence them, you better have answers, not questions.

        What a pompous, arrogant twit.

        Why don’t you just admit, all your bluster is to hide that you are making statements about Impacts, yet when asked what you know about them, you clearly know nothing.

        Such arrogance and bluster is now common amongst the CAGW alarmists. Yours and their credibility is in tatters. Who’d trust anything you or they say? Answer: only a fool.

      • Mosher is right. The people in power are not going to listen to skeptics.

        Of course not – they don’t want to lose a golden-sounding excuse to raise taxes and generally crank up their own power.
        .

      • “Just because the 47% who live on the lower half of the IQ bell curve voted for something they can understand”

        You do know that it was Romney that got 47% of the vote, right?

        Of course, not all Romney voters are stupid. Some are greedy, bigoted, or psychopathic.

      • Jim & poker;
        +1, +1
        All of these summaries, recommendations, and discussions are just variants on the Trenberth Twist, trying by hook or by crook, by presumption and assumption, to try and make AGW the Null, de facto if not de jure. Remove that, and they are pure waste and counter-productive sand-pounding nonsense.

  3. “‘now or never’ pleas are being made and ignored because they sound too desperate.”

    Of course. We know ‘now or never’ couldn’t possibly be true.

    Andrew

    • To avoid any confusion, those who don’t subscribe to the ‘consensus’ global warming view should be called “climate rebels”, like the rebel alliance from Star Wars.

      We are scattered, thin on the ground and un-funded, yet we fight on against the tyranny of failed global computer model(er)s and adjusted data, using ‘the force’, the ‘truth’, of empirical evidence.

  4. John Carpenter

    Tom Bogdan writes,

    “STOP FIGHTING THE LAST WAR – Spend less energy battling skeptics”

    Judith Curry writes,

    “Regarding the war against skeptics, this fails to acknowledge that the rational skeptics position pretty much are raising main of the issues that Michael Morgan has raised.”

    Do you think they are using the same definition of ‘skeptic’?

    I have seen people use the term skeptic several ways trying to define a meaning of which type of skeptic they are either trying to represent or say they are, the list includes,

    – “skeptic”
    – skeptic
    – rational skeptic
    – real skeptic
    – fake skeptic
    – true skeptic

    By no means is that list intended to be complete. My observation is we can not accurately define ‘skeptic’ in a way everyone will agree is appropriate. To answer my own question, I don’t think they are using the same definition. If I had to hazard a guess…. I would say Bogdan’s definition would be of a ‘skeptic’ portrayed more like a ‘denialists’ or ‘skdragon’ while Judiths definition represents more of a scientific portrayal of being properly skeptical about new information on the frontier of our knowledge.

    I guess the point of my comment is… the way Tom Bogdan used the term ‘skeptic’ will likely invite a whole host of negative responses from many readers here. It doesn’t help the conversation in a constructive manner and possibly will become a red herring for many to wave around as a reason not to read what else he had to say. Maybe it is a ‘communication problem’ afer all.

    • John –

      . My observation is we can not accurately define ‘skeptic’ in a way everyone will agree is appropriate.

      Amen, brother.

      However, I would have to disagree as to your speculation about how Bogdan and Judith are using the term… not in that either would disagree with your speculation about who they are categorizing how 0 in that sense I think they would likely agree. But in the sense that application of their definitions is probably highly subjective, unscientific, unvalidated, unspecific. One person’s rational skeptic is another person’s “skeptic,” or “fake skeptic.” I think that much energy in this debate is wasted and will only lead to repeating old battles, unless and until a clear working definition of terms is discussed, openly and with an eye towards respectful dialog.

      Just look at what happened with the Climate Dialog that got bogged down with bickering about whether or not “skeptics” were represented, what constitutes and “off-topic” comment, etc.

      Same ol’ same ol’, brother.

      • It would help if people in positions like Bogdan’s didn’t adopt a “we’re right, ignore the rest,” attitude as he appears to do here. That is asking for opposition. As Judith notes, many of the areas for further investigation by Morgan have been raised by people who would not adopt a “the science is settled” line. Bogdan may (in the excerpt) be saying only that there is some human influence on climate, however small, but I suspect not.

      • Faustino –

        As Judith notes, many of the areas for further investigation by Morgan have been raised by people who would not adopt a “the science is settled” line.

        Except that Judith selectively and inconsistently notes which areas for further investigation have been raised by those who would not adopt a “the science is settled” line. She cleaves of some of what many of them say, sometimes, to categorize their beliefs. Now we might disagree as to whether her categorizations jibe with reality – but that problem exists because her statements are not validated. Her orientation to the debate is inconsistently scientific in approach.

        And I will point out – saying that an significant number of people in the debate adopt a “the science is settled line” is similarly problematic. What does “the science” mean? Contingent on that definition who, specifically, is saying that it is “settled?” With such categorizations based on a lack of specificity, IMO, progress is slowed at best, blocked at worst.

      • “It would help if people in positions like Bogdan’s didn’t adopt a “we’re right, ignore the rest,” attitude as he appears to do here.

        The unfortunate reality is that not all criticism is rational, informed, or useful.

        When it comes to the overwhelmingly right-wing “skeptics” of your basic theory of AGW, we are right, and those that want to continue to revisit the argument they have lost typically should be ignored.

        Answering all comers only works in a venue in which there is a set of rules — formal or informal — in which nasty, irrational rants give way to reasoned criticism. The peer review system is an example of this. Everything that emerges from it has passed a test (though like all tests, an imperfect one) determining they have something in some way new to say and it is not full of glaring mistakes.

        Some people find such a system too selective and want to embrace a looser “extended peer review” strategy. There’s nothing that says that can’t work. However, if you embrace that model, you have to accept that people producing and analyzing high-quality science are going to self-segregate from the Tony Wattses and Todd Akins and Steve Goddards of the world. It is empathically not the responsibility of scientists to babysit lunatics or answer the same insincere questions over and over again.

  5. “Attribution problems remain
    ■Type 1: How do you disentangle natural variability of the climate/earth system from ‘forced’ change?”

    Conflating natural and unforced? I see this all the time, another prejudice?

    “■Type 2: Given that the climate system is changing due to anthropogenic effects, how doyou attribute particular events to the change? What are the conditional PDFs?”

    That’s not given yet, not even close.

  6. PLAY TO OUR STRENGTHS – We are among the most successful predictors the world has ever seen*

    That preposterous claim caught my eye and I had to go back to the presentation to see what the asterisk linked to.

    *See Nate Silver ‘ Why Weather Forecasters are Role Models, NYT 9 September 2012

    Ah, it’s weather guys, not climate guys, who get the kudos. And we all know the two are not the same. Rather shabby to appropriate somebody else’s credit, no?

    • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

      Conflating weather prediction with climate modeling is one of the great red herrings of our current climate debate. Two completely different intentions, processes, and dynamics. Weather forecasts can often be extremely accurate many days out…climate models are always wrong from the start, and if they happen to be right, it’s only by coincidence) and always will be wrong, but they are equally as useful.

      • Gates

        Climate models are equally as useful as weather models? Sorry, but that is just wrong to the point of being silly.

        It would be easiler to argue that climate models are of no value. Long term weather models are useful, but can you describe what value a climate models actually has until it can be demonstrated to be able to generate accurate predictions?

      • ‘Useful’ in the sense of getting the juices, get it?

  7. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Bad Andrew affirms  “We know ‘now or never’ couldn’t possibly be true.”

    Or as Homer Simpson expressed it:

    Homer Simpson reasons  “That can’t be true, Lisa! If it were I’d be terrified.”

    \rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\boldsymbol{\,\ddot\smile\,}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\boldsymbol{\,\heartsuit\,}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\boldsymbol{\,\ddot\smile\,}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

  8. This is just incredible:

    Type 1: How do you disentangle natural variability of the climate/earth system from ‘forced’ change?

    It is exactly the first “sceptic” argument y heard, probably in 2007. Lindzen? Don’t remember. But the corollary is obvious: How can you attribute anything without disentangling natural from non-natural?

    • palzaeme

      How can you attribute anything without disentangling natural from non-natural?

      Obviously, you can’t.

      And that’s the whole problem in a nutshell.

      Max

    • Precisely – this is the elephant in the room. I am not a climatologist, but the same problem pops up in many scientific contexts – you measure two variables as a function of time, but how do you show that A causes B or B causes A, or that there is no causal relationship.

      At least part of the answer is to follow both variables over enough time to see if their graphs stay in step. Quite clearly, the CO2 concentration graph has gone on rising, while the global temperature curve has flattened!

      I also find it frustrating that observations of warming of fractions of a degree are performed with equipment that is typically only accurate to about this level.

      In years to come, climate science may be used in schools as a textbook example of how to come to the wrong scientific conclusions!

      • Yes. And it will be taught in Political Science about means to justify the desired political Ends.

        Political Science will now want Climate Science to wither. Move money into grand solutions and away from science to prevent good scientists from expressing second thoughts. Castigate and castrate all who doubt. There is a world to save and corruption to feed.

  9. Fan,

    I wouldn’t be terrified even if it were true.

    Andrew

  10. Judith, weather predictions of ten days or less are of good quality. Climate projections are terrible and misleading. If an engineering lab were to be faced with this issue the approach would be to “learn to walk before you try to run”. Start with a small strategic region of the earth and focus resources toward the understanding all aspects of the climate, natural and man induced. Simultaneously work on trying to expand the ten day weather prediction quality to 20 days then 30 days and so on. The money is there. Eliminate one half of the model activity and allocate those resources to the new effort.
    Hank

    • This is what I have been trying to promote.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        A worthy goal it is, and probably promises a sort of “back door” way to begin linking weather with larger climate teleconnections.

      • doctorbunsenhoneydew

        Trying to extend the prediction horizon for weather prediction would be a very bad way of trying to improve climate projections, as I’m sure Lorenz would have pointed out were he still around. Climate is the long term statistical behaviour of the weather, so you don’t need to accurately predict the weather in order to accurately predict climate. Indeed climate projections are based on *simulating* weather with plausible statistical behaviour (according to our understanding of the physics), rather than being based on *predicting* the weather. The difference is crucial to understanding what climate projections can reasonably expect to achieve. Models of the same basic form are used for both weather prediction and climate studies, but the reason the prediction horizon for weather prediction is short is much more likely to be to do with the limitations of our knowledge of initial conditions (as by definition chaotic systems are hight sensitive to initial conditions) and on the resolution of the model (limited by computational considerations) than on the uncertainty in the physics.

        Secondly plenty of money is already spent on regional climate, see the rather length chapter on regional climate projections in AR4. Note also that you don’t need GCMs to get reasonable projections of global climate, but they are required for regional projections.

    • Sounds like solid advice.

      Doubt we will see this approach taken though. It would require upsetting too many rice bowls.

    • So now 30 days is climate? In any case consistently good 30 day predictions are probably impossible due to atmospheric turbulence, also called chaos. But there is no money in unpredictability.

      • David, thanks for your reply. Your “predictions are probably impossible” statement may well be true at today’s understanding of the science. Put a small team of dedicated scientists together with this as a starting point and ask them to push forward our understanding of the science and just stand back! This very process has proved time and time again to reap rewards. The current approach is wasteful and demonstrably unproductive.

      • zent- the best weather forecasters use everything available, including past weather patterns. So they use data from10,20, 50 years ago, noting similiarities in the atmospheric patterns, and use that to adjust the models and the forecast. The science involved might be pattern matching, more than anything else.

    • I agree. Climate research needs to be meteorological in its modelling and its outputs needs to be more regionally focussed. IMO It is far more important for this work to to be done so that countries can ameliorate the effects of climate change in their own areas. There is really no such thing as a uniformly global scenario.

  11. In the interest of real science, here’s an idea: How about a 5 year moratorium on any statements by scientists on whether or not a weather event is evidence one way or the other of either extreme position?

    Also, how about everybody grows the hell up?

    Oh, never mind. Have a happy holiday all.

  12. Judith Curry

    As long as the underlying premise is that humans are changing our planet’s global climate in alarming ways that could lead to potentially catastrophic impacts unless GHG emissions are drastically curtailed (the “CAGW premise of IPCC), the rest is baloney.

    Climate science needs to shake off this “monkey on its back” before all the rest makes sense.

    Getting set up to adapt to any changes in weather patterns Nature throws at us if and when it appear that these are becoming imminent is plain old good sense.

    Tying it to “CAGW” is a basic mistake – because it invalidates it all.

    Max

  13. David Springer

    “Type 2: Given that the climate system is changing due to anthropogenic effects, how doyou attribute particular events to the change? What are the conditional PDFs?”

    A “given”? Who gives it?

    • The people in power. you know the folks not listening to you

      • You keep referring to the people in power — you must have given up on the science.

        I’d also point out that the people in power always have their agendas and these are not always what their supporters wish. So, if they implement a carbon tax in the USA or stop the Keystone pipeline or other CAGW goals and CO2 continues to rise as fast as always, but the USA becomes poorer as these burdens are not assumed in China, India and other countries, what do you think will be the reaction of Americans to those in power who are responsible for the burdens? You probably don’t have to worry about this issue because those in power aren’t listening to you except for using you as a rationale to raise taxes to spend on vote getting social programs.

      • No I am pointing out to david that no one is listening to him.

        There is a science debate. It centers on sensitivity. If he wants a chance at being listened to he will speak about that. Otherwise, nobody in power is listening to him.

      • Mosher,

        Don’t know what’s happend to you, but you are starting to sound like a crank.

      • I would say cranky.
        I expect it will be a growing tread.

        Not sure if happy with idea that skeptics are no longer backed by Big Oil.
        Sure it was stupid idea, but it was amusing.

      • Sick with cold. Stuffy head. scratchy throat. no sleep. arrg

      • David Springer

        He always gets peevish when I bring up the fact that USHCN data has no warming trend without model adjustments SHAP and TOBS.

        Straight from the folks who run the program…

      • USHCN?

        Sorry Springer, I’ve never used that data. Go ahead, and check my list of packages and publications.

        SHAP adjustments? Yes, when a station moves from 3000 meters ASL
        to sea level, and gets warmer as a consequence, only a fool like you would say that this shift in temperature was a real warming. The professionals, guys like roy spencer, would make a lapse rate adjustment.
        You realize that SHAP is just that.. a lapse rate adjustment for changes in elevation. You know the same adjustment you criticized roy spencer for?
        ya right.

      • Mosher,

        That makes more sense. Hope you feel better soon. Can’t remember the name of the stuff – orange tablet that supposedly helps with immune system – but I’ve found it helps nip a cold early and sometimes helps me get over one quicker when it takes hold.

      • timg56

        Thanks. Im megadosing on vitamin C, and other OTC stuff.
        argg. sucks of course the fever does create spontaneous synaptic reorganization and interesting ideas to kick around the sand box.
        Some ideas will survive the battle of the sand box. those get nutured and expanded. The loser ideas get buried like cat turds

      • David Springer

        Mosher

        You think you don’t use USHCN data? Think again. Everyone includes US land temperature data and that’s the source of it.

        As far as your defense of SHAP why would a preponderance of stations change altitude in such a way as to cause raw HCN data with no trend to have a warming trend? Your defense here is basically saying that the average altitude of weather stations began increasing in the latter half of the twentieth century. I don’t believe that.

      • David Springer

        Mosher

        And there’s a f*ck of a lot more than altitude adjustments in SHAP. Metadata is often lacking in quality to make good adjustments so the algorithms hunt down changes in station data that don’t seem to jibe with nearby stations. It then discounts the suspicious station data by blending it with nearby station data. This is what homogenization is all about.

        http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/monthly_doc.html#homogeneity

      • You might want to remember that both halves of Congress are some of the people in power. The entire House Republican leadership is in the skeptics camp. You might want to revise your assertion.

      • It is my experience and I believe this 100%. Legislators will not legislate around this anymore. It is very hard to get anything done in congress. Very hard. If you are not 100% certain you are not going to get billions spent on a new law. I think the doubt created by the skeptics and by the weather itself has basically put the legislators on hold. They will bluster on the left. They will complain but given the reality that nobody really feels like this is happening they won’t do anything. The reason is that there is enough doubt that the republicans are willing to make a stand and they won’t get heat for it. It’s not like the 60s when the democrats tried to stop integration. (Yes, that’s right democrats.) You can’t be villified for not doing anything about a problem that nobody really believes is a problem. I think all this wind power stuff and cap and trade … is just going to expire and no new legislation will be approved – except dual use legislation. Someone might argue that mitigation against hurricanes is “global warming legislation” but it’s really just common sense. I think the skeptics have won the day. The left may think they still have the upper hand but the election never talked about global warming. It was a negative for Obama to say anything about controlling the sea levels. So, even he recognizes that he can’t win any more debates on this issue. He will try to force what he can probably through the EPA possibly but you can see he was championing fracking natural gas as much as Romney. He’s essentially given up too.

      • Moreover the House controls the money. Interesting times lie ahead powerwise. Skepticism has great power, certainly enough to prevent any serious climate legislation. Kyoto is dead. The only power question left is whether we can stop or curb EPA? We probably have a decade to do that so I am still guardedly optimistic. But great effort will be required.

        Interestingly EPA is a socalled Independent Agency meaning it is not under the control of the President, or anyone else, including Congress. There is an untested Constitutional issue here that is well known in legal circles. It may come up so watch for it.

      • the bot died?

      • David Springer

        Lost the evangelical vote. Romney got fewer votes than McCain/Palin which makes sense. Romney is the man who couldn’t beat the man who couldn’t beat Obama and the result was just as you’d expect given that and no more.

      • A blast from the past:

        OMG!!!! Romney might not get NY and NJ electoral votes!

        ROFLMAO

        Clueless!

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/02/hurricane-sandy-part-n/#comment-263746

      • David Springer

        Who let you out of your cage, Creepy Willard?

        Your quote had nothing to do with the context of the thread, by the way. Which is typical. Your brain is creepily twisted in ways which makes it difficult for you to understand what normal people write. So you quote them without any real understanding of what you’re quoting.

      • The people in power often don’t listen to any rational advice. President Obama appointed the Simpson-Bowles commission to solve the US’s long-term fiscal catastrophe, then threw their results in the crapper when he didn’t like them. Lots of experts can tell you that the US’s airport security screening procedures are disproportionately costly relative to any anti-terrorism benefit. The Congress hired Ed Krug back in the 1980s to do the National Acid Precipitation Action Program research, then crucified him when the research showed that acid rain wasn’t a big problem. William Ruckleshaus ignored his own science panel when he banned DDT as his first act as the first EPA director.

        Power has its own motivations. Science plays a very limited role.

      • Power has its own motivations. Science plays a very limited role.

        Corrollory : Power-funded science must produce the answers Power wants, or risk funding cuts.

        Mosher’s inadvertent point ?

      • Steven, I have to say this again to you. Western countries are democracies, the people in power are their because “We the people…” put them there, if the news blackout was lifted and ssceptical voices heard “the people in power will change their position seamlessly if it’s what the voters want.

      • Considerate Thinker

        Geronimo you are right on the money – those in power do listen eventually, or they will not remain in power. The sceptic who carefully looks at the issues, the science, is aided by those who have the professional expertise to dissect propaganda and reveal truth. The well informed sceptic then adds voice and substance to those that are willing to take the forefront in publically challenging those who would otherwise use corruption and propaganda to advance agenda.
        That is the only battle worth winning IMHO! And one that I feel blogs like this are achieving.
        You “win” truth by watching, learning and adding your support till the weight of numbers and quality of oversight keeps the politicians to an honest standard.
        I thank those among us that take the time to challenge, explain, and debate as we all learn by the experience as we learn to sort the wheat from the chaff of disinformation.

      • David Springer

        People in power listen to what they want to hear, Steven.

        Write that down.

      • Steven Mosher,
        I see you make your same arrogant, pompous comments to everyone.

        No I am pointing out to david that no one is listening to him.

        There is a science debate. It centers on sensitivity. If he wants a chance at being listened to he will speak about that. Otherwise, nobody in power is listening to him.

        Why do you try to tell others what they should say in their comments?

        Do you, Mosher, think anyone in power is listening to you?

        You say: “There is a science debate.” How interesting. As if anyone here didn’t know that.

        You say: ” It centers on sensitivity.” No that’s what you think it centers on ,because \that’s all you are interested in. That show’s you narrow minded ignorance. For the vast majority of people the debate is concerned about economics of the impacts and the proposed policies – something your comments demonstrate you haven’t a clue about. Your comments also demonstrate you are too arrogant to even recognise you know nothing about it.

  14. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/

    I think the above link is an reasonably accurate summary of the near future climate/weather. If it is, then all this NCAR modeling has been a complete waste of time and money. A bit of adaptation planning would be far more cost effective that all the CO2 reduction in the world. ie. may be we should not rebuild our castles on sand and then blame climate change (Sandy) when they fall down and get washed out to sea.

  15. Primarily what is badly needed is for government Administrators to get out of the way. All they can do is kill jobs. “A resurgent American petroleum industry could add ‘as many as 3.6 million jobs by 2020, and increase the US gross domestic product by as much as 3 percent,’ says Citigroup’s ‘Energy 2020′ report. Fracking could make North America energy independent and turn the United States into the world’s number one oil producer in a few more years.” ~By Paul Diessen

    • If you want to go on an anti-commie rant, you may be interested to know that Tea Party favorite Florida Republican Rep. Allen West has conceded the election to Democrat Patrick Murphy.

      West has said Democrats are communist. I don’t know what to make of a Tea Party Congressman losing his seat to a communist.

      • …without firing a shot? It’s called Francification of the US.

      • Now you’re talking.

      • “Environmental management is characterized by the application of hypothetical solutions to imaginary problems.” ~Walter Starck

      • David Springer

        Wagathon | November 20, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Reply

        …without firing a shot? It’s called Francification Kermitization of the US.

        Fixed that for ya.

        Wanna buy a French Army rifle? It’s in great shape. Never fired and only dropped once.

      • Max,

        borrowing a page from fan’s playbook? Posting something totally unrelated to the comment you are replying to. Exactly where does Wag mention communists?

      • Because Wagathon occasionally comments on communism, I thought he might be interested to know Florida voters preferred a commie to Tea Party guy.

      • David Springer

        Maybe they miss Castro and the motherland…

      • Max_OK,

        Two things, Max:

        -Rep West did not say that Democrats are Communists. Though I appreciate that your comment is just a goof-ball provocation.

        -Rep West put his butt on the line to save some young American lives–no one you’re likely to know, Max–and paid a price. But there are some families who will have theirs sons with them this Thanksgiving thanks to Rep West. But somehow Rep West has become a person to mock with sophomoric hyperbole because he doesn’t fit in to the hive’s agenda. Not your kind of guy, Max, I know, but my kind of guy.

        The prep-school guy who won–your speed, Max_OK.

      • mike, the Washington Post reported Congressmen West said about 80 congressional democrats are communists. Here a link to the Post article and video of West making his comments on communists in congress.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/republican-rep-allen-west-suggests-many-congressional-democrats-are-communists/2012/04/11/gIQApbZiAT_blog.html

      • Max_OK,

        I’m aware of the quote. A half-baked remark, I would say, but not a blanket equation of Democrats with “Communists” which was the view you attributed to Rep. West. Nor did Rep. West’s above comment single out his congressional opponent in the last election as a “communist”–nor did Rep West do so during his campaign. You made all that up, Max_OK, as a pretext for your cheap-shot, mocking ridicule–can’t you see that?

        Again, Max_OK, you took a one-off comment by Rep West and exaggerated it well beyond his actual statement and then used it to clownishly demean and diminish a good man. And, in doing so, you joined a concerted effort to “get” Rep. Allen West–not on the issues, but through sucker-punch politics. A personal deal with me. I think Rep. West earned better than that. My earlier comment gave the reason why.

      • Mike, you are right. I don’t know whether Rep West thinks Murphy, the Democrat who defeated him, is a communist.

        I’ll revise my comment, as follows:

        Tea Party favorite Florida Republican Rep. Allen West, who believes more than 40 percent of the Democrats in Congress are communists, lost his seat to a Democrat, Patrick Murphy. Are right-wing extremists like Allen West souring voters on the Tea Party?

      • Max_OK,

        Yr: “Are right-wing extremists like Allen West souring voters on the Tea Party.”

        I can speak with no real authority, Max_OK, of the larger ramifications of Allen West’s very close loss to his opponent. However, I do note that the tradition of American politics in my lifetime has been to reject divisive, inflammatory language in public discourse and I can imagine Rep. West paid a price for his comment that you noted, Max_OK.

        In that regard, Max_OK, while Allen West’s ill-judged comment was highlighted and exploited and served to discredit, perhaps unfairly, some of his more substantive message, others appeared to get a pass. Consider, for example, Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana.

        Among Rep Carson’s more lively, past comments was the “red-meat”, racially-incendiary accusation that some of his “Tea Bag” colleagues in Congress would like to see him and others like him (Rep. Carson is African-American) “hanging from a tree”. Rep Carson has also advocated a reform of the American education system so that it is founded on the Koran and modeled after madrassas.

        Rather “extremist” and unsettling views held, there, by Rep. Carson, don’t you think, Max_Ok? Or not? And, if you do find Rep. Carson’s views to be “extreme”, do you also think that Rep. Carson’s “extremist” views should “sour” his constituency and discredit his “message”, such as it is? If not, why not, Max_OK?

        Rep Carson, incidentally, won re-election by a 2-1 margin over a highly accomplished, distinctly non-“Tea Bag”, Latino opponent in the 2012 contest. A healthy sign for the Republic or not, Max_OK?

      • Mike, good find. However, if Rep. Carson wants religion in public schools he’s got something in common with lots of right-wingers. Only the brand of religion is different.

      • Max_OK,

        But Max_OK, isn’t the difference, though, that “extremists” like Rep. West (or at least an isolated Bidenesque comment by Allen West) “sours” the electorate, as you analyze the situation. In contrast, Carson’s incendiary race-baiting (which you kinda pretended “wasn’t there” and that you did not address in your last reply–per hive-etiquette) and his advocacy of Koran based, madrassa-style educational reform for American public education does not “sour” the electorate (the portion you hang with, at least), but invigorates it.

        What is the proper regard for someone like Carson, by someone like you, Max_OK. Can you condemn him? Can you consider that views like his have no place in the Democratic Party (you appear to be a hard-over Democrat)? Or is hyped concern with “extremism” one of those agit-prop tools used on an opportunistic basis by hive-helpers like yourself and your betters to further the hive’s various agendas but is neither here nor there, otherwise?

        And, oh by the way, Max_OK, you left out one key element in Rep. West’s loss in his last election–the “race” factor. The racially biased unwillingness of certain voters to vote for a black man–a disposition undoubtedly cultivated by a prominent campaign add aimed at Allen West. Google: “You tube Allen West punches woman in face” and tell me, Max_OK, what you think of that add. Please also, refer me to any other add aimed at the President or other African-American candidate from the last election that comparably exploits stereotypes of black men. I assure you I will be outraged by any such adds, regardless of whose ox is gored (I’m neither a Democrat or a Republican, incidentally).

      • RE Alan West’s loss

        I’m willing to bet that it was not a souring on “Tea Party” politics which led to Congressman West’s defeat, but the re-districting which caused a significant change to the voter demographics.

        But hey, let’s not allow a reasoned explanation get in the way of taking shots at the Tea Party. It, along with southerners and rednecks, are among the few groups one can still slander and make discouraging comments about without raising the ire of the PC police.

      • Mike,

        I criticize West. You defend West. 1 – 1 = 0

        You criticize Carson. I don’t defend Carson. 1 – 0 = 1

        So now you have 1 and I have 0. That’s not fair.

        I propose we even things up. If you condemn West, I will condemn Carson.

        Now, back to my question ( and remember it was a question, not a statement or an analysis): ARE right-wing extremists like Allen West souring voters on the Tea Party?

        Now for your long-winded question: ‘And, if you do find Rep. Carson’s views to be “extreme”, do you also think that Rep. Carson’s “extremist” views should “sour” his constituency and discredit his “message”, such as it is?’

        I don’t know about all of Carson’s views, but his statements cited by you are extreme. Apparently, his extremism didn’t sour his constituency, as they elected him again. Should they be sour on him? I wouldn’t mind if they were.

      • Max_OK,

        Yr: “You defend West…”

        This is perverse, Max_OK. I did not “defend” West’s comment about “80 communists.” Indeed, I called it “half-baked”. Even more damning, I went full “nuclear” in my criticism and denounced his comment as “Bidenesque”.

        However, I did take issue with your tone and manner in ridiculing a man, Allen West, much your better who has been tested and not found wanting. He’s earned a right to a respectful address in my book–but is not above criticism. But I guess you’re determined to push your little goof-ball, giggle-booger “joke” about Rep. West. I’m not surprised–whoop it up, Max_OK. Thanks to valiant men like Rep. West you can safely disrespect your protectors, enjoy your sense of superiority vis-a-vis them, and make your bucks and have a good ol’ time while leaving to the families of others–the “servant class”–to mourn the loss of their sons and daughters in our nation’s conflicts.

        Personally, I am so very grateful that Rep. West, when a battalion commander, put the precious lives of those young Americans entrusted to his care above cover-you-butt, careerist considerations. You can read all about the above in the Allen West wiki article, if you have an interest. Again, I admire the man and when I see some clownish hive-pest, like you, Max_OK, making fun of him, it tends to stick in my craw. But I’m over my snit now, Max_OK.

        With respect to West, his “80 communists” comment showed terrible judgement–reckless, loose language (the actual quote, “I’ve heard that 80 House Democrats are Communist Party Members.”) that morphed into a point-of-pride stubbornness that deterred him from a proper disavowal of his words.

        If such mis-judgements typified Rep. West’s actions then I would judge the man, despite his sterling qualities as a military professional, as unsuited for public office. But that is not what I found, when I looked into the matter. Rather, Rep. Allen’s offending comment appears to me to be a one-off “screw-up” from which he learned his lesson and thereafter conducted himself in a manner befitting a forthright, manly, congressional rep of honest character and principle–all qualities I, again, admire and that favorably contrast with the usual, polished, glib duplicity we find in our sleek, “hair-plug” and face-lift centric, go-along-to-get-along, political figures. Let me add, Allen West’s personal qualities curiously appear to me to be as unsettling to establishment Republican as to their Democratic counterparts–the former not expending too much real effort on behalf of Rep. West.

        And as to your stupid, point-scoring deal, along with your proposed exchange of “condemnations”,–give me a break, Max_OK. What a tedious joke this whole exchange with you has become. I’ll give you this much, Max_OK, I’m an idiot for wasting this much time on your silly nonsense.

      • Mike, I’m glad you didn’t accept my offer to condemn Rep. Carson in exchange for you condemning Rep. West. My offer was based on faulty information. I made the mistake of accepting your following statement about Rep. Carter as fact.

        “Rep Carson has also advocated a reform of the American education system so that it is founded on the Koran and modeled after madrassas.”

        Mike, your statement misinterprets what Rep. Carson actually said. Here’s what he said:

        “America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged, where the foundation is the Quran. And that model that we are pushing in some of our schools meets the multiple needs of students.”

        Rep. Carson said America should LOOK at their educational model. The recommendation to look at a model is not extreme. I doubt anyone has ever been harmed by looking at a model.

        I suspect you were mislead by biased reporting about Carter, and just repeated what was written. I trust in the future you will be more careful about accepting what you read without fact checking.

      • Max_OK,

        Yr: “Rep Carson just said America should LOOK at their model.”

        So no advocacy on Rep. Carson’s part. Just a simple invite to take a “LOOK”. You know, just some suggested “sightseeing”–you know, like, Rep. Carson is just sorta pointing out an interesting “thingie” for our viewing pleasure. Except, Max_OK, our tour-guide wannabe, Rep. Carson, also included the phrase “…that we’re pushing in some of our schools”. So Rep Carson is both inviting us to take a gander–a “LOOK”–at Koran-based, madrassa-style instruction as a model for America’s public education AND he is also actively PUSHING that model in some schools which he and his cronies have access to. And “PUSHING” is not just “LOOKING”–right, Max_OK?

        And, oh by the way, Max_OK, when Rep. Carson invites me to have a “LOOK” at something–I think think it reasonable to interpret that as advocacy–especially within the context of his whole statement.

        Curious how the slightest suggestion of church/state collusion sends lefties into spastic-dork hysterics, but madrassa/state collusion propels the hive-mind to strain, with hernia-inducing zeal, at differences without a distinction as justifications for the latter.

        And, oh by the way, Max_OK, ol’ sport, you still haven’t made mention of Rep. Carson’s scurrilous race-baiting of the most incendiary kind. Or is that sort of thing just too good a get-out-the-vote, agit-prop tool for a good lefty-hack to criticize?

        Now for some more self-chastisement, Max_OK. Hey STUPID!–You’re wasting yet more of your valuable time on that Max_OK moron-guy? Whatsa matta wi’ yah? STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! I am so very, very STUPID!!!

      • mike said in his post on November 22, 2012 at 3:01 am:

        So no advocacy on Rep. Carson’s part. Just a simple invite to take a “LOOK”. You know, just some suggested “sightseeing”–you know, like, Rep. Carson is just sorta pointing out an interesting “thingie” for our viewing pleasure. Except, Max_OK, our tour-guide wannabe, Rep. Carson, also included the phrase “…that we’re pushing in some of our schools”. So Rep Carson is both inviting us to take a gander–a “LOOK”–at Koran-based, madrassa-style instruction as a model for America’s public education AND he is also actively PUSHING that model in some schools which he and his cronies have access to.’
        __________

        Mike, Rep. Carson was referring to Islamic schools when he said “our schools” in his speech at the Islamic Circle of North America convention (see linked video from huffingtonpost.com).

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/andre-carson-schools-should-be-modeled-after-madrassa_n_1654510.html

        Like you, the Huffingtonpost misinterpreted Carson’s comments. Here’s an excerpt from his rejoinder to the post:

        “ While I do not believe that any particular faith should be the foundation of our public schools, it is important that we take note of the instructional tools these schools utilize to empower their young people. Christian, Jewish, and Islamic schools have experienced notable success by casting off a one-size-fits-all approach to education, and this is a model we must replicate. Having attended a parochial elementary school myself, I’ve seen these successes first hand.”

        I do not know what kind of instructional tools Rep. Carson has in mind. If he means paddling kids to get them to behave (is that still done?), I’m not sure I would agree, although I can’t say I have suffered in lasting ill effects from being paddled.

        I knew little about Rep. Carson and Rep. West before discussing them with you, so thanks to our discussion I now know more about them. It could be Murphy’s ads about West’s controversial military record were more damaging to West in the election than his Tea Party affiliation. I wasn’t aware of his problems with the Army when I first posted my comments about his defeat by Murphy.

        Mike, you obviously are a very bright and creative, but you may lack the patience to give proper attention to details. You missed the fact Rep. Carson was referring to Islamic schools when he said “our schools.” As a test, in my previous post I purposely misspelled Carson’s name, twice referring to him as Carter, to see if you would notice, and you said nothing about it. I hope you don’t have an ADD problem.

        Anyway, I wish you and your family a happy Thanksgiving.

      • Max_OK,

        You know, Max_OK, your comments, in the aggregate, leave me with two impressions. One impression I derive from the affect lefty hive-politics have on your susceptible mind. But I don’t want to dwell on that impression but rather on the second in which I see you, accurately I believe, as a great Dad and husband; a good neighbor; and, down at the Lodge everybody just loves “good ol’ Max”. A really nice guy, in other words.

        Please allow me, Max_OK, to extend my respectful regards and very best wishes to you and your family for a Happy Thanksgiving!

      • Max_OK,

        One last, quck one. I’ve always been on board with parent-choice in education and fully favor school vouchers so that parents can send them to Catholic parochial schools, madrassas, some flaky left-wing school (but that’s already what our public schools have become, so why bother), or whatever, as long as a core-competency in academic subjects is pursued by such schools.

        Again, school vouchers are the way, Max_OK, and I suspect Rep. Carson and I might find common ground there. And the kids who, in the 50’s, consistently showed the best academic achievement, regardless of race, religion, or national origin?–the kids in schools where the Nun’s sure-fire cure for ADD was a sharp rap on the knuckles with a ruler. Worked every time.

  16. The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

    Interesting, in Morgan’s 11 points for some of the priorities of research, at least 6 of them could relate directly to research into SSW events. If you start on page 17 of this recent SPARC newsletter, you’ll see the growing interest in SSW events:

    http://www.sparc-climate.org/fileadmin/customer/6_Publications/Newsletter_PDF/39_SPARCnewsletter_Jul2012_web.pdf

    • Yes, they are. actually, 9. is also likely related since that promotes more stationary blocking patterns.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        I’m expecting a few rather eye-opening research papers related to SSW’s and Earth’s energy balance early next year. Go back and re-read that SPARC newsletter I linked to. Some “missing” pieces of the energy puzzle are falling into place.

      • Hi Gates
        No need to, it is pretty simple.
        SSW in the Arctic is caused by volcanic eruptions, mainly from Kamchatka peninsula.
        SSW in the Antarctica is a very rare occasion since there is only one active volcano, Mt Erbus on Ross Island
        Here is what I found:

        http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/56/34/77/PDF/SSW.pdf

        Link to the climate change is coincidental, since volcanic eruption in the Kamchatka are closely linked to the tectonic movements in the Northwest Pacific.
        Now, if Dr. Bogdan drives few miles down the road to the NOAA (are you a NOAA man?) and ask for printout of couple of files in the graphic form, he could another parameter to the retro climate modeling, but disappointingly it is not predictable.
        For your own convenience I plotted it here, you are welcome to have go yourself, it will not take more than a couple minutes

        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Vukcevic,

        SSW’s are absolutely not caused by volcanic activity. Not sure of your background, but you’ve missed the mark widely on this one. Suggest you do a bit more reading up on the topic.

      • 1. Arctic SSW’s in the winter months Dec-March always follow Kamchatka eruptions within days
        2. Antarctica had only one SSW in the last 30 years.
        Stratosphere’s heat capacity is almost zilch.
        If you are not on the road to land of permanent delusion, for an explanation to global warming look to the oceans. Only tectonic movements could make oceans change their regime by a fraction, and even small fraction in the oceanic heat flux can account for the decadal atmospheric temperature change, since by all accounts the TSI is unable to do it.
        Now back to tectonics:
        Solar activity and geological events (volcanic eruptions and strong earthquakes combined) appear to correlate, where the sunspots may only be an instrument of measure but not a direct cause.

        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm

        The Ap index confirms the above

        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm

        It could be speculated that the tectonic movements in the Atlantic and Pacific have an effect on the regional and finally global temperatures.
        In the North Atlantic possible factor in the Atlantic-Arctic currents flows

        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm

        In the Central Pacific possible factorin the behaviour of the South Equatorial current.

        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm

        and finally, in the North Pacific possible factor Kuroshio/Oyashio currents temperature balance (world’s third largest oceanic current system)

        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm

        p.s. my background is in electronic signal data analyzing, nothing to do with climate, hence it allows me to consider all factors without any favor or prejudice.

      • Thanks for the link. One thing that I had noticed is that the Western Pacific has a more stationary warm region off China. That was something I have suspected is amplified by land use and general pollution. The warming off the East coast of the US is much smaller. As a “skeptic” I tend to think the amplification of natural and CO2 forcing by land use is under estimated and tends to contribute to more stationary systems in general.

        The chemistry is something I have been interested in for a while and lead me to this paper. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017719.shtml

        There are quite a few papers in the works.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Vukcevic,

        The energy going into SSW’s has aleady been well documented as coming from tropospheric wave breaking on the stratosphere that originates in the subtropics and moves poleward and upward. EP Flux measurements clearly show this energy moving in the way described. This energy is far more massive than the relatively small amount released from a volcanic eruption. I’ve been researching this in depth for some time now. Please do more reading on them…they are not related to volcanic activity.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Thanks for that link captdallas. The additive and nonlinear responses to various changes in atmospheric chemistry is certainly very interesting to me. In this way, looking at the climate more as a cohesive single system, not unlike a single biological organism with complex chemistry is quite appropriate.

      • Gates,
        But how long SSW last? few days every winter; what about the rest of the year?
        Total energy in SSW is negligible (use air density up there and compute energy using temperature gradient over those few days).
        You misunderstood role of the volcanic eruptions:
        Even if hot eruption gases do not reach stratosphere a dome of the existing troposphere will be formed above it; on the most of occasions the dome would be pushed further up into stratosphere. This is of particular interest if volcanic eruption is within area covered by the planetary wave (e.g. Kamchatka).
        Any intrusion will result in certain amount of the ‘sudden stratospheric warming’. If the intrusion is substantial than SSW would be considerable and the polar vortex would be ripped apart , with well known consequences for the Northern Hemisphere’s middle latitudes weather.
        vukcevic
        You even don’t need a proper eruption a puff of hot gases is enough to create and lift hot air dome of troposphere into the stratosphere.
        But since SSW last one or two weeks, a month at the most, it is unlikely to do anything than altering winter month’s temperature in certain mid & higher latitude regions of the North Hemisphere. Further more deflection of polar jet-stream makes some areas colder the other warmer, consequence of the Rossby (planetary) waves.
        Nothing in the south hemisphere though, global effect next to negligible. People in west Europe may have bad winter, but Canada and Greenland will worm up.
        When I wrote the SSW article I compiled list of the Kamchatka and Kurile Islands volcanic eruptions (1980-2010). One day you may have some use for it.

        Bezymianny- :2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2000-05, 1998, 1997, 1996-97, 1994-95, 1993-94, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1986-88, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1981-83, 1980, 1980
        Klyuchevskoy-: 2010, 2009, 2007, 2005, 2002-04, 2000, 1998, 1996-97, 1994-95, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1986-90, 1986, 1985-86, 1984-85, 1982-83, 1982, 1981
        Sheveluch-: 2000-10, 1998, 1997, 1993-94, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1986-88, 1985, 1984, 1980-81
        Akademia Nauk-: 1996
        Avachinsky-: 2001, 1991,1984-86, 1980-81
        Karymsky-: 1996-2009
        Koryaksky-: 2009, 2008
        Mutnovsky-:2000,
        Kurile Islands-:2010, 2009, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2005, 2005, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1996, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1989, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1986, 1986, 1986, 1982, 1982, 1982, 1981, 1981, 1980, 1980

      • vukcevic you write “But how long SSW last? ”

        Surely this is the wrong question. We only know about the duration of SSW since satellite data became available. Surely the right question is “How long did SSW events last over the whole history of the world’s climate?” And we dont know the answer to that question. It is my understanding that SSW is a one way street; it only causes the earth to cool. It never causes warming. So we know about SSW when the earth has been warming; but we have no idea how SSW worked when the earth was cooling.

      • Vukcevic,

        I think you are vastly underestimating the scope and scale of a good sized SSW event. These cause effects from pole to equator in the stratosphere and all the way down to the surface. Here’s a EP Flux chart from the large 2009 SSW event:

        http://tinypic.com/r/11rzs6h/6

        You can quickly see the enormous energy involved. A talk about thermal gradients…you’ll get the top of the stratosphere shooting up some 40 or 50C in just a few days. The energy is just pouring into the mesosphere and then on into space. Here a stratospheric temperature chart from 2009:

        http://tinypic.com/r/33bpve0/6

        That mid to late January SSW was enormous. It looks like a “stove pipe” and indeed, acted much like one as it funnel huge amounts of energy out of the atmosphere to space as there was very steep thermal gradient between stratosphere and mesosphere.

      • Jim Cripwell,
        Though they leave very little in the way of long-term evidence that we can study, it is highly likely, that just like hurricanes, SSW’s have always been part of Earth’s energy and climate system. Periods of warming might increase both the frequency and intensity of SSW’s, they are natural ways the planet cools and redistributes energy from the equator to the poles and out into space. Just like your body sweats to stay cool, you can, in a simplified way, think of SSW’s as one way the planet “sweats”, though they are actually physically more like bubbles that come up in the pot put on to boil. Turn the heat up and more and larger bubbles appear, releasing heat in the process at popping at the top of the water. In this case, SSW’s pop at the top of the stratosphere, releasing energy to the mesosphere and then on into space.

      • Hi Jim
        The SSW appears every winter to smaller or a larger extent, but only lasts few weeks. I don’t see reason that this would have change greatly in the previous decades or centuries. As far as I am concerned if I don’t see energy content I get very skeptical (e.g. CO2).

        Mr. Gates
        You say The energy going into SSW’s has aleady been well documented as coming from tropospheric wave breaking on the stratosphere that originates in the subtropics and moves poleward and upward.
        That is fine, if there is a credible explanation, why Arctic in the last 30 years has SSW every winter without a fail, but Antarctic had only one!
        So what is wrong with the “ tropospheric wave breaking on the stratosphere that originates in the subtropics and moves pole ward and upward” but almost never causes SSW in the Antarctic?
        So if SSW is a major factor in cooling of the N. Hemisphere, what is currently cooling the Antarctic, since there are no SSWs there?
        If air of certain temperature and at certain height circulates, guided by the temperature and the density of the lower layers, encountering a dome of different temperature and density, physics say it will skirt upwards and around it.
        Have you considered that the energy is carried by each molecule of air, and as you can see from your graph density drops by 1000 times (from bottom to the top of your graph), so it will the energy content of the equal volume.
        But your principal problem is Antarctic. What do you say on that?

      • Gates, ” In this way, looking at the climate more as a cohesive single system, not unlike a single biological organism with complex chemistry is quite appropriate.” Actually that is quite appropriate. Most organisms are non-ergodic :)

      • Vuc, “The SSW appears every winter to smaller or a larger extent, but only lasts few weeks. I don’t see reason that this would have change greatly in the previous decades or centuries. ”

        Some of the SSW have last 52 days, caused 5 degree temperature drops during that time over a large fraction of the hemisphere.

        There have been about 30 recorded SSW events that met a minimum 30C warming in the stratosphere. From 1989 to 1998 there was one where the average would have been five. They are a force to be rekoned with.

      • Cap’n
        Major deflections of polar jet stream are not caused by SSW, they are caused by deep Icelandic low. I lived in UK for over 30 years, and we here know exactly why we get blasts of cold Arctic air. But here is what the USAF says:
        It sits, stalking you from the Arctic Circle, waiting for the perfect time to pounce. What is it? It’s the dreaded Icelandic low. The Icelandic low is the greatest producer of weather for Royal Air Field (RAF) Mildenhall, located in East Anglia, United Kingdom. Year round, the Icelandic low creates problems for forecasters at RAF Mildenhall. During the summer and spring it can cramp a general’s golf game, and during the winter it will just plain make everyone miserable.

        http://www.theweatherprediction.com/weatherpapers/077/index.html

      • p.s.
        Cap’n
        The above link, at bottom of text describing the effects of the Icelandic Low has another https://….etc link, do not go to it.

      • Vuc, there is some confusion over what qualifies as a SSW or Berlin Event. A major is a complete reversal of the polar vortex. Lots of energy loss.

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

        There are minor disruptions, every year

      • Vukcevic,

        Your appreciation that there are more NH SSW than SH is a great observation, and of course it is directly related to the same reason there are more NH hurricanes than SH cyclones. Take a quick look at this excellent map of hurricane activity:

        You can plainly see that there are far more hurricanes in the NH. This is of course related to the the generally higher water temperatures in the NH oceans as well as the location and intensity of the higher level winds that are so important and critical for either adding to or diminishing hurricane formation. The net result of this is that far more energy (more than twice as much) is advected from the equatoral region toward the north pole as toward the south pole. This is true both in the ocean and in the atmosphere. This plays directly into the causative factors of SSW events, which is all about the advection of energy from equator toward the poles.

      • I go by the NOAA’s data

      • 2009 qualifies.

        1989 qualifies. The problem is there is no definite energy loss associate with the events though.

        The UAH northern extratropics LS indicates there is a possible cycle of the events, but there is some event every year. So I think there needs to be a better indication of above normal events., 2 sigma or maybe three?

      • As far as I understand the SSW for climate relates to the westerlies at 60-90N latitude and geopotential height of 10hPa.
        I suggest possible cause: continuous volcanic hot gas emissions in Kamchatka.
        There is no equivalent in the Southern Hemisphere;
        I hope Gates can explain why there’s nothing the S.H.
        It’s getting late here, good night.

      • Vukcevic,

        See above post related to your question on NH vs. SH SSW events. It is all about the advection of heat from equator toward the pole. Most people don’t realize that far more heat is advected toward the north pole as toward the south pole when looking at the total from both atmosphere and oceans. SSW events are all about advection of huge amounts of energy poleward. This relates directly to many large scale atmospheric and ocean events, such as hurricanes, cyclones, MJO events, etc., and alos plays into the part of the reason for the difference between the southern sea ice dynamics and northern sea ice. That southern ocean is a huge heat sink, and you just don’t get as much energy making it down to the south pole!

      • For those following this SSW discussion, one of the most interesting of SH SSW events occurred in 2002. Here’s a chart showing that event:

        There have also been some excellent research done related to this and other SH events:

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3996.1

        http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/previdi+smith+polvani-JCLIM-2012-submitted.pdf

      • And here’s a EP Flux chart for this event:

        As you can see, just as we saw for the 2009 SSW in the northern hemisphere, a large amount of energy is going up into the stratosphere. This was a major SH event and did in fact split the Antarctic vortex. Notice also what happened at the equator at the same time:

        See the cold air extending downward in the stratosphere at the beginning of October 2002 at the equator. This was directly related to the SSW event going on a few days earlier at the South Pole! These are major hemispherical events. A lot of energy is involved. Excactly how much? Stay tuned…

      • R. Gates, ” That southern ocean is a huge heat sink, and you just don’t get as much energy making it down to the south pole!”

        This might interest you,

        Giss LOTI regional 44-64S highlight from 1900

        Then same thing from 1980,

      • Vukcevic & captdallas,

        Here’s a fairly recent paper the really describes the 2009 SSW event in great detail. Hopefully, in your case vukcevic, I hope in reading this paper and others I have linked to that these events have nothing at all to do with volcanic activity. This paper should be read by anyone following SSW’s with some interest:

        http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0912/2009GL038586/2009GL038586.pdf

      • Hi Gates
        Lot of nonsense has been written about the 2002 Antarctic’s SSW ( including the ‘The Antarctic Stratospheric Sudden Warming of 2002: A Self-Tuned Resonance?’ by mathematicians ?! ) that appears you have fallen for.
        You seem to be a reasonable guy, and surprisingly you being CO2 warmist and I certainly do not subscribe to it, I see some kind of affinity in our reasoning.
        To save you possible future embarrassment if you are involved in ‘the SSW project’, I am sorry but I have to shoot your fox with a single bullet.
        All these high brow scientist and peer reviews etc. but none looked what Mt. Erebus did in 2002.
        Look at this link and consider:

        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Erebus.htm

        The hemispheric difference is mainly to do with oceanic currents stability, which appears to be directly linked to the tectonic activity in the key oceanic areas; let’s leave it for another time.

      • Vukcevic,

        I’ve given you numerous links to what I consider solid scientific articles and research into SSW events. This is research that would be considered as solid by the vast majority of climate scientists. Your insistence that volcanic activity is related as a major causative factor in SSW events, despite all solid physical evidence to the contrary, despite the fact that the scale of energy involved between these two events is several magnitudes different, and despite numerous other logical and scientific inconsistencies in your position, leads me to see that we see the universe so differently that it’s probably not worth continuing a conversation.

        But just one last point– your suggestion that because I’m a “CO2 warmist” that somehow I have an affinity for the position I take on SSW’s (they are related to large scale troposphere/stratosphere/mesosphere dynamics) versus your “volcanic origin” position ought to be telling to those who might be following this rather extended conversation.

        Good day sir!

      • vuc, to avoid the same “sensitivity” hamster wheel, SSW events are poorly defined and need to have a energy based scale in order to be useful. Volcanic aerosols likely do have a significant impact, but are not likely “the” cause.

      • Hi Cap’n
        got comment for you here

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/20/whither-wither-climate-science/#comment-269880

        (reply control link may work this time)

  17. We are among the most successful predictors the world has ever seen*

    Not true.

    Evidence:
    IPCC projections Vs Observation => http://bit.ly/xQBnVn

    What a joke?

    • They got the sign of the trend correct so far. That would make then ‘very successful’ in the predicting business.

      • harrywr2 commented on Whither (wither?) climate science?.
        > They got the sign of the trend correct so far. That would make then ‘very successful’ in the predicting business.

        So, this is interesting. Hansen got up in front of congress in 1989 and told us temperatures were going to go up because of CO2. He had already seen some trand confirming it so he wasn’t making a crazy guess but almost anyone would and did give him credit for recognizing the trend early. As a result his theories have gained enormous credibility. However, in 10 years his predictions started to look crazy like many “overconfident” gurus do in history by extrapolating a trend and believing their own sauce he ascribed almost all temperature variation throughout history to CO2 except for a few “instigating” moments like volcanoes, orbital movements, etc… everything else became a “small contribution”. The IPCC confered godlike status in 2005 by saying with 95% certainty the change from 1978-1998 was because of CO2.

        However, in hindsight like all things we learn the world is more complex than we initially anticipated. Einstein and other scientists of every nature have thought they grasped a central simplifying idea that could bring order to the unordered world that confuses and confounds us. Today we look at physics and Einsteins and even String Theoreticians tried to build a theory on the simplest possible basis. Could everything be made of simple strings? 2 ends, vibrating. Simple. Beautiful. Quarks initially so simple. Just a few of them. NOT!!!! Now 12 dimensions, branes in multiple dimensions, entanglement, multi-verse. So Hansen thought CO2 could explain everything. It seemed like a good idea. I fell for it too. It seemed obvious with what we knew in 1989 that he must be right. I was going around explaining it to people and saying things were going to get warmer. Now, however, I have reconsidered all the data, all the evidence and what we’ve learned. I’ve looked at the uncertainty in so many unknowns and it’s become obvious that like our original string theory this co2 dominance just was too simple. Looking at the historical record its apparent that the sun has more impact than seems possible to attribute to what we know of its variations in energy contribution. We are realizing how there are cycles that are unaccounted for probably from ocean upwelling. We are understanding how the ecosystem reacts in ways we didn’t anticipate. We are humbled by nature again and have to go back to the drawing boards.

        We as citizens of this country must learn these lessons. Our scientists are smart but they cannot be trusted to produce the theory of everything yet in regard to anything. We are still early in this game of science. So, we must take a grain of salt with everything and yet we can marvel at the success of science but lets not get crazy and think we can know the temperature 100 years from now after studying this for 10 years or so and with so little real data.

        When the realizations that string theory produced infinities that were hard to reconcile and that there were multiple theories that couldnt be reconciled string theory went into a funk. Later it has been revived by new understanding and increased complexity. I have no doubt that with persistant effort and another 10 years of better data and study we will make outstanding discoveries that will give us a better understanding if not a better ability to predict. I think though that the heydey of CO2 has reached its peak as a theory of everything climate.

        String theorists never said they were “95% certain” of their results. I don’t believe it was good science to say things like this. Given the wide lack of knowledge, the early stage of our understanding it is ludicrous to say such things and everyone should realize that who looks at it. We don’t understand clouds, none of the relationships with humidity were proven, none of the paleo data are known for certain and is hugely incomplete. Large amounts of raw data are available only very recently and even today things such as deep ocean temperatures and structure is not known. We don’t understand the role of the sun entirely. We don’t understand how all these things interact. We have models but the models prove that we don’t know.

        Why do I say that? It’s simple. None of the models work better than the others. Studies have shown that the model that predicted the best temperature for one time and area is NO BETTER than the other models in the next place or period. They all together when averaged produce a better result than any one theory. Why? Well, it’s apparent to any mathematician why. They are fits to the data. You take a bunch of fits worked on by a bunch of smart people taking very complex models and they each attempt consciously or subconsciously to fit to the data. We have the same scientists producing the theories managing the data. Is it surprising the data keeps being adjusted to fit the models. Experimenter bias comes to mind. It doesn’t even have to be conscious. When you think of reasons you naturally are looking for things which explain the lack of conformance. When you find them you fix them but you rarely notice or think about why conformance with your theory should be questioned. A good example of this is the hockey stick or the error made 5 years ago in Russian temperatures. The NOAA copied the russian august data into september and october. Nobody noticed for months. They reported an amazingly hot winter which all AGW greeted with applause and gratification. It took a completely skeptical lay person to find that this egregious error had been made. Nobody checks if the data confirms your theory. Nobody thinks that deeply why their theory is wrong.

        This is why we have peer review, a competitive process. When you politicize and put blinders on, call things settled then your objectivity goes away. THis is no longer science.

        I don’t know what we know frankly. After studying this and as a lay physicist I can’t deny that CO2 absorbs radiation and reradiates it. It must have some effect. However, it’s not clear to me that anything else I have read from any climate “scientist” is in fact proven as a physicist would prove something. From what I’ve seen we have lots of conjectures, lots of presumed interactions and modes, lots of pieces of data that is growing rapidly. I don’t think we are anywhere near calling this a science because I don’t believe that you can tell me the 3 “laws” of climate science. I would like to say this is a science in formation but the tenacity of the believers is closer to a religion than a science. I would like someone to be able to tell me what we know that is physical fact proven by experiment and with 99% certainty (not maybe the 6 sigma that physicists demand but at least something we have good reason to believe without much doubt) I await the first known law of climate science that can be said to be true to make it a science. Until then this “science” reminds me of psychology science. A lot of theories, a lot of attribution, believers in one avenue or another but very little that can be ascribed to physical facts that are accepted as fact to within say 3 sigma.

      • Mark B (number2)

        Well said.
        Over the last few months, since I have been reading this blog, not one person has been able to show me a proper experiment showing that a replica of the earth’s atmosphere will heat up due to the addition of a few 100 ppm of CO2 gas. ( I was pointed to a daft experiment on youtube in which alka selter tablets were dropped into a flask of water so that it started fizzing and the stopper was put on, allowing the internal pressure to increase. But that was so stupid, it doesn’t count.)
        Someone else (an academic and warmist) told me that a lab experiment would not show any warming, but that that was not how the greenhouse effect worked. He went on to describe an astonishingly complicated model of how it did (supposedly) work involving, absorption of radiation in the upper atmosphere. But this was not backed up by any experimental data (for instance, on a replica of the upper atmosphere in a lab). All he had to go on were some absorption readings from high altitude balloons, which were put into a model.

      • I took a class at Stanford on global warming. The first thing I expected is to prove the basics.

        So, the theory is that co2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. First thing, is it accumulating and at the rates we expect. Is the gas in the atmosphere that is added traceable to mankinds production. Well, yes and no. We can see the gas that is manmade and there is some of it but not as much as we are producing and the rate at which it was supposed to be added is not adding up because the earth seems to be a better sink than we thought. Anyway, it is accumulating and at a high enough rate that eventually it will double if we keep pouring it in and things keep going as they are till 2100. However, it is notable that the earth is soaking up more than they anticipated.

        Now, can we see directly the energy that the CO2 is producing. We should be able to identify this as a warming in spots of the atmosphere where the co2 is enough to collect this energy. It is thought to be at about 300mb that this happens. Well, there is a big problem. That heat is not there. This is a big issue that is debated and arguments made why the heat is not seen. A paper was published that said the heat was lost in the increased winds which seem to have buffeted that part of the atmosphere. So, as far as I understand that is still a big question mark. It is a very big one because of course not being able to demonstrate this heating could be thought of as a refutation of the theory right off the bat but people seem to think there must be some reason we don’t see it so life goes on and its a puzzle they expect someday will be solved. OKAY. Let’s pass that by. But this is when I started to see there was a problem. It should be trivial to show that. The remainder of the argument is much more complex and difficult to believe so its kind of critical to have the full chain as well documented as possible but we have the second step here not validated.

        Next step, this heat should heat the air a certain amount. We should see that specific energy somehow. We don’t. That energy is supposed to then cause other things, like increased moisture. Well, lo and behold the relative humidity in the atmosphere is going down not up for 50 years. All this heating and no additional observed moisture. A paper came out in just the last couple years which showed that immediately after a heat spike moisture does increase but then within a short time moisture reverts back to the long term trend and goes in a declining trend. Moisture in the upper atmosphere has declined enough to actually lower the average cloud height. This essentially means the blanket we insulate with has gotten thinner slightly. That allows more energy to escape to space. Possibly this is where the missing energy has gone…. into space. Maybe the climate system responds to the heating by contracting the blanket and letting off the heat. Who knows? We never modeled this. Nobody thought this might happen. An example of how nature confounds us.

        A necessary condition next is that the oceans heat up. Well, since the argo system was installed in 2003 we have for the first time accurate data on ocean temps. Yup, again very little warming or none at all. Contrary to the models.

        It’s just that everytime you look at this theory and probe beneath the surface we find that everything is smoke and mirrors. Almost nothing is as they say it should be, as the theory says. It’s just one big problem after another and yet they shrug their heads and say “it can’t be any other way. its settled. we all believe it. 97% of us. You must have missed something.”

        Well, if I have missed something tell me what it is? Why are there no classes you can take at universities that teach this science in a rigorous way? Maybe there are now but for years I’ve been looking and nothing. If its so “settled” how come I can’t read the textbook on global warming and the laws of the climate? What are the laws? Baked into computer models that don’t work? Where’s the proof in experiements that have been repeated? Wheres the systematic runs against all data to show the feedbacks? Why is the range of feedbacks between 0.6 and 9? That’s a huge range. It could take 20 years or 200 years or never to get 2C change. How come they just figured out there was a MWP? They denied it for decades. How come they haven’t modeled the 60 year cycle of ENSO/PDO well? How come they thought that aerosols caused so much of the cooling in 1945-1975 and now they think there was hardly any decrease in temperature from 1945-1975 and aerosols are less of a problem than thought before? Nothing is set in stone. There are no laws. Nothing is really known. They bluster it’s proven, it’s settled. It’s insulting to a scientist ( or should be ) to say things like that. It’s never settled in science and this is the least settled science of all if it is a science even.

      • Logiclogiclogic- You ask a number of excellent and provocative questions and it is notable that no one has tried to answer them. Keep asking.

      • Judith, surely Tom “the science is settled” Bogdan could very quickly and easily answer logic’s two posts? This wouldn’t be time wasted “fighting the sceptics,” it would be time spent answering perfectly reasonable questions to as to help ensure public support for the research, resources and policies that Bogdan considers necessary. It would be good practise for the public/political interaction aspects of his role. Let’s not ask him to answer every question ever raised on CE, just those clearly enunciated by logic3.

        I suspect that, like dennis adams, we will have to keep waiting … and waiting.

      • logiclogiclogic is a fake skeptic.

        ” Is the gas in the atmosphere that is added traceable to mankinds production. Well, yes and no. We can see the gas that is manmade and there is some of it but not as much as we are producing and the rate at which it was supposed to be added is not adding up because the earth seems to be a better sink than we thought. Anyway, it is accumulating and at a high enough rate that eventually it will double if we keep pouring it in and things keep going as they are till 2100. However, it is notable that the earth is soaking up more than they anticipated.”

        Wrong. It is taking up CO2 at the expected rate. CO2 sequesters via a diffusional process. Diffusion is a random walk process whereby a molecule will either hop in one direction or the other, roughly half in one direction and half in the other. Work out the mathematical details and the amount that appears to sequester is about half for quite a long period. That long period is the adjustment time of CO2. What we are seeing is the excess CO2 hanging out in the natural carbon cycle as it slowly works its way to deep sequestering sites.

        Forget about climate science for a moment, the fake skeptics can’t even get elementary chemistry right. And they wouldn’t be able to model their way out of a paper bag.

        Don’t call him LogocLogicLogic. Call him RhetoricRhetoricRhetoric.

      • This relates to Web Hub Telescopes interesting comment (20 Nov, 10.04): “Wrong. It is taking up CO2 at the expected rate. CO2 sequesters via a diffusional process. Diffusion is a random walk process whereby a molecule will either hop in one direction or the other, roughly half in one direction and half in the other. Work out the mathematical details and the amount that appears to sequester is about half for quite a long period. That long period is the adjustment time of CO2. What we are seeing is the excess CO2 hanging out in the natural carbon cycle as it slowly works its way to deep sequestering sites.”
        This explanation for the missing 50% of emitted CO2 is new to me. I want to know more. Can WHT refer us to the relevant literature? Or perhaps explain the mathematical details more specifically. Thanks very much

      • Well said sir.

  18. We are among the most successful predictors the world has ever seen*

    Not true.

    Evidence:
    IPCC projections Vs Observation => http://bit.ly/xQBnVn

    What a joke?

  19. Good luck to Dr. Bogdan(ovic)

  20. “Quit fighting the last war.”
    The war has been in attribution of CO2 as the driver of climate change and a refusal to accept nuclear power as an option for energy. Both narratives are the lines in the sand that won’t be crossed until one side or the other is slain, so vehement are the passions.

    “The science IS settled in terms of knowing that we are changing Earth’s climate” is stated as a departure point from which to carry on. What exactly is being said? Land use? CO2 emissions? and How much?

    If I read Tomas Milanovic correctly we are not even close to having the tools to understand the phase space let alone the interactions.

    Then there is the “Never twice the same space” for irreducible uncertainty.

    If I understand the Navier-Stokes equations issue, we have to know each small eddy to build from the “bottom up” predictive models.

    Who is going to work on the “not fit for purpose” issue? more modelers? mathematicians? statisticians? or, are we going to follow the road that Chief took and embrace Rene Thom & Erik Zeeman’s Catastrophe theory of bifurcations in dynamical systems. (I’m thinking of biting the bullet and see what I can learn about sudden shifts in behavior arising from small changes in circumstances. I think I’ll need some help!)

    So is the plan more money and research on CO2 attribution? I hope not.

    Weather prediction and adaptation is what I would choose.

  21. As far as I can see in the Had CRUT global surface temperature
    charts, the only correlation between rising temperature and Co2
    was between 1977 and 2001. The period,1958 -1977, and post-
    2001 show no correlation.
    Hey, Like Freeman Dyson said, if yr worried about rising CO2 you
    can sequester it by growing more biomass…

    Signed:
    “A skeptic”

    ( And what’s the meaning of ‘skeptic’? Why, it can mean whatever
    you want it to mean… ‘denier’, ‘sky dragon,’ ‘ nut case,’ useless idiot,’
    ‘capitalist swine’ …)

    http://www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v13/cowpea.php

  22. Girma has taken exception to the claim

    “We are among the most successful predictors the world has ever seen”

    Whether we are more “successful” today than we were 50 years ago (without computers) is a point that can be argued, but the truth of the matter is that we are still lousy predictors

    Why is this?

    Read Nassim Taleb’s The Black Swan and you’ll see.

    IF we were really that “successful”, then IPCC would not have predicted warming of 0.2C per decade from AGW when we actually had <no warming.

    James E. Hansen would not have predicted in 1988 that we would see warming at a rate that was two times too high compared to the actual warming.

    Let’s not fool ourselves: we are unable to predict future climate.

    To think we can is not only arrogant – it is also ignorant.

    Max

    • manacker said in his post on Nov. 20, 2012 at 11:47 am

      “James E. Hansen would not have predicted in 1988 that we would see warming at a rate that was two times too high compared to the actual warming.

      Let’s not fool ourselves: we are unable to predict future climate.”
      _________

      WRONG !

      Hansen made three forecast for 1988-2020, all showing warming of global temperature.

      What has happened so far (1988-2012)?
      A. No change in temperature.
      B. Cooling
      C. Warming

      Just like Hansen predicted, it got warmer.

      One of Hansen’s forecast is pretty close to observed temperature in 2012, which you forgot to mention, while another overstates the warming, which you do mention.
      But more years like 1998, which had an unusually high temperature could put Hansen’s high forecast back on track, and there’s still 8 years to go in the 1988-2012 forecast period.

      Should we expect long-rang forecasts to hit the target on the nose? No, that’s a naive expectation. Ballpark accuracy is all we should expect from long-range predictions.

      • Max_OK

        Hansen’s 1988 forecast was exaggerated by a factor of 2x.

        The Hansen 1988 forecast to which I am referring is:

        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

        Check Figure 3:

        Hansen’s 1988 study stipulated:

        Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth rate averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so that the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially.

        Scenario B has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level.

        Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000.

        Based on CDIAC data, the actual CO2 emission growth rate increased from 1.5% in the 1970s and 1980s to 1.7% from 1988 to today, so the actual rate of increase was actually around 13% greater than that assumed by Hansen for Scenario A.

        http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems

        Obviously, Scenarios B and C are way off the mark.

        The problem is that Hansen’s Scenario A grossly overestimated the GH warming that would result, very likely because he used a climate sensitivity estimate that was high by a factor of 2 or more..

        Actual warming turned out to be the same as Hansen’s Scenario C, based on the complete shut down of GHG emissions in 2000 ” such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000”. But this did not happen, did it?

        You can wiggle and squirm all you want to Max_OK, but this was not “ballpark accuracy”; it was a forecast that turned out to be grossly exaggerated (like all of Hansen’s “predictions”).

        Max

      • Max

        Here is the chart on Hansen that supports your statements above:

        http://bit.ly/JPvWx1

        What a big joke (“We are among the most successful predictors the world has ever seen”).

      • Hansen et al 1988 (Fig3b Vs Observation) 5-Year Running Mean

        http://bit.ly/JPvWx1

        The above comparison shows the following results:
        Scenario A for 2010=>1.1 deg C
        Scenario B for 2010=>0.9 deg C
        Scenario C for 2010=>0.6 deg C
        xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        Observed 5-Year Running Mean for 2010 => 0.6 deg C

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:60/from:1960

        The above results show the observation matches the scenario C projection.

        For scenario C annual greenhouse growth rate decreases after the 1980s such that it ceases to increase after 2000. This did not happen. Hansen’s 1988 prediction has failed.

      • Oh it’s ballpark accuracy all right. Like I said, all three of Hansen’s scenarios forecast warming. And what happened ? WARMING!

        “You say Hansen’s 1988-2020 forecast “turned out to be grossly exaggerated.”

        “TURNED OUT” ? Don’t you know there’s 8 years remaining in the forecast period.

        “GROSSLY EXAGGERATED ” ? NOPE, not grossly wrong. If Hansen had forecast cooling, you might consider that grossly unlikely, at least so far.

        A no-change extrapolation of 1988 global temperature to 2020 shows promise of being grossly wrong. Would that have been your forecast back in 1988?

      • The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that…
        Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.
        back in ’71 – another example of NASA’s prescience. pun intended.

      • “Based on CDIAC data, the actual CO2 emission growth rate increased from 1.5% in the 1970s and 1980s to 1.7% from 1988 to today, so the actual rate of increase was actually around 13% greater than that assumed by Hansen for Scenario A.
        http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems

        I don’t get what you saying.
        It seems to me that Hansen was saying the amount of increase of CO2 would grow at 1.5 %

        Say you had 100 apples in one year and you increasing by 2 apples per year, so year one: 100 apples, year two: 102 apples, year three 104 apple. If add a 1.5 % increase:
        Year two instead of 102 apples is 2 times 1.015 or increase of 2.03.
        Then year three is 2.03 times 1.015. Or an increase of 2.06045 in the year.
        Or in other words an exponential increase in the rise in global CO2.
        Which was disproved within a decade or two:

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

        with:

        Which had average trend start of measurement with about .8 ppm added per year in 1960 to 1970 period, then go up to 1.3 ppm, and then 1.6 during Hansen of 1980 to 1990, and then 1990 to 2000 it dropped to about 1.4 ppm.
        And currently at about 2 ppm added per year.

        It seems to me this has something to do with all those steep rising graphs after a century of time- compound yearly rates over decades can be significant.

        Or the CO2 1.6 ppm yearly increase starting 1988 by 1998 should have been 1.856 ppm. And actually reality was around 1.4 ppm.
        And doing the 1.856 ppm another ten year to 2008 gives: 2.155 ppm.

        Or 1.5 percent doubles the amount in about 46.5 years

        http://www.moneychimp.com/features/rule72.htm

        So 1988 + 46 years is 2034. By year 2034 the 1.6 ppm yearly increase was to become 3.2 ppm. And 1988 + 93 is 2081. So by the year 2081 it suppose to double again to 6.4 ppm being added per year.

        So Hansen Scenario A was too high for next couple decades after the guess, closer now, but in coming decades he appears be going to getting exponentially further off from reality.

  23. Yes Max,
    You, Nassim Taleb and I agree, it’s not easy making predictions,
    especially about the future. )

  24. “The science IS settled in terms of knowing that we are changing Earth’s climate”. A more accurate statement is that the science is clear in predicting changes to the Earth’s climate that should result from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. One could argue grossly that CO2 and temperature both went up on average over the past 120 years; therefore rising CO2 caused the temperature rise. However, when examined by time period (see Beth Cooper note) and region, it doesn’t compute so well. On balance, it seems likely to me that rising CO2 did CONTRIBUTE to climate change in the 20th century. Nevertheless, it is a huge jump from there to the conclusion that climate models tell us what will happen in the future, that we can accurately gauge the impacts of the putative changes in the future predicted by climate models, and that we can rapidly do away with fossil fuels and still maintain a technological/industrial world. While Mosher is right that the powers that be are convinced and will legislate based on that belief, experience teaches us that the powers that be almost always screw up. These summary overviews always seem to come from people who stand to gain (funding, power, notoriety, …) from the alarmist point of view. I don’t see anything to do but sit back, let them impose carbon taxes, cap and trade, bans on coal, restrictions on fossil fuels, and watch the global economy falter further. But no matter, we can always borrow more.

    • “One could argue grossly that CO2 and temperature both went up on average over the past 120 years; therefore rising CO2 caused the temperature rise. However, when examined by time period (see Beth Cooper note) and region, it doesn’t compute so well. On balance, it seems likely to me that rising CO2 did CONTRIBUTE to climate change in the 20th century.”

      Likely or a strong maybe.

      “While Mosher is right that the powers that be are convinced and will legislate based on that belief, experience teaches us that the powers that be almost always screw up. ”

      As for the powers that be, they are mostly following the events.
      They are sort of like CO2.
      We like to pretend they are doing something.

  25. I would love it if someone could explain the SCIENTIFIC basis for saying that these affects alone or in combination could NOT cause the warming we saw in 1979-1998.

    1) the PDO cycle and being in a positive phase including an extraordinary El Niño in 1998.

    2) reduction in aerosols due to extensive and massive air pollution reduction coincident with this time period

    3) sunspot/cosmic ray sun activity being at a very high level

    4) ocean currents or other cyclic phenomenon (sun) associated with long 1000 year cycle.

    5) other phenomenon not considered yet

    The fact that at least 4 of these factors were in a contributing mode begs the question that if they weren’t the dominant factor then how much did they contribute to the warming from 1979-1998. The result of this leaves the contribution of co2 in doubt as to its magnitude.

    Also recent study has been published that puts the CS at 1.1C by new and improved ice core analysis.

    Therefore it seems to me a strong case can be made that the ipcc ar4 conclusion that the period of 1979-1998 shows a high 95% confidence that the source of warming was anthropogenic in doubt. I feel like 50% is even optimistic to say that it was wholly caused by man and maybe more like 10% wholly caused by man likelihood and 50% mostly caused by man, maybe 95% that co2 had some positive contribution but possibly very small.

    Why am I wrong? I have yet to see the proof that what I’m saying is poppycock. I went to MIT and am not a dolt. I’ve studied physics, math and computer science at MIT and Stanford university. I’ve taken a global warming class at Stanford university. Nothing I’ve said seems unscientific or illogical. I don’t think I’m reaching or going out on a limb. This seems a rational scientific unbiased assertion. The science of agw is not settled if by settled we mean that we know that co2 caused the majority of the 1979-1998 warming. It’s certainly possible it did. I’m not denying that at all. I’m simply saying that the way I think a truly objective scientist would look at this is that this conjecture is simply not proven. That’s not to say it is unproven either.

    It’s clear to me that the politicians and political types would like to say its settled so they can enact legislation but I think science must remain pure or it will suffer. I am looking for the scientists with enough courage to admit at doubt exists and is substantial. I believe that doubt should fund additional research. I’m very interested in knowing the answer to this question and I believe we should study this area vigorously as we have been doing but that doing this on the basis that we falsify our certainty is bad for science.

    • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

      Logic^3,

      Your thinking is right on target, and do you not think that everyone of the factors you’ve described have not been included in most GCM’S? You are obviously a bright person and not a “dolt” but neither are the dozens of PhD’s who have been working on figuring out the dynamics of the climate for their entire careers. They, perhaps more than anyone, truly want to know how this complex system all works together. If you, as a non-expert have thought of these things, don’t you think that those who actually do this for a living might also have thought of that?

      • “…..If you, as a non-expert have thought of these things, don’t you think that those who actually do this for a living might also have thought of that?”

        I agree with the the Skeptical and Logic^3.
        And we see some of this in Climategate.
        The problem is the public was kept in the dark.

        Everyone knows it’s not all about CO2- maybe nothing to do with CO2.
        But publicly that is not what they say.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I think rather that many people have thought of this.

        This is a major factor – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

      • Yes, I believe they have but their answers have so far puzzled me.

        So,

        on point 1) the argument given to me against the importance of ENSO/PDO is that they are cyclic and therefore irrelevant to a long range look at trends. This is true except then I would expect the models to show temperatures above the 1945-1975 trend for much of that period, to show temperatures UNDER the 1978-2012 period. If they weren’t including the wave of the PDO plus minus then they should be flatter and not mimic the actual temperature so closely. However, since the models seem to mimic the trend of temperature closely I am guessing they are ascribing part of the PDO +- phase to CO2 and therefore amplifying the magnitude of CS. If they were to reduce the CS by half they would find that they missed the cyclic nature of the PDO but they would overall be much closer to current temperatures and it would all make more sense. If they don’t include the PDO then they should look flatter than the actual curves.

        On point 2) I know that originally they did include a lot of impact of aerosols during the 1945 – 1975 period but then later IPCC seemed to play less emphasis. I have no idea what level of aerosol cleaning is included in the models today and predictions today. It’s possible if they are assuming aerosols were very important to the cooling in 1945-1975 then they are overestimating the contribution of aerosol cleaning to the temperature now. Maybe that’s why they are higher now than they should be.

        On point 3) I have been told repeatedly that they don’t believe sun has a significant impact on energy balance of the world. They have no physical basis to give it more importance but the uncertainty must be large because frankly we don’t understand this.

        On point 4) The climate model leader for lawrence livermore told me explicitly he believes in the flat earth, I mean flat hockey stick and that there was no MWP globally or LIA globally. In the last year or two I believe definitive studies from numerous sources have confirmed the existence of the MWP and a 1000 year cycle that is global and significant. Maybe AR5 will address this.

        On point 5 I believe that nobody seems to know anything about other factors so they don’t inculde them even as uncertainty since it is hard to quantify what you don’t know.

        Overall, the result is that they just don’t seem to think these things matter, however based on how close their models fit the period 1880-1999 why should they count other things. The models looked to be fitted pretty well and extraneous factors or second guessing wasn’t in order. They felt confident I believe in the models fit and therefore had no reason to believe these other factors were significant. Therefore they were able to say “95% certainty” that the heating is co2. Unfortunately nature has a way of surprising us. Their hubris was in thinking that fitting models to data meant that they actually captured real physical processes that would provide predictive power. In fact they must now see that these other factors in fact are more than non-trivial. They were able to completely overcome co2s effects even as we poured almost all the co2 we have ever poured into the atmosphere up until 1996 into the atmospehere in just these short 16 years and the atmosphere ignored the co2 completely and instead responded to “some other things” which they earlier discounted as irrelevant but which obviously aren’t irrelevant.

      • logiclogiclogic

        IPCC’s interpretation of global warming was distorted by smoothing out the multidecadal oscillation in global mean temperature before 1970 and claiming the warming phase of the multidecadal oscillation after 1970 is man-made as shown.

        http://bit.ly/OaemsT

        This is the hockey stick for the climate of the 20th century. Before 1970, the multi-model mean represented the secular GMST. However, after 1970 the multi-model mean represented the warming phase of the multidecadal oscillation. The handle of the hockey stick is the secular GMST before 1970. The blade of the hockey stick is the warming phase of the multidecdal oscillation since 1970.

        This distortion allowed to exaggerate the climate sensitivity by the ratio of the trends after and before 1970 by 0.2/0.06 = 3.3, which gives true climate sensitivity of 3/3.33 = 0.9 deg C for doubling of CO2.

        This is distortion of science.

  26. David L. Hagen

    Re: “Issues of attribution of the changing climate remain as well.”
    Re: Attribution – Type 1: How do you disentangle natural variability of the climate/earth system from ‘forced’ change?”
    Argument from ignorance
    As a “rational skeptic”, the greatest failures in these presentations are from appealing to the “argument from ignorance” – confident attribution statements made far stronger than the full range of known uncertainties and the unknown unknowns. The focus on “attribution” often misunderstands or underestimates the equal importance of quantifying the “natural” variations. It puts “blinders” on climate science discussions by a presumptive bias to “anthropogenic warming” because of “rising anthropogenic CO2″. e.g.,

    Climate persistence underestimated
    Cf “7. Variability of climate modes beyond ENSO and MJO.”
    The orthodox focus ignores or reduces awareness of natural variations and their uncertainties. e.g., Climate persistence (Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics) results in HK standard deviations in the Vostok ice cores that are about twice as large as standard deviations by short term conventional statistics.
    Markonis, Y., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics in paleoclimate reconstructions, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2010, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 12, Vienna, EGU2010-14816, European Geosciences Union, 2010. Slide 10 http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/980/

    MEI – CO2 – Length Of Day
    “Predominantly” natural variations such as Sandy appear to have far greater near term impact than “climate change” aka anthropogenic global warming. I would encourage focus on those near term issues. As an example, Scafetta provides fascinating evidence of the coupling between between the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), CO2 and the Length of Day (LOD) (winds & currents).
    Mazzarella A., A. Giuliacci and N. Scafetta, 2012. Quantifying the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) coupling to CO2 concentration and to the length of day variations. Theoretical Applied Climatology, in press.

    This raises the major cause and effect /chicken and egg issue of which drives what. I see a major challenge for climate science is to understand these correlations and distinguish and quantify between anthropogenic and natural causations.

    Global cooling
    Another major issue is not quantitatively comparing the full range of theories. e.g. An increasing number of researchers projecting a reduction in the rate of warming or actual global cooling for the next two to three decades. e.g., see:

    Nicola Scafetta Scafetta N., 2012. Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models.
    (see Scafetta’s updated temperature graph vs forecasts at the bottom.)

    D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Relationship of multidecadal global temperatures to multidecadal oceanic oscillations: in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p. 161-184

    Syun-Ichi Akasofu, On the recovery from the Little Ice Age, Natural Science, Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010) doi:10.4236/ns.2010.211149

    How much cooling vs warming will we see over the next generation?
    And what will be the consequences? Cooling with consequent reduced food production and very little food storage could have far greater impacts that the projected warming (with the current very poor skill in modeling droughts.) e.g., Finland lost one third of its population from a few cold years without adequate food storage.
    Neumann, J.; Lindgrén, S. (1979). “Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: 4, The Great Famines in Finland and Estonia”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 60 (7): pp775–787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1979)0602.0.CO;2
    We need to plan for the full range of such potential near term changes. The current doubling of corn prices and consequent starvation of the poorest in the developing countries is a direct consequence of environmentalism’s “green” policies forcing conversion of more corn into ethanol than is exported coupled with an elimination of national food storage!

    • David L. Hagen

      In your list, include the following empirical model for near-term projection that shows little warming for the next two decades:

      http://bit.ly/OsdxJf

      • David L. Hagen

        Thanks Girma
        It looks like you have a parabolic component on top of the linear and cyclic trends of Syun-Ichi Akasofu. Your parabolic component appears similar to Scafetta’s linear anthropogenic component (equation 9).
        Have you documented and discussed the components of your model?
        It will be interesting to show how your model fit up to 2000 is good at projecting the consequent temperatures – similar to Scafetta’s monthly updated graph.

      • David, you write “It will be interesting to show how your model fit up to 2000 is good at projecting the consequent temperatures ”

        Girma can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he has made both long term and short term forecasts. The short term forecast is the global temperature, according tom HAD/CRU 3, for 2012. We should know how correct this forecast was in about 2 months.

      • David

        Here is my projection to the end of this century.

        http://bit.ly/TIVGEJ

        The correlation coefficient for my model for the period 1870 to 2011 is 0.93.

        I am writing up my model and will try to get it posted here or at WUWT.

      • My method is data analysis and is different from Scafetta, but our results are similar. In addition to the cyclic component, the data has a parabolic component.

        This is because if you plot the 30-years trend as a point for each year since 1885, you get the following graph.

        http://bit.ly/MkdC0k

        This result shows the increase in the 30-years (or the 50 and 70) least square trend is linearly (dy/dx=ax+b), and this means that the increase in the temperature is parabolic (y=ax^2/2+bx+c).

      • David L. Hagen

        PS recommend adding your name and date to your graph and what portion is fitted and what projected.

      • David

        Thanks

        I will do that.

  27. Can’t argue against the production of better weather forecasts.

    Both speakers seem to want to say that the science is firmly nailed down now. Which may be true for short-term weather forecasting.

    • “Which may be true for short-term weather forecasting.”

      It should noted that weather forecasting has little to do with radiant
      elements and more to do with the stuff which some of the crazy skeptics talk about.

  28. thisisnotgoodtogo

    “Stop fighting the last war”

    Oh, Would that mean
    Stop fighting FOI and stop destroying evidence?
    Or stop using official email and get with the new alias program?

  29. Today’s post is a target rich environment.

    “we have provided society an answer”

    Really ? and what might that be ? it’s rapidly beginning to look like the wrong one.

    “The science IS settled in terms of knowing that we are changing Earth’s climate”

    Yeh, sure… all 75 of them.

    “Understanding anomalies”

    You mean getting rid of them. How are you going to understand the coming cold period and the glaciation beyond that ? don’t worry, you won’t need to, you’ll be queueing up at the soup kitchens.

    “With the science established”

    by “most scientists”, all 75 of them.

    “We are among the most successful predictors the world has ever seen”

    Now, that’s what I call deluded. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

  30. In this publication:

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/CO2-MEI-LOD.pdf

    it says:
    Current GCMs are not able to reproduce or forecast ocean oscillations such as ENSO events.

    Yet, we are supposed to destroy our economy and energy production based on output from these same GCMs. Is that stupid or what?

  31. Hey, Thanksgiving is just around the corner !</b

    When G.K. Chesterton visited this country, he recognized that “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature. It enunciates that all men are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice, and that their authority is for that reason just.”

    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/262437-america-is-the-only-nation-in-the-world-that-is

    The best available experimental measurements and observations confirm the scientific validity of Thomas Jefferson’s basic assumption in writing the US Declaration of Independence [1], providing a 2012 Thanksgiving Message of Omnipotent Hope

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1807

    [1] Thomas Jefferson, “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America” (1776): http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

  32. Judith

    “the rational skeptics position pretty much are raising main of the issues”

    surely needs fixing?

  33. From a post at WUWT

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/#comment-1153017

    This paper which shows that Mann and Schmidt once put their names to solar control of the climate. !

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf

    Solar Forcing of Regional
    Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum
    Drew T. Shindell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, David Rind, Anne Waple

    “These results provide evidence that relatively small solar forcing may play a significant role in century scale NH winter climate change. This suggests that colder winter temperatures over the NH continents during portions of the 15th through the 17th centuries (sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and warmer temperatures during the 12th through 14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm Period) may have been influenced by long term solar variations.”

  34. “PLAY TO OUR STRENGTHS – We are among the most successful predictors the world has ever seen*”

    Not the IPCC, surely. The IPCC failed to predict the fall in global average temperature between 1940 and 1970. It also failed to predict the constant average temperature from 2000 to the presemt.

    Classical thermodynamics has no answer to the precipitous fall in temperature after 1940, although no thermodynamicist would suggest that a mechanical system should be able to absorb infinite energy. Only quantum thermodynamics can provide an answer to what happened after 1940, but we can only speculate on exactly how it worked. The IPCC approach of ignoring what happened before, during and after 1940 or blaming it on natural forces is not good enough. See my website at: http://members.iinet.net.au/~alexandergbiggs .

  35. I see on this site the same type of arguments as a similar site run in my home country (which is New Zealand), and what I cannot understand about climate change views, is why two groups can have such disparate opinions and get so heated up. (My mother used to say never discuss religion or politics) It is becoming akin to politics or religion and that is totally wrong for science. Is it due to the hemisphere of the brain we use more for think processes ? To me it seems so clear and obvious AGW is happening, but we can all pick a favourite climate scientists and hurl it against each other. What I object to is people calling me a lefty, greeny, liberal or some equally revolting and repulsive label, (I do not call people with an opposing view any names at all and respect there right to hold an opinion). What truly matters is what needs to be done gets done. As for the money spent on climate change I think it is well worth it, when I see how much goes into the Large Hadron Collider and Space exploration projects, isn’t worth getting a handle on the way our planet performs now we have the tools. Yes you can keep looking back at ancient times and be speculative about previous chages in climate, but that does not mean we should ignore recent data and upward trends. We have to work with what we have now and plan for the future. My friend makes the most sense on it all it is a grandiose experiment we have embarked on and we are risking the quality of life of future generations on it, and I can not understand people who are prepared to that with all the warnings and evidence. I understand culturally our two countries may differ widely, but this an area that concerns us both. My hope is that one day very soon opinion can merge and even unite.

    • Kiwi | November 20, 2012 at 6:09 pm | Reply
      To me it seems so clear and obvious AGW is happening,

      Based on what ? reading alarmist press ?

      What truly matters is what needs to be done gets done.

      Based on an assumption that mankind produces 100% of the co2 no doubt, whereas the most detailed paper on the matter says just 4%. (James Salby)

      but that does not mean we should ignore recent data and upward trends.

      Newspaper front pages publishing data that has been found to be ‘adjusted’ upwards. But in NZ no one is in prison for doing something they shouldn’t have done are they ?
      Recent data and trends for the last 16 years is flat. But you won’t read about that on the front pages. Although one UK paper did !

      We have to work with what we have now and plan for the future.

      Home and business insulation covers either outcome. A win win for both sides of the debate, I mean argument.

      with all the warnings and evidence.

      You really shouldn’t believe everything you read in the papers.

      this an area that concerns us both. My hope is that one day very soon opinion can merge and even unite.

      That will most likely be in a snowy hell. About 7+ years at a guess.

      • Thank you for so generously and graphically illuminating my whole point

      • J Martin said:

        “Based on an assumption that mankind produces 100% of the co2 no doubt, whereas the most detailed paper on the matter says just 4%. (James Salby)”

        Three strikes in a single sentence. Salby has not yet published his paper. His full name is Murry L. Salby. And his alternate theory for the origin of excess atmospheric CO2 is completely wrong.

        Forget discussion about AGW for the moment. Fake climate skeptics can’t even figure out that we causes elevated levels of CO2.

  36. E M Smith, ‘the chiefio’ below on CO2 levels and plant
    sequestration Take home points fer me:

    ‘The evidence is that plants suck the atmosphere level down
    to the point where they ‘rate limit’ on CO2, they set the long
    term lower bounds sucking the air dry to the the limits of their
    ability. .And it looks like at about 100ppm plants just can’t pull
    any more CO2 out of the air at all. So the historic 200 ish ppm
    levels argue for us being at ‘starvation levels for plants back
    then, with just a bit extra in transit from volcanoes and other
    natural sources…’

    Re measurements, fast growing trees like eucalypts completely
    drain the air above them of all the CO2 in one year, pond scum
    does it even faster.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/got-wood/

  37. David Springer

    With an as yet undetermined appendage Tom Bogdan writes:

    “STOP FIGHTING THE LAST LOST WAR – Spend less energy battling skeptics”

    Fixed that for him!

  38. “Something must be done! It is urgent”
    [i.e. following the "precautionary principle"]

    Not really.

    For three reasons.

    1. We are uncertain about how much of the past warming was caused by natural factors and how much by human GHGs (principally CO2)
    2. We do not have any actionable proposals for mitigation projects that will have any perceptible impact on future climate, even if we assume that the IPCC model-based climate sensitivity assumptions are correct.
    3. We must be absolutely sure that the unintended negative consequences of any actions we do undertake are not more damaging to humanity than the problem we are trying to resolve.

    Until we remove the uncertainty in 1. above, we should do nothing.

    Rash “actionism” is foolish. It is costly and gets you into unexpected trouble.

    Calmly decreasing uncertainty on causes, on actionable and effective proposals plus on unintended negative consequences is the reasonable path to pursue.

    Max

    • Humanity’s De Minimis Impact On Weather Is Fact
      Everything Else Is Politically Driven Dogma
      Humanity’s contribution to all greenhouse gases is just…0.280% [i.e., less than a third (<1/3) of a Percent].
      What that means is 99.72% of all greenhouse gases are … Natural

      • “Humanity’s contribution to all greenhouse gases is just…0.280% [i.e., less than a third (<1/3) of a Percent].
        What that means is 99.72% of all greenhouse gases are … Natural"

        Like I said, forget AGW; most of the fake skeptics can’t even figure out that we cause the elevated levels of atmospheric CO2.

        And guys like the Chief Astrologist think that combustion of fossil fuels is the major factor in whatever warming we do see.

      • The real problem is fake scientists. For exampe, those who do not understand the role of water vapor.

      • Waggy says:

        “99.72% of all greenhouse gases are…Natural.”

        When in fact, 100% are…so that’s error #1. (tell me the source of unnatural greenhouse gases?!) Are humans not part of nature?

        But the bigger error is one of cause and effect related to the percentage of the current greenhouse gas concentration that is due to human activities…that is, without human activity on this planet, the percentage would be some amount lower. Somewhere around 30% (120/390) of the current concentration is because of human activity. This is the number that Waggy and his denialist buddies don’t want to talk about. Moreover, greenhouse gas concentrations have risen 40% in the past few hundred years since the beginning of the industrial revolution because of human activities. Again, another number that Waggy doesn’t like to mention.

      • For someone who believes burning coal is natural you’d think there would be some appreciation for the fact that CO2 accounts for just 3.5% of greenhouse gases and and near all of it is ‘natural’.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        R Gates, why do you think your quarrel with “natural” is meaningful?

        For example, in discussing forcings, the IPCC says anything not solar is anthropogenic and solar is the only natural forcing.

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html

      • thisisnotgoodtogo,

        I’ve got no quarrel with the term “natural”. I see it as some kind of false flag the denialists toss up to distract from the issue. You can call it whatever you like, but about 30% of today’s CO2 level is a direct result of human activity. You can call it natural or unnatural or supernatural if you want…human activity caused it.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        R Gates said

        “I’ve got no quarrel with the term “natural”. [/quote]I see. No issue when you or the IPCC use it in dfferent ways, but when some others who you oppose it it, you do have an issue. Like this issue.
        “Waggy says:
        “99.72% of all greenhouse gases are…Natural.”
        When in fact, 100% are…so that’s error #1. (tell me the source of unnatural greenhouse gases?!) [/quote]To that one could be perfectly straightforward an honest with a reply such as this:
        “Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are said to not be naturally emitted”
        To that you would then reply
        “Are humans not part of nature?”
        And the answer to that is
        “Sometimes human outputs or effects are not considered natural. You know that. What you have done is project your inadequacy onto Waggy. See below for what you just did

        “Natural” is some kind of false flag that R Gates tosses up to distract from the issue.You can call it whatever you like, but some of the emissions are considered naturally occurring and the rest are considered the by-product or waste product of human industry.”

        R Gates said

        “Somewhere around 30% (…) of the current concentration is because of human activity.(…)”
        “(…)greenhouse gas concentrations have risen 40% (…) because of human activities. Again, another number that Waggy doesn’t like to mention.”

        I don’t blame him for not doing that

      • For all practical purposes it’s safe to consider the human influence the only origin for the increase observed in CO2 concentration since the beginning of Mauna Loa measurements. It’s true that all details of the carbon cycle are not known very well but there are no other credible sources that could have contributed significantly to the turn from near constant concentration to the present increasing trend.

        The uncertainties affect a little the estimates on the future removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, i.e. we don’t know how the ratio of CO2 that remains in atmosphere to the total anthropogenic release changes. It’s expected that the share will increase gradually but the details of that are not well known.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Pekka Pirilä:

        The uncertainties affect a little the estimates on the future removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, i.e. we don’t know how the ratio of CO2 that remains in atmosphere to the total anthropogenic release changes. It’s expected that the share will increase gradually but the details of that are not well known.

        I’d still like to know just how much of the rise in CO2 levels comes from anthropogenic methane emissions. The best estimate I’ve gotten is 2-6%, which isn’t large, but it is enough to influence the ratio you discuss.

      • There are certainly more open questions concerning methane and some other gases (at least N2O). Human activities affect their releases in many ways but even defining what’s anthropogenic and what’s not is not straightforward for them due to the complexity of pathways of influence.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Aye. I just find it interesting methane emissions will necessarily lead to an increase in CO2 levels but I’ve never seen that discussed in any detail. I’ve always thought it should be easy easy to quantify the effect, but I’ve never seen anyone do it.

      • IPCC, AR4, WG1 report tells that methane has four indirect effects, three of which are included in the estimated GWP values. The fourth is the conversion to CO2 which is included in the CO2 sources rather than as an additional indirect effect of methane.

        You are right that this adds a little to the other sources than the most straightforward emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production. As an additional source it’s not alone. The land use changes and natural changes in vegetation have also an influence that’s not as straightforward as the energy related use and industrial emissions.

        There are many complications on the level of such details – and they are a major trouble in international negotiations.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Pekka Pirilä:

        IPCC, AR4, WG1 report tells that methane has four indirect effects, three of which are included in the estimated GWP values. The fourth is the conversion to CO2 which is included in the CO2 sources rather than as an additional indirect effect of methane.

        Are you sure it actually includes methane as a CO2 source? It’s been a while since I read Chapters 2 and 7 of the report. I do remember how it handles the first three (I’ve always felt it is rather hand-wavey), but I don’t remember the fourth being discussed. Of course, I may have missed it.

        There are many complications on the level of such details – and they are a major trouble in international negotiations.

        I don’t think a single GWP criterion makes sense for international treaties since it is overly simplistic, but I don’t think anyone has any real idea as to what would be “right.”

        Anyway, if you’re right about the methane to carbon dioxide conversion being treated as an additional CO2 source rather than an increase in methane GWP, that would necessarily screw up GWP calculations. I’m not sure by how much, but…

      • Brandon,

        The TAR contains the following text in chapter 6.12.3.1

        It should be noted that the climate forcing caused by CO2 produced from the oxidation of CH4 is not included in these GWP estimates. As discussed in the SAR, it is often the case that this CO2 is included in national carbon production inventories. Therefore, depending on how the inventories are combined, including the CO2 production from CH4 could result in double counting this CO2.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Interesting. I wonder if it was mentioned in TAR but not AR4.

        Either way, it seems like a bad reason not to quantify the effect. The issue is relevant even if it isn’t included in GWP calculations. Besides, if countries don’t use the same standards, that is a problem in and of itself. By not double counting the effect, they’re saying it’s okay to ignore it for some countries.

      • Brandon,

        Looking at the right place AR4 tells the same thing. I checked earlier ther Section 2.10.3.1 on Methane but it’s just above that section in 2.10.3. Here the formulation is slightly more precise:

        Following the approach taken by the SAR and the TAR, the CO2 produced from oxidation of CH4, CO and NMVOCs of fossil origin is not included in the GWP estimates since this carbon has been included in the national CO2 inventories. This issue may need to be reconsidered as inventory guidelines are revised.

        In analysis of the GHE using atmospheric constitution as starting point the CO2 from oxidation of CH4 is automatically included as it’s part of the measured CO2 concentration. Thus the whole issue concerns only the sources of CO2 and the reporting of national inventories.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Pekka Pirilä, the AR4 does not say the same thing. The TAR says including that indirect effect “could result in double counting.” The AR4 says it would result in double counting. If there was some relevant change in the methodologies used, one would expect the change to be mentioned,* but none is discussed. There is no explanation given as to why the TAR and AR4 contradict each other on this point.

        In fact, the AR4 implies the reason for its decision on this point is the same as in the TAR (and SAR), yet the reason given is different than the reason given in the TAR. That, plus the fact there is no citation or reference given for that section, makes that quote very strange.

        I’ll check the 1996 and 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories to figure out just what the truth is, but that may have to wait a bit. It’s a holiday today!

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Well, this is interesting. The TAR said:

        It should be noted that the climate forcing caused by CO2 produced from the oxidation of CH4 is not included in these GWP estimates. As discussed in the SAR, it is often the case that this CO2 is included in national carbon production inventories. Therefore, depending on how the inventories are combined, including the CO2 production from CH4 could result in double counting this CO2.

        The First Order Draft of the AR4 said:

        Following the approach taken by the SAR and TAR, we do not include CO2 produced from CH4 oxidation in the GWP estimates since it is often the case that this CO2 is included in national carbon inventories.

        The Second Order Draft said:

        Following the approach taken by the SAR and TAR, we do not include CO2 produced from oxidation of CH4, CO and NMVOCs of fossil origin in the GWP estimates since this carbon should be included in the national CO2 inventories.

        The final version said:

        Following the approach taken by the SAR and the TAR, the CO2 produced from oxidation of CH4, CO and NMVOCs of fossil origin is not included in the GWP estimates since this carbon has been included in the national CO2 inventories.

        Notice the First Order Draft was nearly identical to the TAR. It was then changed, several times, in order to be worded more strongly. This strongly suggests it was not a change in methodologies that caused the difference in language between the two reports. The obvious interpretation of this is one of the reports is wrong. Either the AR4 is worded too strongly, or the TAR was worded too weakly.*

        I’ll check the reviewer comments later to see if any IPCC reviewer suggested those changes, and if so, why they did. In the meantime, I want to point out I tried checking a couple references in 2.10.3.1 of the AR4 since it was right after the section I was looking at, and it’s disturbing. One of them doesn’t seem to support what is said, at all, and another completely ignores the uncertainty in what it references.

        This is why I hate reading the IPCC assessment reports. I always get diverted into examination of stupid points because of their poor quality.

        *If the TAR was wrong, this doesn’t salvage the AR4 on this point. By not only failing to acknowledge the error in the TAR, but also covering the error up, the AR4’s text would still be inexcusable.

      • Brandon,

        My impression both looking at the guidelines and reading the text of AR4 is that the guidelines are not explicit enough on this point. AR4 states that an improvement in guidelines may need to be reconsidered (I interpret that as telling that the improvement is really necessary).

        When AR4 was written more was known on actual reporting than when TAR was written. That could be the reason for different formulation concerning the actual practice.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Pekka Pirilä:

        My impression both looking at the guidelines and reading the text of AR4 is that the guidelines are not explicit enough on this point. AR4 states that an improvement in guidelines may need to be reconsidered (I interpret that as telling that the improvement is really necessary).

        You may well be right about this. If so, it doesn’t generate much confidence in how the IPCC handles that indirect effect from methane.

        When AR4 was written more was known on actual reporting than when TAR was written. That could be the reason for different formulation concerning the actual practice.

        Even if that were true, the AR4 is obligated to explain why it is different from the TAR rather than pretend it is the same. However, I don’t believe that’s true. This is a reviewer comment from the Second Order Draft:

        Unfortunately, the straightforward position that CO2 produced by CH4 and CO emissions was included in the national inventories for CO2 has become more confused with the approval of the 2006 National Greenhouse gas Inventory Guidelines earlier this year. Several inventory experts have advised that the new guidelines will not include the CO2 that appears as an oxidation product orf reduced species. I don’t think that you should provide any detailed consideration of this issue with could easily be wrong until the new guidelines are fully understood. But you may wish to add a sentence to say something like “This issue may need to be reconsidered as inventory guidelines are revised.
        -Martin Manning

        At the same time the authors of the chapter adopted Manning’s suggested sentence, they strengthened the wording of the paragraph from “this carbon should be included in the national CO2 inventories” to “this carbon has been included in the national CO2 inventories.” When confronted with greater uncertainty, their response was to increase the certainty of their language.

        Moreover, the sentence he recommended be added doesn’t make sense. It says the issue may get reconsidered as guidelines are revised, but that ignores the fact the guidelines had already been revised! The text is acting as though something may happen in the future when it has already happened. That’s flat-out deceptive.

        By all appearances, the authors simply didn’t know what they were talking about on this point. Because of that, they bungled it badly.

      • The 2006 Guidelines are actually explicit on this point. The Section 7.2.1.5 contains Box 7.2 where we can read:


        CALCULATING CO2 INPUTS TO THE ATMOSPHERE FROM EMISSIONS OF CARBON-CONTAINING COMPOUNDS

        Methane, carbon monoxide (CO) or NMVOC emissions will eventually be oxidised to CO2 in the atmosphere. These CO2 inputs could be included in national inventories. They can be calculated from emissions of methane, CO and NMVOCs. The basic calculation principles are:
        From CH4: InputsCO2 = EmissionsCH4 • 44/16
        From CO: InputsCO2 = EmissionsCO • 44/28
        From NMVOC: InputsCO2 = EmissionsNMVOC • C • 44/12

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        thanks for finding that. You’re right that it’s explicit. That effect “could be” and “can be” calculated. That is distinctly different than “should be” and “is.” It’s not even listed as a “best practice” in those guidelines. There is no indication countries actually have to include it. It’s something they can do, not something they must do.

        Unless every country chooses to do it despite not having to, the IPCC AR4 is wrong on this point. I’d be willing to bet if we checked the actual carbon inventories of various countries (are those readily available?), we’d find at least some did not.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Oh, I forgot to share another reviewer comment that leads me to believe the authors didn’t really know what they were doing on this point. On the First Order Draft:

        The reason to neglect the CO2 from CH4 oxidation into the GWP is not that CO2 is already included in other carbon inventories. The reason actually is that CO2 from biogenic CH4 is recycled through the biosphere. Since >80% of atmospheric CH4 is thought to originate from biological sources (wetlands, rice paddies, ruminants, termites, etc.), the effect of the remaining <20% from fossil CH4 sources is only very small, as argued by Lelieveld and Crutzen (1992) and Lelieveld et al. (1998). This argumentation has been adopted in subsequent studies and in the IPCC reports.
        -Jos Lelieveld

        This reviewer gives a totally different reason than that given in the report (and he did so while promoting his own work). In fact, he explicitly states the reason given in the report is wrong. As such, one would expect the authors did not accept his response. This is what they said:

        OK. Text revised to to state that CO2 from CH4 from fossil fuels are not included in the GWP for methane.

        A reviewer explicitly claimed the reason they gave was wrong, and they responded by saying, “OK” while still giving the same reason. It makes no sense. Despite him saying they were exactly wrong, and them agreeing, the only change they made is to refer to gases “of fossil origin” instead of just gases. They completely missed his point (fortunately, as he was wrong), and they made a change completely unrelated to his comment.

        It may have just been carelessness, haste or whatever, but by all appearances, the AR4’s text on the fourth effect was sloppily done. I can’t imagine the authors strengthened the language based on some deep understanding of the carbon inventory guidelines when they mishandled the two reviewer comments made on the section.

  39. Mosher: people in power are listening to skeptics. You should study power more and climate data less if you want to make these claims. Kyoto dies next month and we will celebrate. The green bloom is off the rose. Fear is abating.

  40. Sadly, neither Morgan nor Bogdan show any realistic appreciation of what would be required to resolve the manifold scientific uncertainties of any causal attribution of climate change to anthropogenic factors. Instead, they fall back upon the self-serving presumption that all the factors affecting the climate system have been duly identified, and it’s only a matter of refining the current state of knowledge before truly definitive prognostications of future climate are made. This is administrative cant, rather than genuine leadership in scientific reasearch. That there may be many unknown unknowns in an extraordinarly complex system seems terra incognita to both of them. And then there’s the cabal of salesmen who labor daily to foist upon the public an ill-founded fear of an empirically elusive AGW. Quo vadis, indeed!

    • Sadly, neither Morgan nor Bogdan show any realistic appreciation of what would be required to resolve the manifold scientific uncertainties of any causal attribution of climate change to anthropogenic factors.

      How about diverting all/some of the money from models, into a hard physical evidence system to directly measure the radiation budget/imbalance, and then see if this lines up with CO2 changes as per the standard AGW argument ?

      Surely this would ‘settle’ the science for most practical purposes ?

  41. The IPCC might have served its purpose and is now becoming redundant, or simply gets it wrong too many times to serve any useful purpose?

    ://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=544308&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16

    Climate Change panel chief says ‘not invited to COP18’
    By Bonnie James
    Deputy News Editor
    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will not be attending the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP18/CMP8) in Doha, chairman Dr Rajendra K Pachauri has said.
    “For the first time in the 18 years of COP, the IPCC will not be attending, because we have not been invited,” he told Gulf Times in Doha.
    COP18 is to be held from November 26 to December 7.
    The IPCC, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, former vice president of the US and environmental activist, is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. Currently 195 countries are members.
    Dr Pachauri first hinted about his ‘anticipated absence’ at COP18, while speaking at the opening session of the International Conference on Food Security in Dry Lands (FSDL) on Wednesday at Qatar University.
    Later, he told Gulf Times he did not know why the IPCC has not been invited to COP18, something that has happened never before.
    “I don’t know what it is. The executive secretary of the climate change secretariat has to decide. I have attended every COP and the chairman of the IPCC addresses the COP in the opening session,” he explained.
    The IPCC was established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.”

  42. Judith:
    I am late to this current game but suggest that Michael Morgan left out a word in his title: Whether. His title should be: Whither (Wither) or Whether Climate Science. The science of weather is necessary but the usefulness of Climate Science is questionable, at least in its present form and state.

  43. Like the Democrat party itself the membership of the AGW alarmist party is comprised of dispirate groups. A sizeable group comprise those who believe humanity’s ability to harness energy is fast coming to an end due to a deep, diminishing lack of natural resources. Almost everything they do is in a kind of funny bassakwards way of looking to the future that is similar to the the real world environment that capitalists work in where the efficicient utilization of resources is a significant part of creating wealth. The problem is, worrying about running out of energy is more a indication of AGW alarmists’ personal insecurity problems and have nothing to do with actual limitations in the physical world that capitalists must deal with and find real solutions to real problems. Running out of energy is a man-made problem.

    • When I put on my capitalist’s hat, I care only about myself and how much wealth I can accumulate. I couldn’t care less about you. If I can benefit by taking advantage of you, well, you probably deserve it for being a sap. I wear that hat most of the time.

      Yes, “running out of energy is a man-made problem.” Too many people, too little energy. I don’t know why global warming denier/ skeptic are indirectly encouraging the rapidly growing populations of China and India to burn more fossil fuels by insisting that there’s no reason to do otherwise.

      The Democratic Party represents growing demographic groups. The GOP represents a relatively shrinking demographic group. The Dems are more interested in conservation and the environment than the Republicans.

      • > The idea the government can run business efficiently is doomed.

        tempterrain | November 26, 2012 at 1:34 am |
        Tell that to the Chinese. They don’t agree and are proving everyone who has made similar claims to be incorrect.

        The rise of China is precisely due to redically reducing the level of government control, relative to earlier even more totalitarian regimes. Taking some lessons from Hong-Hong.

        Instead of just repeating that socialism is state control and capitalism is private control etc etc

        What is your problem with this blatantly obvious point? Do you think it’s the other way round ?

        explain to me why Singapore isn’t considered a socialist state

        “Considered”. Probably because it has a high level of economic freedom. Not much civil liberty though, very statist in that regard.

        Explain to me why the West treats China differently to the way the USSR was treated?

        China doesn’t seem the military aggressor the USSR was.

      • BFJ Cricklewood

        Yes how magnates (or anyone else) acquire wealth in China (or anywhere else) is certainly important to economic growth.

        One does though need to distinguish once-off roguery from the ongoing variety. If the acquisition of former state assets in Russia and China was though bribery and corruption, but thereafter things proceed in a market-oriented way, that might be a price worth paying for removing reactionary obstacles to progress. Not ideal of course, but may be the only way.

      • The Chinese development has been based almost solely upon their privately owned businesses

        The figures tell a different story. “As of 2012 large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were the backbone of China’s economy producing over 50% of its goods and services and employing over half of the workers in China.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#cite_note-NYT111012-73

        The distinction between public and private ownership of companies in China is often blurred. There is, for instance, recent considerable controversy over the control and ownership of the telecoms company Huawei, with some critics alleging its real ownership is the PLA.

        Wagathon,

        If the EU were a part of the U.S. every country there would fall among the bottom 5 states in the US based on GDP per person.

        I’m not sure where this ‘statistic’ came from but it’s obviously wrong. For a start Luxembourg has a higher GDP per capita than the USA.

        I’m just wondering what the figures actually mean though. Canada has a similar GDP per person to countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Australia. Is Canada or Australia poorer on a per Capita basis than the USA? It doesn’t look like it to a casual visitor. A German worker would have better job security, shorter hours, much longer holidays, and less expensive health care than his American counterpart so I’d just make the point that it isn’t all about the sum total of dollars or Euros. There isn’t a great desire amongst the EU population to relocate to Luxembourg even though it is, on paper, the wealthiest country.

      • While there are still many state-run industries in China, they trundle along as before. The growth has without question come from the more private and deregulated ones, a movement that was started in the southern provinces, learning from the Taiwan and Hong-Kong models.

        It’s rather like the situation in the early USSR under forced collectivisation, where something like 1% of farmland that was privately run, in workers’ spare time only, produced something like 20% (I forget the exact figure) of the total agricultural output. the problem is, with the best will in the world, state industry has no incentive to produce what consumers actually want; and if there are no real markets, no way of even knowing what people would actually pay for. It’s all just politically controlled.

      • Essentially China was at a failed point with communism in the 80s and 90s. In late 90s it became apparent that Hong Kong was a raving success. Hong Kong boasted the most capitalist economy on earth with virtually no regulation and freedom to move money and assets. Hong Kong was among if not the most advanced countries in the world at the time. When the lease for Hong Kong was due China had a choice, make Hong Kong conform to the failed statist model it had employed for the other 1.2 Billion Chinese people are let Hong Kong continue as is. China chose a third and unexpected path. It copied Hong Kong and gave Hong Kong ability to expand its influence in China mainland mainly in the coastal areas adjacent to Hong Kong. The rapid industrialization of China came much faster than anyone expected because of the free market philosophies of Hong Kong. Undoubtedly the communist leaders saw the easy money to be made utilizing the simple principal that Hong Kong had leveraged which was the underutilized labor force of China willing to work for pennies a day at hard labor and in incredibly difficult conditions. This allowed anybody whether private or public sector company to utilize the enormous potential for labor that the chinese people were to make enormous strides and produce things economically.

        It’s really a testament to the evil communist regime that for decades and before that their feudal predecessors that the chinese people were left mismanaged, unable to move forward, unable to affect their natural worth in the world. Frankly I am surprised the chinese people don’t take some form of revenge on their leaders en masse when they realize all the people who must have died, the wasted decades and centuries because they followed statist ways. Alas the lesson is not learned. Because of cheap labor many people believe the chinese win because of some “innate” goodness of the chinese system, some innate chinese superiority. It’s nothing more than happened with Japan after WWII and much of europe. The guidance of the US in helping countries achieve democracy and capitalism so that people may achieve their due is the legacy of America the latter half of the 20th century.

        It will take a good part of the 21st century to sort out our economic dislocations because fo the intense mismanagement in prior generations and centuries of people’s lives and abuses by governments. Once China starts getting anywhere near the point that the labor supply is competitve in pricing the deficiencies of the statist enterprises will begin to be apparent. The lack of competition will introduce massive trade disputes and china will be forced to give up its miracle, stop growing and become a more slowly developing nation or revamp its political and economic system to be more conformant to the western / US model of no socialism.

        State ownership of means of production makes it impossible to fairly decide on who is subsidizing who and therefore it is a form of state warfare. China will not be allowed to practice many of the practices they have today or the entire world system will come to a precipice and even war may result. So, it’s critical that people not get ahead of themselves in thinking that China has any special knowledge or methods. They are simply utilizing an abundance of one form of resource (human labor) to move up the curve of development faster however, this is not a sustainable approach. As their labor rates get higher other countries will be able to compete and the Chinese will see their miracle like the Japanese go into a pause. Until they can copy the same techniques the US has they can’t exceed US productivity or US success. The sheer size and difficulties culturally will make this transition necessarily long.

    • To be a capitalist you have to provide a service or good that someone else actually wants.

      • Too bad you have to make money while doing it. I could be a much nicer person if I wasn’t tempted by my insatiable appetite for more money.

      • And you think that we actually believe that ?

        And you think that people should supply goods and services at a loss to themselves ?

        To mis-quote Yosemite Sam: “What a maroon !”

      • “And you think that people should supply goods and services at a loss to themselves ?

        To mis-quote Yosemite Sam: “What a maroon !”

        Well, in order to to be polite, he not including the necessary part about torturing and beating to make them do it.

        But one has to actually pay the thugs in management a good wage.
        The best part is it means you can hire murderers and pay them to scare the hell out of our workers.
        Very efficient use of work force.

        And you get a low crime rate. Because you providing criminals high paying employment opportunities. Helps with their their low self esteem problems, instead being known as criminals, they are called boss.

      • Wag said “to be a capitalist you have provide a service that someone else actually wants.” Heck, a Salvation Army soup kitchen can do that, but it’s not capitalism.
        My comment emphasized the importance of making money. To be a successful capitalist, you have to make money.

        You can also be a capitalist by providing capital rather than what’s usually thought of as a service or a good. I don’t know if Wag thinks of passive investors as capitalists.

      • There’s nothing wrong with capitalism per se, or socialism per se, either. All societies are a mixture of both. Naturally, there is always some disagreement on just what the mix should be.
        Max_OK presumably has reasonably happy customers. They pay tax on their purchases. He pays tax on his income and profits. Those taxes then pay for roads, schools and even Obamacare. That’s socialism.
        What’s wrong with that?

      • The insatiable appetite for more and more revenue is what we associate with Leftists and a government grown too large to fail..

      • David Springer

        Capitalism is the substitution of capital for labor.

        You people are clueless.

      • Capital is labor… stored labor.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Capital is head count. Cattle Chattel.

      • Capitalism is the substitution of capital for labor. or Capital is labor… stored labor.

        Neither statement is true. You can’t really store labor – except in the physical sense of charging up a battery using a bicycle powered generator perhaps. You either use it or lose it at any given time.

        The term Capitalism only entered the language in the mid 19th century and arguably is a Marxist concept – although Marx focused on the concept of capital rather than capitalism. The idea being that a worker actually produced goods of a value greater than his pay and the extra value , the surplus value, was expropriated by the capitalist himself.

        On the other hand the worker may have produced nothing at all if he hadn’t been motivated to work for the wages the capitalist was offering. So capitalism is primarily a way of organising the productive forces in society. Gold, or any kind of stored capital, would have little intrinsic value to a capitalist without ‘his’ workers. He’d either have to learn to grow his own food or starve.

      • David Springer

        Tempterrain you are describing private enterprise where people get to keep the fruits of their own labors. Socialism makes the fruit common property.

        Capitalism is where someone substitutes capital for labor. If you had a farm I could increase your production by helping you plant and sow with my own labor or I could help you increase production by giving you enough capital to purchase better equipment, more land, and/or hire more workers. In return for my capital I get a portion of the production. This is what capitilists do. In the modern day I can buy publically traded stock which accomplishes the same thing.

      • David Springer,

        I largely agree.

        Its an interesting question as to what you would call it, if governments supply capital instead of private owners, as has happened not just in the USSR, but in places like Israel with their Kibbutz system, too.

        Is this then State Capitalism or socialism?

      • BFJ Cricklewood

        @tempterrain
        if governments supply capital instead of private owners … Is this then State Capitalism or socialism?

        Simply put, you can have either capitalism – which means is private ownership – or socialism – which means state ownership.

        These two being mutually exclusive, the term “state capitalism” is thus meaningless.

      • BFJ Cricklewood,

        State Capitalism is meaningless? It seems a very good description for modern day China which is a very different place to what it was under Chairman Mao in the 60’s.

        Its also a good description for Singapore which has a highly regulated economy, a large degree of government ownership, and, incidentally one of the highest GDP per capita ratios in the world.

        But, if you don’t like the term, maybe you know of better ones?

      • “Its an interesting question as to what you would call it, if governments supply capital instead of private owners, as has happened not just in the USSR, but in places like Israel with their Kibbutz system, too.

        Is this then State Capitalism or socialism?”

        Communism with lower taxes.
        High taxes means they take everything and
        give you in return welfare payments.

        All you need to know is communism and socialism
        were “invented” in the US. And various Idiots tried to
        understand why the US was such wonderful place, and theories labeled
        things as communal- like farming co-ops- which are mainly solution
        to lack of available capital. And why would a farmer go into a city to talk to banker who doesn’t know you or your business. As communistic.
        And socialism was government trying to solve various social problems-
        prisons for criminals, public schools, etc.
        And capitalism was term invented to explain the way people normally
        did all business. And this was considered very evil. Commerce- yuck!
        It’s petty and grubby. Not as noble as the honest farmer.

      • tempterrain

        I think you’ve gotten things a bit muddled with your “state capitalism” premise.

        Capitalism is capitalism.

        Socialism is socialism.

        These are two basically different concepts when it comes to ownership of enterprises: one operates on the basis of “free enterprise” (i.e. private ownership) while the other operates on the basis of state ownership.

        In almost every modern state (including the examples you cite) there is a mixture of the two.

        Even under the old USSR there were individual “capitalists” operating on a small scale, as there were under Mao’s China – it is the natural human condition.

        There is government ownership of enterprises in most European nations plus the USA, even though the basic system there is capitalistic.

        The difference is best seen in a statement attributed to Nikita Khrushchev when he visited a Ford plant in Michigan and saw the huge employee parking lot:

        He asked whose cars these were and was told they belong to the plant workers.

        He supposedly replied

        “Here the factory belongs to the managers but the automobiles in the parking lot belong to the workers.

        In our country the factory is owned by the employees, but the automobiles on the parking lot belong to the managers.”

        Or, as Churchill put it:

        “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

        Max

      • Some Americans, might like to take a look at the various political systems around the world. If they did they would perhaps realise It isn’t very meaningful to describe everything that is privately owned as Capitalist and everything as government owned as Socialist. If that were the case, then Singapore would be classified in the same way as North Korea, except as a much richer and more successful version of course.

        It doesn’t make any sense to say that there is no fundamental difference between what China is now and what it was under Mao, and that they are both just Socialist. Equally it’s a nonsense to equate the State bureaucratic, and non democratic, systems of Cuba, and the former USSR and Eastern European countries, with the social democracies of Western Europe.

        Does anyone really believe the recent nationalisations of banks by governments in the USA and western Europe had anything to do with any desire to promote Socialism? Does anyone really believe, even if they feel they shouldn’t have occurred, that they weren’t just desperate, or maybe even panic, measures to preserve the mainly capitalist systems?

        The employees of these banks have no more say in their running than they did previously. Maybe even less. They are no more socialist than they were before. There’s no better description of the new ownership than State Capitalist.

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

      • “Does anyone really believe the recent nationalisations of banks by governments in the USA and western Europe had anything to do with any desire to promote Socialism? Does anyone really believe, even if they feel they shouldn’t have occurred, that they weren’t just desperate, or maybe even panic, measures to preserve the mainly capitalist systems?

        The employees of these banks have no more say in their running than they did previously. Maybe even less. They are no more socialist than they were before.” –

        Socialism isn’t about employees having a say in their running. This would suggest the employees had ownership in the company- so say they were shareholders in the company. Or this some fulfillment of unrealistic promises of communism.
        Now if had true democracy then all citizens [not just employees] would have say in how government controlled business was being running. Or people voted to be representatives, and the representatives have a say in the running of State owned businesses.
        But you don’t need any kind socialism, democracy, communism, or whatever ism for employee to have say in the running of any enterprise, because the employees are running the business- A CEO could be owner, but normally he/she is an employee. And even if a CEO was sole owner of business, they are leaders of the employees with the employees running it.

        – “Maybe even less. They are no more socialist than they were before. There’s no better description of the new ownership than State Capitalist.”

        Definitely less. A employee instead picking up phone and talking to some manager of the business, needs to now talk to a some government person, who normally quotes or discusses regulations and normally does not have the power to make any individual decisions.

        Why confuse with word Capitalist, just called what it is, Statism, or you like tyranny. Or gee, I thought I left the Army years ago.

      • gbaikie,

        I would largely agree that statism as occurred under the the USSR was largely a tyranny. Some large corporations are tyrannies too. OK they don’t have gulags, but there can be a hire and fire mentality, and no dissent is tolerated. I suppose it depends on whether it is felt that large organisations are purely owned by the shareholders, or whether the stakeholders should have some say too. There is a well known slogan, usually attributed to Zapata, of whoever works the land owns the land. I wouldn’t say they should own it completely, but they should certainly have a share, and the same principle should apply to workers in all enterprises, not just agriculture.

        It isn’t in much favor in the US right at the moment but the only defence against tyranny, of whatever form it may take, is a strong democracy. I don’t agree, though, that democracy should be something that only takes place every four or five years. It should be more than just putting a cross against the name of a candidate after a two hour wait in the cold.

        Democracy needs to be more widely introduced into the workplace too , IMO. Germany has done very well by having worker directors on the boards of their large companies. The title of this link:

        http://www.rcfea.org/pr2009/pr03_09.pdf

        is “Worker Directors: A German Product that Didn’t Export?” Yes it is a pity it hasn’t been adopted by other countries too.

        PS Funny you should mention the army. I was just thinking that must be a socialist organisation too :-) It is owned by the Government, isn’t it?

      • BFJ Cricklewood

        >> State Capitalism is meaningless? It seems a very good description for modern day China which is a very different place to what it was under Chairman Mao in the 60′s. <<

        The fact remains that Capitalism means private ownership and control, and Socialism means state ownership and control. So 'State Capitalism' is inherently self-contradictory.

        No real-world system is pure capitalist (libertarian) or pure socialist (totalitarian) of course; all are some hybrid. And yes certainly China has changed : less socialist / more capitalist than before.

        Socialism is essentially using the state's force to harm some people so as to help others, eg with unemployment benefits. Where a state is specifically trying to actively help capitalists by harming others, then I suggest the term Socialism for Capitalists.

      • “It isn’t very meaningful to describe everything that is privately owned as Capitalist and everything as government owned as Socialist.”

        Yes it certainly is. The state is a strictly unique institution in society, being as it is the monopoly of legal violence. Which is to say, it uses proactive physical force (or the threat thereof) to achieve all its ends, and it and only it can legally use such proactive force to achieve its ends (criminals do a similar thing, but of course illegally). All other lawful organisations and individuals may only use peaceful persuasion, and must obey the state’s rules on pain of feeling the state’s force.

        To blur this vital distinction is catastrophic to any real understanding.

      • It seems curious that Americans do equate Socialism with state ownership in quite the way they do.

        If that is the case why isn’t Singapore, with its large number of state controlled industries, considered to be socialist? Is Saudi Arabia socialist too? The oil fields there are all in the control and ownership of the Saudi State.

        Is China now socialist? I would say it wasn’t – even though their large corporations are mainly owned by the State. State capitalist is an accurate description. The American government would agree with me on that point as they allow, and even encourage, a high degree of trade between the two countries. Whereas, when they do consider a country to be socialist, as with Cuba, or the former USSR, that is certainly not the case.

      • Socialism is a sometimes confusing term.

        One approach is to consider the state owning means of production in which case it is both unethical and inefficient. By using the power of the state to bolster an industry countries are pitted against country in a war of economy. Such things have led to war in the past and is probably a big part why Europe never achieved the unity the us did. In any case without a true owner of the business and competition the theory is it will result in suboptimal allocation of resources leaving a nation and workers poorer. Again, this is demonstrable.

        Another way to look at socialism is as the welfare state. The government provides massive wealth redistribution which discourages production and leads to a spiral downward as the productive side of the economy producing the wealth to be redistributed becomes more and more unable to provide benefits for the ever increasing needs eventually going bankrupt.

        Both these scenarios are in play and failing miserably. The dream we can all live off the “rich man” is false and doomed. The idea the government can run business efficiently is doomed. Those roads have been tried and are failures. The lessons of history are painful. The 2000s in America were a different kind of welfare state. The government conspired with the private sector to make it easy to buy homes even if u couldn’t afford them. Now we are paying the price for this mutual excess.

      • It seems curious that Americans do equate Socialism with state ownership in quite the way they do.

        It’s not at all curious, and it isn’t just Americans. It’s very obvious, to everyone.

        There are only two possibilities for ownership – state or private. The former is called socialism, the latter capitalism. What is there to get confused about?

      • So– with Socialism the state owns the people and individualism is dead.

      • It is not quite that clean. There are large private companies that depend on the government funds for contracts, tax breaks, incentives, subsidies, or financial rescues or they wouldn’t be able to either survive or compete with foreign businesses.

      • You mean, for example, politically-connected private businessess who build bridges to nowhere?

      • The idea the government can run business efficiently is doomed.

        Tell that to the Chinese. They don’t agree and are proving everyone who has made similar claims to be incorrect.

        Instead of just repeating that socialism is state control and capitalism is private control etc etc, explain to me why Singapore isn’t considered a socialist state. Explain to me why the West treats China differently to the way the USSR was treated?

        You need to think about these things, and try to understand them rather than just parroting what you hear on Fox news.

      • Who do you prefer George Washington or Mao Tse-Tung?

        I think the answer is simple:

        ■If you are a Tibetan Buddhist monk, you prefer a God-fearing protector of personal and religious freedom like George Washington

        ■If you are a tenured professor in liberal fascist academia, then Ward Churchill is more inspiring than Winston Churchill, the mass murderer Mao is your philosopher, and Bush-haters Castro and Chavez are your comrades.

      • ” tempterrain | November 26, 2012 at 1:34 am |

        The idea the government can run business efficiently is doomed.

        Tell that to the Chinese. They don’t agree and are proving everyone who has made similar claims to be incorrect.”

        If the government is running business in China, why are there
        95 billionaires in People’s Republic of China ?

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

      • What happens when the few communists in China that call all the shots decide those 95 millionaires didn’t really earn that money… like the 47%’rs decided here?

      • The size of China’s economy is about half the size of the US’s. It isn’t all State owned – just about half of it is. The number of billionaires is about a quarter of the number in the US. So there doesn’t seem to be any real disparity , on the face of it.

        But I’d say we’d also need to look at how some of these magnates acquired their wealth. Was it obtained legitimately, or was it obtained by acquiring former State assets at knockdown prices? That is well known to have happened in Russia.

      • The Golden Goose and Golden Rule are cooked.

        After the Morality Crunch now comes the ENERGY CRUNCH and there’s no debate about that. The only thing that is up for debate is how many additional business-hating liberals and Leftists must the productive haul on their backs as they trudge up and down the mine shafts.

        All the rest is simply words that have absolutely no meaning with the only victors being 3 billion capitalists in China, India and Brazil. There is no debate–that would be absurd:

        Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. it’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other. (Meteorologist Klaus-Eckard Puls, translated by P Gosselin: The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is “Sheer Absurdity” Says Prominent German Meteorologist)

      • tempterrain

        You show that there is a correlation between size of the economy and number of billionaires in China vs.the USA, although China has a larger %age state-owned enterprises that the USA.

        The other major difference is the percentage of the population living in utter poverty.

        China has around 20% living in “poverty”, defined as earning less than $1.25 per day ($456 per year)

        The USA has 15% living in “poverty”. The BIG difference is the definition of “poverty”. In USA it is defined as a family income of less than $23,000 per year.

        Those poor Chinese would love to be poor Americans!

        Max

      • If the EU were a part of the U.S. every country there would fall amont the bottom 5 states in the US based on GDP per person.

      • Temp

        It appears that you are a bit ill informed when it comes to doing business with or in China. State run businesses in China are widely known as being the least efficient in the nation. The Chinese development has been based almost solely upon their privately owned businesses. FYI- I have done very large amounts of business there.

    • So it’s “dispirate groups” who join the Democrats? And presumably the real pirates tend to opt for the Republicans?

      • dispirate groups, e.g., a polyglot, e.g., a balkanized groups of whiners, takers, entitlement junkies and envirowhackpot trustfund babies who add up to nothing more than the 47% it takes to drag America down like a stone.

      • Waggy,
        And isn’t it comical then to see the Republicans now falling all over themselves trying to figure out how to court those “disparate” groups in order to make a better showing in 2016. They need to reach beyond the rich white conservatives (as this group is shrinking steadily). Where or where will they go? They know they need to expand their base, but they want to hold on to the past, as America continues the inevitable march forward to being the most diverse nation that has ever existed.

      • Of course. Obviously, this is your grandfathers’ country. The two-party system is dead.

      • The two-party system is dead.

        This seems to be a curious thing for an American to say. The two main parties would have had 99% of the vote and won all the seats in Congress. I can’t think of any other country which is as remotely dominated by two parties as the USA.
        When was the last time an outside party won anything in America?

    • BFJ Cricklewood

      Mox_ok > When I put on my capitalist’s hat, I care only about myself and how much wealth I can accumulate. I couldn’t care less about you. If I can benefit by taking advantage of you, well, you probably deserve it for being a sap. I wear that hat most of the time.

      A typical example of the fairly widespread failure to understand that capitalism requires respecting the property rights of others, and hence that the norm of social interaction is on a consensual basis (as opposed to being coercive/state-dominated).

      • A a government can—if it is has no concept of morality—debase money by printing currency. This leads to inflation a devaluation of the currency. Government imposed inflation is immoral because it steals the value of the stored labor of workers and that in turn corrupts the economic system.

        The “system” can easily be understood by the analogy of sacrificing current enjoyment and investing time, sweat skill and natural resources to make a fishing net. It may be a hard-scrabble life for the family of the net-maker that is weaving instead of fishing to provide the family’s daily bread.

        But, in the end if the net weaver’s investment results in a tool that can be used to catch more, then society benefits (as measured by GDP). And, productivity increases. Moreover, asset-side of the society’s balance sheet increases. The increase is in capital in this example is comprised of one fishing net and more dried fish do to the increase in productivity.

      • “debase money by printing currency” ?

        Nearly all currency is printed and has been for many years. The USA has had periods when prices have fallen (deflation) but if you’d care to take a look at the records, deflation in prices correlates very strongly to times of economic recessions and depressions.

        All governments have to pull off the trick of maximising the productive capacity of their economies. Workers then have jobs and capitalists are making profits. Everyone’s happy and governments get re-elected. This can’t happen if prices are falling, as it makes sense for everyone not to fully spend to their wages, salaries and profits. It makes more sense to wait and get the benefit of lower prices. So a low inflation rate of a few percent is probably a good thing to avoid excessive thrift leading to economic downturns.

        Those looking to make a return on their investment, or ‘stored labor’, in a time of very low interest rates may disagree. But, this is exactly what happens in the natural world. I’m not sure I fully understand your fishing analogy, but if our fisherman decides to save his stored labor, there is an overhead; the cost of smoking or salting etc, involved in storing his catch. He doesn’t expect to store ten kilos of fish and have eleven kilos six months afterwards.

      • …with the luxury of having more salted fish than you need to survive on a daily basis you can hire Romans to make fish paste and create a business exporting garum…

      • “All governments have to pull off the trick of maximising the productive capacity of their economies. Workers then have jobs and capitalists are making profits. Everyone’s happy and governments get re-elected. This can’t happen if prices are falling, as it makes sense for everyone not to fully spend to their wages, salaries and profits. It makes more sense to wait and get the benefit of lower prices. So a low inflation rate of a few percent is probably a good thing to avoid excessive thrift leading to economic downturns.”

        That has been the common practice.
        And the shortage money is as bad or worse than shortage of any commodity, so tending towards some inflation is generally good practice.
        Though generally, I tend to think there is perhaps too much fear of deflation.

        But this is assuming one has economic growth.
        It seems fairly obvious if you having little or no growth and you pouring money into the economy, it’s going to break.

        Which is where we are at.

        Pick one or the other, you can’t have both.

        And if left long enough, you won’t have a choice and will
        have neither.

        The problem with gold standard is it inhibits economic growth- and places excessive value on mining gold.

        If you don’t want economic growth [which is utterly foolish] change
        economy back to the gold standard.
        But if you do a really good job at breaking the economy that is another way to return to gold standard [and cause chaos, and perhaps start numerous world wars].

      • It seems fairly obvious if you having little or no growth and you pouring money into the economy, it’s going to break.

        Firstly, it’s not true that there is little or no growth on a worldwide scale. There’s about 3% overall. About 1% in th USA. 1.8% in Australia , which incidentally is supposed to be in good economic shape.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate_(latest_year)

        “pouring money” is an emotive phrase. If spending is too high in any economy, and it doesn’t matter whether the spending is by the private sector or by government then we see high inflation; but, we don’t see that in any major Western economy. So it must follow that total spending is about right, or maybe even a bit on the low side. I would agree that it would be better if the spending was less by government and more by the private sector, although I’m not sure how that can be made to happen. Maybe a bit more inflation may do the trick :-)

      • The simplicity of the math is simple. Currency is nothing more than a medium of exchange. If government were to, for example, double the money supply, the cost of an apple would double.It is the free enterprise sector that creates wealth and productivity, not the government by printing money.

      • Should be “about 1.7% in the USA”.

      • ” If government were to, for example, double the money supply, the cost of an apple would double”

        No. The amount of money in existence doesn’t in itself affect prices. If the money created by the the government were just stored in bank vaults, for example, then it wouldn’t have any effect at all.

        The price of an apple, and everything else, depends on how much money is actually spent. The problem for all governments is that they can control the money supply but they can’t easily control the speed of its circulation in an economy and that’s what really matters.

      • The explanation as to why you are wrong is the same reason the cost of gold is $1,748.50 USD and that is with the governent raising the margin. Additionally, money is only kept in the mattress or remain in banks without being lent when government causes the pure interest rate to go below zero.

      • “The US Federal Reserve held between $700 billion and $800 billion of Treasury notes on its balance sheet before the recession. In late November 2008, the Fed started buying $600 billion in Mortgage-backed securities (MBS).[42] By March 2009, it held $1.75 trillion of bank debt, MBS, and Treasury notes, and reached a peak of $2.1 trillion in June 2010. Further purchases were halted as the economy had started to improve, but resumed in August 2010 when the Fed decided the economy was not growing robustly. After the halt in June holdings started falling naturally as debt matured and were projected to fall to $1.7 trillion by 2012. The Fed’s revised goal became to keep holdings at the $2.054 trillion level. To maintain that level, the Fed bought $30 billion in 2–10-year Treasury notes a month. In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing, or “QE2″, buying $600 billion of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011.[43][44] A third round of quantitative easing, or “QE3,” was announced by the Federal Reserve in September 2012. The third round includes a plan to purchase US$40 billion of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) per month. Additionally, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced that it would likely maintain the federal funds rate near zero “at least through 2015″

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

        — It seems fairly obvious if you having little or no growth and you pouring money into the economy, it’s going to break.

        Firstly, it’s not true that there is little or no growth on a worldwide scale. There’s about 3% overall. About 1% in th USA. 1.8% in Australia , which incidentally is supposed to be in good economic shape.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate_(latest_year)

        “pouring money” is an emotive phrase.”

        Hardly, if you understand what the Fed is doing.
        In addition the Federal government [I am not talking about Federal Reserve]
        Is adding a 1 trillion in deficit each year. Deficit spending is another form of pouring money into economy.

      • gbaikie,

        This is what is necessary to keep the USA economy functioning as it is. If the Fed and governments wanted unemployment to be 28%, instead of 8%, they’d follow policies similar to the ones you and others on the extreme right would advocate.

      • Is the extreme right everyone who sees the immorality of robbing from Peter to pay Paul just to keep the 47%’rs voting for the Democrat party?

      • “gbaikie,

        This is what is necessary to keep the USA economy functioning as it is. If the Fed and governments wanted unemployment to be 28%, instead of 8%, they’d follow policies similar to the ones you and others on the extreme right would advocate.”

        What policies are you imagining I would advocate [assuming I was interested in doing this].
        All saying is what is obvious. Everyone knows we need more economic growth and everyone knows we are pouring money into the economy.
        What someone might argue about is what causes economic growth and
        they might assume that merely dumping money into the economy is enough to cause sufficient economic growth.

        The only related topic, which related to economic growth is I have advocated opening space frontier as one means to increase economic growth.
        And general I don’t much to say bad about Obama Space policy- it is as good or perhaps slightly better as compared to previous administrations.
        But what government has been doing in general [for decades] regarding space exploration is inadequate.

      • It is hilarious seeing Leftists point to China to support their anti-Americanism. Even if they do lack imagination and courage and fear the hand of a free man, when will Western schoolteachers finally stand up and stop biting the hand that feeds?

        Remember how Fulton persisted in his folly and Dr. Barry Marshall drank H. pylori cocktail and vindicated science by vomiting on the accepted knowledge of his peers? Imagine a frail and doped Nietzsche glaring at the paper inches from his nose through blistering eyes as he scribbled about the coming of The Dude. Feel the suffering of Socrates, Jesus and George Bush who refused to sign away America’s future at Kyoto.

        It was GW who stood up to the UN and the superstitious crowd and the purveyors of fear from the Left like that lone Chinaman facing the tanks in Tiananmen square with nothing but the courage in his heart to exercise free will, represent the unrepresented, and to oppose the mindless conformity of the Climatists that had been chosen at that point in time in the evolution of society to try to run the board.

      • Exactly, capitalism and free enterprise is providing a service or good that others are willing to pay for with their own earnings to own. Earnings are labor… stored labor.

        Stored labor is more than money. Money is just a medium of exchange

      • @tempterrain
        If spending is too high in any economy, and it doesn’t matter whether the spending is by the private sector or by government then we see high inflation

        Inflation is not caused by ‘excessive spending’ – there being no such thing. It is a purely monetary phenomenon caused by inflation of the money supply.

        When this happens, it takes more money to buy the same goods and services as before. This is what is misidentified above as spending being too high.

        Temp showed another cart-before-horse syndrome in saying insufficient spending is what causes depressions. Actually they too are monetary disturbances, are caused by undue contraction of monetary growth, the net result of which is reduced spending.

      • The amount of money in existence doesn’t in itself affect prices.

        A “price” is the exchange rate between money and a good. Assuming the good to be there, the amount of money in circulation is the only thing that effects the price.

        The speed of circulation of money and goods does not affect the price of goods.

      • Greybeard,

        “It is a purely monetary phenomenon caused by inflation of the money supply”

        You need to think about this a little more. It should be obvious that the velocity of circulation has an effect on prices. If wage and salary earners don’t fully spend their incomes as they earn them , their employers have trouble selling the products they have produced and, so prices fall. Profitability falls and in turn the workers may lose their jobs.

        For an fuller explanation see this link:

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

      • >> If the Fed and governments wanted unemployment to be 28%, instead of 8%, they’d follow policies similar to the ones you and others on the extreme right would advocate. <<

        Unemployment is largely down to two basic factors
        – minimum wage laws and other government-created blockages in labor markets
        – inflationary monetary policies which cause boom-and bust cycles

        All of the left is heavily implicated in both. And some of the the right in the second.

      • Temp,

        Regarding price inflation being a consequence of monetary inflation, not the velocity of circulation of money (and hence also not the velocity of circulation of goods; they do not circulate independently of each other).

        If wage and salary earners don’t fully spend their incomes as they earn them , their employers have trouble selling the products they have produced and, so prices fall. Profitability falls and in turn the workers may lose their jobs.

        An old fallacy, carrying the unwitting assumption that people stuff their savings into mattresses. People do always fully spend their incomes. Just not always on consumer goods – some goes to investment goods, which is their savings. It goes into banks rather than mattresses, where it is lent to businesses for equipment etc.

      • Greybeard,

        It goes into banks rather than mattresses, where it is lent to businesses for equipment etc.

        Have you tried to get a business loan recently?

        That’s part of the problem. Money isn’t being readily lent out by the banks.

  44. Mosher confuses authority with science above when he continually says “no one is listening to you…” and when he asserts
    “There is a science debate. It centers on sensitivity. If he wants a chance at being listened to he will speak about that. Otherwise, nobody in power is listening to him.” Yea right, the people in power will decide what the climate sensitivity is! Or listen to those who tell them what they want to hear. Small problem. It’s impossible to figure out climate sensitivity without understanding attribution. People in power will distort science and claim their propaganda is science They’re already doing it, both sides. And Mosher is OK with that. And so we have the current hype about climate change, global warming, and “new normals” courtesy of some climate scientists. It will have the same awful effect that similar hype has had in the recent past- disrepect for alarmist scientists (and unfortuately science in general), further politicalization of science and polarization of the electorate, unintended consequences like the tragic use of food for fuel, and opportunity costs like ignoring the solving of problems we actually understand. Mosher’s realpolitik replaces science with whatever fear mongering and hype benefits those in power. With that kind of “science” there will be little chance to identify, let alone solve, the important problems facing humanity. Mosher is to science as Hobbes is to democracy, but I loved the book you and Fuller wrote!

    • So true… the gravity of global warming alarmists is on a par with pink slime alarmists.

    • Did you forget who won the election for president? Not someone who listens to global warming deniers/skeptics.

      Did you forget which party gained Senate seats? Not the one that listens to global warming deniers/skeptics.

      Did you forget the party of deniers/skeptics (aka the GOP) is represented by a shrinking demographic?

    • It is not that Mosher is “OK with that”. Rather, it is that Mosher thinks (and I agree) that while a cadre of skeptics, lukewarmists, ardent deniers and others use these blogs to emote at frequent intervals, the powers that be simply pay no attention to them at all, and go on with their plans for cap and trade, carbon tax, claims that we can easily do without fossil fuels, putting coal out of business, regulations and more regulations, etc. The point is that these blog entries are irrelevant, regardless of how right or wrong they are.

      • “The point is that these blog entries are irrelevant, regardless of how right or wrong they are.”

        As they should be. Mosher’s ‘sandbox’ description for this and other blogs is appropriate–even to the point of both the nuanced traditional meaning and its modern computer usage.

      • ‘modern computer usage’ — a safe place to tryout code without wrecking things.

      • yes.

        Few people get that Moshpit sometimes plays hard in the sand box, trying out arguments to see if they work or rather to see HOW they work.

        The latest: AGW is real. AGW says extremes are the new normal.
        AGW says we cant change the next 30 years. Therefore, give me federal dollars to adapt Now to the new normal.

        Strategically, If I am obama, I let the EPA do what it can to make Fossil Fuels expensive. I avoid the tax word. Passive mitigation. Regulatory mitigation. At the same time, I Push adaptation pork into my democratic friends and repubs that need convincing. No republican politican will argue against pork because he is a skeptic. Hell they dont even understand the best skeptical arguments, most of them have only learned the “trace gas” trope. They will ditch that nonsense for some fat pork.

      • All Steven Mosher is doing is attempting to move the goalposts. Since he can’t convince anyone with a brain that AGW is true, now ‘it doesn’t matter’. Of course it matters. As long as someone cares about the truth, his tribe is going to have a problem.

        Andrew

      • The problem is Andrew is you have no power to stop the moving of the goal posts. because its not your game, you aint even playing.
        You are sitting in your moms basement watching the game and screaming about the bad calls.

        He stepped over the line on the inbound pass. Neither you or your mom can reverse the call.

      • Steven Mosher,

        I think your new sales pitch is going to be as effective as all the ones you used previously.

        Andrew

      • Yup!

        The “alarmists” are equally silly. Just visit RC. Watch the stupid dhogza’s and stupid ray ladbury and others wail about climatedialog.org
        OMG! they let judy speak. OMG the dutch government suggests a conversation. OMG Shell oil is behind this. As if a blog discussion ever mattered.

        Blogs matter in that sometimes the “discourse” can make it into the public talking points of a politician. In the end, those public talking points have nothing to do with the real reason why positions are taken.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        while it’s true that an Obama can cut an artery and that almost all politicians will feed, it’s not true that all the blog discussions summed, have zero effect on how deep and how soon the blood runs.

    • “Mosher confuses authority with science ”

      Not really. Science is a particular style of behavior. Authority is patron of style and a judge of style.

      Simply. Power dictates what questions get asked
      A) what is sensitivity
      B) what is natural variation.

      Power has funded A not B.

      Power also judges style ( think art critic). As a skeptic you may be “doing science” but the puppet show you perform in your moms basement doesnt compare to the broadway show that appears in Journals.

      Denying the reality of power, wishing that power was not a factor, is silly.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

      • skeptics might like this better. deleted scene of course.

      • Moshpit,
        There is one thing more powerful than power- money. When the powerful make bad choices like promoting inefficiient energy and waisting money on “solving” wicked mess problems while ignoring problems for which there are known solutions, they create recessions and depressions. People get hurt. The powerful get toppled.
        Power doesn’t judge style- think literary and art criticism. Literary and art critics don’t bow to power, they criticize, satirize, absurdize corrupt power structures and power’s partner, the status quo. What century are you living in Mosher?
        Power corrupts and is therefore self-limiting- think wall street this decade. Science, on the other hand, is self-correcting.
        Europe, even Germany, is turning away from green non-solutions because it can’t afford them. If we have 15 more years of flat-lining or falling temperatures there will be no power promoting global warming. But if temperatures spike up like they did 1978-1998, we’ll all be alarmists.
        You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time… Your justification of corruption and fooling people is deplorable. Go back to your sandbox.

  45. People in power turn to Algore. Might as well believe the Earth is 6,000 years old if you believe Uncle Al. The only difference is one is myth and the other lies.

  46. Chief Hydrologist

    Proper probabalisitc forecasting as opposed to the nonsense we have now.

    ‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)

    More and better data for ocean heat content , tropospheric heat content and TOA radiant flux. Although the capacity of people to ignore data that doesn’t match the meme seems unlimited.

    There is one formula that matters and it is not all that difficult.

    the change in global energy storage = energy in – energy out

    Although there are a few minor terms which in the traditional way I will ignore. The data tells a story. Did the planet warm in the last decade? Yes it has – ARGO tells us so. Although perhaps data from a little earlier would tell a more interesting story.

    http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf

    What was the radiant imbalance that caused the warming? A decline to a solar minimum was going in the opposite direction. Most of the minor increase in energy stored in planetary systems was from less reflected short wave.

    To borrow a graph from Norman Loeb.

    Loeb was the lead author on this – ‘Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. ‘ http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html

    So Loeb (and many others) certainly know better – they know what makes up the net radiation – but they allow even encourage nonsense such as this.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/24/431902/search-for-missing-heat-myth-global-warming-has-halted/?mobile=nc

    Or is this just the fervent activism of the space cadets.

    • Proper probabalisitc forecasting as opposed to the nonsense we have now. ??

      Would you recommend an extension of this concept generally or does it just apply to CO2 emissions policy? For instance, instead of a guilty/not guilty verdict, a jury could say something like they were 80-90% confident that the accused killed the victim but they could only be 30-50% confident that intent was involved ……..

      Or if footballers claimed a goal, the referee could indicate a 40-60% probability of a player being offside and only award half a goal.

      There is some uncertainty involved in almost everything. But decisions still have to be made.

      • tempterrain

        There is some uncertainty involved in almost everything. But decisions still have to be made.

        Exactly. And the logical decision to make is to prepare on a local or regional basis for any climate change or weather extreme Nature throws at us if and when it becomes apparent that such change is imminent: early warning systems for storms, floods, droughts, etc., higher and stronger dikes and levees in coastal regions, etc., at the same time continuing work to reduce the many uncertainties regarding human versus natural attribution of past climate change and the possible anthropogenic impacts on climate that could result in the future,

        Right?

        Or did you have some other “decision” in mind?

        (If so, what?)

        Max

  47. Tomas Milanovic

    If I understand the Navier-Stokes equations issue, we have to know each small eddy to build from the “bottom up” predictive models.

    No RIH this is not the issue because this is impossible. There will never (well in the next hundreds of years) be sufficient computational power to do that.
    And it is not necessary because of the fundamental impossibility to make a unique deterministic prediction.
    The predictions can only be probabilistic (that’s what the Chief keeps repeating and he is right) so the key issue is the PDF.

    I will illustrate that with a very simple example that everybody will understand.
    Let’s define 4 indexes : 1 for strong Nino, 2 for weak Nino, 3 for strong Nina and 4 for weak Nina. The exact definition of strong and weak is irrelevant because this is just an example.
    Now imagine you have a series of 1000 indexes. Well you haven’t but we imagine an ideal world.
    The series looks like … 2,3,2,2,4,1 … etc
    You detect autocorellation. You detect non randomness. You detect pseudo oscillations. You detect deterministic chaos. You might detect shifts on different time scales too. Some people will argue the series is stationary some will argue it is not.

    So now the question is not “Knowing the last 100 indexes, what will be the 101st or the next 10?”
    The question is whether there is an invariant PDF which this series obeys.
    And supposing the answer is yes (it is absolutely not obvious that it must be yes), what is the correct theoretical tool which allows to derive and prove this PDF.

    OK so this was the easy part. Now the hard part is that climate is not just ENSO, but dozens of other spatio temporal oscillations. Some of them, the shortest ones are known (AMO,PDO etc) it is those Tsonis used. Some are only suspected. And those of longer periods (100 years or more) are unknown.
    All these oscillations are temporally and spatially correlated with all others. This creates patterns at different time scales.
    And you must ask again : is there a PDF (invariant or not) which describes the probabilities of these patterns on all time scales?

    This goes far beyond mere Navier Stokes even if N-S is a very important part in the theoretical description.

    • The above comment of Tomas is perhaps helpful in understanding what those climate scientists assume explicitly or implicitly who believe that meaningful projections to the future are possible. They assume essentially that the variability related to the unpredictable variability is not significantly stronger than the predictable shift in climate caused by AGW over a period of 50-200 years to the future. (Projections are meaningful still when the effects have approximately equal strengths but not when natural variability dominates strongly.)

      From the point of view of climate policy the near term future (less than 50 years) is not very essential. What happens further than 200 years in the future cannot cancel the consequences of what has happened within 200 years. (My personal view is that theories that tell about serious consequences only later than 200 years in the future should not worry us now.)

      Supposing that we have an agreement on the above the next question is, whether the assumption I mention in the first paragraph is justified. Trying to figure out the answer we must estimate both the likely influence of AGW and the strength of variability on that time scale. The primary source of information are observations of the past climate. All theoretical understanding of the Earth system adds to that.

      My personal view is that the likely strength of AGW is strong enough in comparison to what we know about the natural variability to justify the assumption. (The uncertainty in climate sensitivity alone makes, however, the projections very inaccurate).

    • Thomas

      When you smooth out ENSO, what you are left with is with the climate signal:

      http://bit.ly/OsdxJf

      This climate signal shows a clear pattern. This pattern is most likely the result of oceans cycles and their enormous heat capacity and inertia. It is reasonable to assume this pattern will continue at least for the next couple of decades.

      This suggests little warming in the next twenty years.

    • This is how delusional Tomas is. He will look at the signal for the rise in excess CO2 from 280 to 390+ PPM and show concern that this is some possible state space reconfiguration of CO2 molecules.

      No other way to interpret what he implies. At some point a real forcing function will overcome the fluctuations.

      • BFJ Cricklewood

        WHT : At some point a real forcing function will overcome the fluctuations.

        Yes. We just have no idea how much or when.

  48. The main thing to understand is that the first step is assembling stakeholders and mapping out their concerns — where they are vulnerable, what they can tolerate, what they want to avoid, what they aspire to. That’s your vulnerability analysis

    That’s ‘Value Management’ by a new name. We’ve been doing ‘Value Management’ since man first started diverting water for agriculture.

    http://www.value-management.com.au/

    Yes, that would be a good approach. However, the selection of stakeholders needs to be appropriate. If IPCC or any of the CAGW alarmist, including the CAGW alarmists who wrote the World Bank report, are involved, the process will be flawed from the start.

  49. Regarding the power of skeptics which Mosher says is nothing, in the USA we control the House of Representatives as far as climate policy is concerned. Moreover the House controls the money, so interesting times lie ahead powerwise.

    Skepticism has great power, certainly enough to prevent any serious climate legislation. Kyoto is dead. The only power question left is whether we can stop or curb EPA? We probably have a decade to do that so I am still guardedly optimistic, but great effort will be required.

    Interestingly EPA is a socalled Independent Agency meaning it is not under the control of the President, or anyone else, including Congress. There is an untested Constitutional issue here that is well known in legal circles. It may come up so watch for it.

    Contrary to Mosher’s claim there is probably a massive power collision coming on climate related issues. What the left calls gridlock is actually a battleground.

    • Mosher is right.
      The skeptics have lost, the alarmists have won the policy battles.
      The world (including the USA) has succunbed to hysterical madness and is spending NOW, **every year**, more than 200 bn$ on windmills, solar and biofuels – a totally useless, pointless and hopeless expenditure. Sheer madness.
      Emissions are not being reduced by these useless ventures.
      So, yes, the skeptics have lost, alarmist madness has carried the day, and continues unabatted.

      • I am no fan of these technologies but the ethanol in my gas does run my car and the windmills do produce power so the expenditures are not useless, just overpriced. Burning 10% ethanol is hardly madness, just unnecessary. In fact I do not regard these expenditures as serious actions, which is my real concern. I think skeptics are doing very well here, considering what the Greens are calling for.

      • Overpriced to the tune of 200 bn$ annually. At least.
        Your car runs perfectly well (better) on pure gasoline, what do you need the ethanol for? Also burning your food in the process?
        “…considering what the Greens are calling for.”
        A very low deffinition of “doing very well”…

      • Actually ethanol was first added extensively to gasoline in USA to improve its combustion properties. It replaced MTBE that was judged a risk for ground water. Through that a few percent of ethanol improves the burning of the fuel. The demand created by this change initiated the large scale production of ethanol.

      • Governments in the US and EU mandate ever increasing percentages of bio-fuel use. That’s madness, since it does not reduce emissions, as even greenpeace admits.
        Stop this madness.
        I don’t mind mixing ethanol in fuel to make the engine run smoother, in quantities required from engineering considerations.
        I oppose climate-driven mandates.

      • My concern is to keep EPA from imposing rationing on carbon energy. Wind subsidies and bio mandates are minor concerns. In fact both seem to be falling under their own weight.

      • ” Wind subsidies and bio mandates are minor concerns”
        Minor concerns ???
        The US alone spends about $56 bn a year on these subsidies, that achieve nothing. Is this “minor” ? (EU spends about 150 bn).
        If this is minor – you might as well retire from policy battles, no point in combating “minor” expenses.

    • You still don’t get it.

      The discussion is going to shift to impacts. In fact that has been underway for a while. The global warming you deny is showing up on people’s doorstep. It doesnt matter one whit that Sandy is not tied to AGW, the push for adaptation ( to something you deny ) means federal dollars. Buying off a few republicans is dead easy. They will forget a skepticism they dont even understand. is AGW real? was the last battle. You think you won or got a tie. Sorry, different battlefield lies ahead. Governors and mayors with brains will be at trough for adaptation dollars, regardless if they are blue or red.

      • Good. Then no money for you. Thanks. we will take money from you and give it to people who will be suffering in a warmer world.

      • Which people suffer when Tmin climbs a fraction of a degree?

        Climate Scientists?

      • Hey Mosher,
        Any chance of taking a quick look at my Excel file?

      • Sure, will do so now

      • I would agree with Leif,
        The accumulation and dissipation is “hunted for” Its the problem of
        missing physics.
        I don’t think the simple arithmatic sum represents that process.
        The intution that there is a squared term is a solid assumption.
        You have an intuition that power is accumulated, transformed and dissipated over time. That’s the part that needs more physics. otherwise you end up trying a bunch of stuff ( like you do ) and then selecting the answer. which is bias confirmation.

        Set aside half your data if you want to play around with hunting for relationships.

        Then predict your other half
        So, use the first 200 years of data. create your model.
        using the last 200+ years, use your model to predict.
        measure your prediction error.

        Then figure out the accumulation/transform/dissipate physics.

        Then, predict a measure that you didnt use in model creation or validation.

      • Thanks Steven.
        Good advice.
        I’ll first try the last 150 years of more accurate data, to test the more distant past where data is less reliable, and then reverse the process.
        Thanks again. I’ll be in touch.

      • The key will be the missing physics. see if you can find one measure for that process.

      • sure thing vuk. anytime somebody shares data its a good thing..
        even iff the variables are not identified.. hehe.
        But you see that merely crunching the stats without a notion about the
        “physics” units behind the numbers can lead to problems.
        Like scafettas stuff. its not even dimensionally correct.

      • Steven Mosher,

        The discussion is going to shift to impacts.

        Good!

        Where are the described/defined and the costs estimated?

        Sea level rise is a trivial cost. So what are the others?

      • The last estimate of a 1m sea level rise in the US was on the order of 400 Billion. I suspect its somewhat higher now.
        Again, people are not going to listen to you about the costs of impacts, if all you have to say is posed in the form of a question.
        They ask the questions. If you have an answer they might listen.

        Your problem is that you think science has to answer your questions to your satisfaction. it doesnt.

      • 1.7mm a year from tide gauge data into 1m = 600 years.

        400 billion / 600 = chump change.

      • sunshine. Only a fool would believe that an extrapolation ( which is a model) would always out perform a physics based or semi empirical approach.
        But if your science ( the “science” that says future rates will equal past rates) is settled, then I guess you are no better than than the people who believe that physics models will always outperform naive extrapolation.
        You realize, of course, that a simple extrapolation is a theory, a model. or did you think that it was truth?

      • Only a fool would ignore evidence of minuscule sea level rise.

        Only a really big fool would think that adapting to 3mm a year (if it ever happens) would be significantly harder than adapting to the 1.7mm per year rise that has been happening for 100 years.

        400 billion / 333 is still chump change.

      • Let’s take Steven Mosher’s $400 billion impact for a 1m rise in sea level.

        At the “accelerated rate” of 3 mm/year, that will take 333 years.

        At a discount rate of 5%, we can afford to invest $35 today in order to save $400 billion in 333 years.

        Question: what can we get for $35?

        Max

      • Description:

        This thesis explores the neglected issue of regional distribution of climate change mitigation costs. Using advanced methodologies and data from a multi-modelling exercise (specifically, EMF-22) and <b?focusing on economy-wide costs under a single global carbon tax regime, the study conducts a meta-analysis to investigate how and why mitigation costs for different countries vary and what the welfare implications are.

        An analysis based on Gini coefficients reveals that global income inequality increases after mitigation, implying that (uncompensated) global mitigation is regressive. Although the increase in the Gini is small, the impact of the regressivity on the global cost of mitigation is large. This is shown by use of the concept of ‘equally distributed equivalent (EDE)’ cost. Though the effect is scenario dependent, and declines over time, taking account of regressivity increases global mitigation costs in 2020 by 64-90 per cent depending on the degree of inequality aversion.

        So far the analysis has ignored the possibility of international transfers of compensation. The final part of the analysis tests the extent to which commonly proposed international financing schemes will alleviate the regressivity of regional mitigation costs. The main finding here is that the two commonly proposed schemes – the Copenhagen Funding agreement, and the Contraction and Convergence by 2050 – will at most eliminate regressivity. They are not sufficient to make the global mitigation effort a progressive one.

        The thesis concludes with a discussion of limitations and future research questions. While the analysis is by no means exhaustive, overall the contribution of the thesis is to show that detecting, analysing and thinking through the implications of regional variation in mitigation costs deserve much more attention, and that attempts to do so will bring rich insights from both an academic perspective and a geo-political/negotiating one.

        Biography:

        Hyungsup Lee is a PhD candidate in the Environmental Management and Development (EMD) program at the Crawford School of Public Policy. Prior to joining the Crawford School, Hyungsup worked for the Ministry of Environment of Korea in the area of domestic climate change policy, air quality, and transportation environment.

        [my highlight]

        This study assumes: “economy-wide costs under a single global carbon tax regime” and concludes, in effect and in my words, high cost mitigation such as the carbon tax and renewable energy schemes proposed by CAGW advocates are not value for money. they are bad policy.

        But it’s worse than that because that is the conclusion based on an economy wide, single global carbon tax. However, those who have been following the previous discussions would recognise by now that a world carbon pricing scheme cannot work. A short explanation of why is here: http://skepticalscience.com//news.php?f=nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money#82373. And acknowledged by Professor William Tol, world guru on impact costs of global warming and a long time supporter of carbon pricing, here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239101

      • “At a discount rate of 5%, we can afford to invest $35 today in order to save $400 billion in 333 years.”

        There’s a slight flaw in this argument. If the well known widow had set up a foundation and invested her ‘mites’ instead of giving them to the temple, in Biblical times, the current value of her investment, and now the continuing foundation, in terms of weight of gold, would be greater than the Earth’s mass.

        The idea that anyone can put $100 or so into a kitty knowing that it will grow into a huge fortune, to be spent as they would dictate long after their death, is just a nonsense I’m afraid.

      • Just to continue the above.

        I’m not sure what a Biblical mite would have been worth in today’s terms, but can we assume it was 10 cents?

        I’ve just calculated that those 10 cents invested at the same “discount rate of 5%” would now be worth:

        $1,115,037,259,926,530,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00

        So, maybe it would have been a better idea, if God really had wanted to ‘save the world’, to have put 10 cents into a high interest bank account in the year zero for maturity in the year 2000. Slightly less traumatic than seeing your son die a painful death IMO.

      • Scott Basinger

        We have to adapt to ‘climate change’ in a warming world. That means cooling. Somehow. Give us our ‘adaptation’ money so we can buy a covered football stadium to keep all the ‘climate change’ out. Thanks!

      • We have to adapt to ‘climate change’ in a warming world.

        More air conditioning should do it.

        (If we live anywhere except San Francisco, which already has its own.)

        Max

      • Steven Mosher,

        You said ”

        you still don’t get it.

        Well I’d say that is a statement about people not accepting your beliefs. That’s because you can’t explain them and avoid simple questions you really should be able to answer. If you can’t answer them, and have to use diversion to avoid them, it demonstrates clearly that no one should accept your beliefs. They are yours and they are supported.

        I asked you what are the impacts of ACO2 and what are their costs. You couldn’t or wouldn’t answer. Therefore why should anyone believe your belief. You can’t back it up. You can’t justify why you believe.

        In what you did say you used exaggeration and avoidance tactics. You gave an estimate of $400 billion cost for the USA for 1 m sea level rise (but didn’t answer my question as to what are the impacts, given that the costs of sea level rise is trivial).

        Regarding your comment on sea level rise, the 1 m sea level rise you gave is a high estimate, not the central estimate. So are being selective on the high side and, therefore, have demonstrated you are an alarmist. Therefore, you are an extremists and unreliable.

        Secondly, you gave a figure of $400 billion. You didn’t acknowledge that that is a trivial cost when spread over 90 years and in the context of the GDP over that time.

        Lastly, the $400 billion USA for 1 m sea level rise seems to be a high figure compared with $1 trillion for 1 m sea level rise for the whole world: “Economic impacts of substantial sea level rise: http://www.springerlink.com/content/851112j434t26502/fulltext.pdf

      • You still don’t get it. You might think that 400B is trivial. Guess what?
        It doesnt matter what you think. It doesnt matter whether you get the answers to your questions or not. Nobody owes you an answer.
        You dont get to ask questions. If you had the power to decide, then your questions might be important. But you dont, so they are not. You get to play in a sand box. If you want answers about impacts and costs, go read WG2. If you have questions sign up as a reviewer. Ask away. The point remains that the conversation will shift to impacts. Other people will ask the questions. Not you. If you want to influence power, you supply answers. Get it. You have no power. Those in power get to ask the questions. To influence them, you better have answers, not questions.

      • Steven Mosher,

        Your sounding like a bit of a nut case. Your are telling me not to ask questions, but instead to give answers. I have in other comments on other threads.

        In this case, you made pronouncements. So I asked questions. By so doing I showed that you have a big ego but couldn’t back up your opinions. That is your beliefs are based on nothing. They are just baseless beliefs. You cannot back up your arguments. You’re just another alarmists.

        By the way, it is you that doesn’t get it. For someone who tries to make out he is numerate, you sure don’t get this one. The link I gave above estimates the global cost of a 1m sea level rise at about $1 trillion, that’s about 0.03% of global GDP to 2100. That’s negligible! Get it yet?

        Clearly, on the matter of impacts you have no understanding of what you are talking about, do you? If you did, you would have been happy to answer my question, pour out whatever you know and pontificate indefinitely.

      • This is not about “buying off” a few Republicans, whatever that means. You have no concept about what is going on in this and the next Congress. The House is going after EPA on CO2 regulation. What happens remains to be seen but the scientific debate may well be a prominent feature, The USGCRP research budget will also be on the table. Thus the biggest climate fight lies ahead, not behind.

      • BFJ Cricklewood

        Mosher : Governors and mayors with brains will be at trough for adaptation dollars, regardless if they are blue or red.

        Yes, CAGW was from the outset cleverly designed to feed the totalitarian agenda.

    • A wise general might choose to avoid the power collision, by shifting the battlefield.. as I said.

      It is very easy when you control the messaging to claim that the last war is over and won and to simply move on to impacts.

      The science is “settled” Thats not an epistemic claim and never was.
      That’s a pragmatic statement that you are wasting your time by challenging it. No one is listening when you challenge it.

      Now, since the battlefield is shifting to impacts you have a choice.

      you dont get to choose the battlefield. That’s been chosen for you.

      • Impact of Germany closing down its nuclear power plants and squandering hundreds of billions on solar?

        More brown coal being burned.

        Greenies like to emulate Rachel Carson’s genocidal banning of DDT.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        It was obvious since ocean acidification became the resort, that nothing mattered but the wanted result.
        That does not mean people who stay concentrated on the original memes are pointless.

      • Mosher, you do not understand the battle. We have won at the international (Kyoto) level and the legislative (cap and trade) level so all that remains is the regulatory (EPA) level. We own the House so let us see what we can do. The impacts and adaptation gambit is fine but first we have to stop EPA from rationing carbon energy. Note that the scientific debate is the Republican position so it is far from over.

        In the meantime enjoy the COP show.

      • @Mosher The science is “settled” … That’s a pragmatic statement that you are wasting your time by challenging it … the battlefield is shifting to impacts you have a choice.

        Just drink the kool-aid and accept the official dogma? Close to 100% of climate science is government-funded, you are never going to match this, and hence never going to have any climate science not pre-committed to advancing the cause of big government.

        May as well get your snout in the trough along with everyone else, since you too are paying for the trough.

      • Mosher’s already got his snout well and truly in the trough!

  50. NCAR is to NSF what GISS is to NASA, namely a well funded CAGW stronghold. The quotes posted above must be read in that context. Skepticism is not acknowledged.

  51. What do you think climate science and policy would look like if the IPCC worked for the World Bank, instead of the UNFCCC?

    If the people who are running the show are CAGW alarmist or swallow the scaremongering, then I’d say the process would be flawed from the start.

    The process needs to be run by people with impeccable integrity, totally impartial, and not in the slightest biased.

    Any such process must not be about climate change. It must be about all risks in a totally impartial way.

    In my opinion by far the greatest risks are the near term economic damage that CAGW alarmist’s policies will do to the world economy.

    • By not biased do you mean skeptical? If not then what? One either accepts CAGW or not. There is no middle ground.

      The IPCC does not work for the UNFCC in fact the IPCC was not invited to present at the coming COP. Nor does the IPCC make science or policy so the question is not well founded.

      • I mean impartial. The important point I was trying to make is that ACO2 is just one of many risks. It should not be dealt with to the exclusions of all risks we face. The people running the show must be impartial and have no biases. IPCC, UNFCC and climate scientist would be invited to make submissions and present arguments in the same way as those presenting on all other risks. I would also sugges thtat due diligence needs to be done on the ACO2 because it has been over funded compared with other risks. It has also had enormous media attention and driven by ideology. A truly impartial – intergalactic judge – would balance up the work done on ACO2 with the work that should have been done on the other risks.

      • Peter Lang, “…that ACO2 is just one of many risks.” Yep. And it seems to be a pretty good tracer gas for evaluating overall climate risk. Unfortunately, that perspective hasn’t sunk in quite yet.

      • Capt Dallas,

        Peter Lang, “…that ACO2 is just one of many risks.” Yep. And it seems to be a pretty good tracer gas for evaluating overall climate risk. Unfortunately, that perspective hasn’t sunk in quite yet.

        Your answer suggests you may be focused on climate changed and missed the meaning of my comment. ACO2 is one of many risks. That is, climate change is one of many risks. All risks should be considered in a properly balanced way. We should not focus on one risk to the exclusion of all others. We should not just pick out climate change risk and focus on it.

  52. “Whither (wither?) climate science?”
    Regarding AGW, a prudent approach would be to declare victory and withdraw before atmospheric CO2 concentrations start to decline.

    In tandem, get into something that people will buy with less coercion. Exchange traded weather derivatives, perhaps. Also space weather that may affect satellites etc. Call them climate derivatives if that helps you relax.

    • michael hart

      Regarding AGW, a prudent approach would be to declare victory and withdraw before atmospheric CO2 concentrations start to decline.

      During the cool PDO phase:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/normalise/from:1979.3

      • Exactly. It could be sooner than people think.

      • You are unbelievable

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/from:1979.3/plot/rss/normalise/trend

        Where is the sign for decline in CO2?

        Isn’t there any limit on, how badly you are willing to err?

      • I look at that data and see CO2 lagging temperature, but tracking it quite closely.

      • Pekka

        Where is the sign for decline in CO2?

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/normalise/from:1979.3/plot/rss/normalise/trend

        The graph shows a direct correlation between El Nino and increase in CO2 concentration, and La Nina and decrease in CO2 concentration.

        During the warm PDO phase, the strength of the El Nino is in general greater than that of La Nina, as a result CO2 concentration increases.

        During the cool PDO phase, the strength of the the El Nino is in general lesser than that of La Nina, as a result CO2 concentration should decrease.

      • There are short term correlations, but where is the decline?

        The consistently positive derivative is the main factor about which Salby’s method say absolutely nothing. There’s not the least signal that would hint on reduction in this trend. It will without doubt continue as long as CO2 emissions from fossil fuels remain large.

        All this has been discussed here in tens of messages but some people never learn even the most unquestionable facts.

      • Pekka

        some people never learn even the most unquestionable facts.

        We have been in the warm PDO phase. As a result, CO2 concentration has been going up. Let us wait and see what will happen to the CO2 concentration when we enter the full cool PDO phase.

      • At the beginning of each year human beings have a monumental task. It requires a great deal of work. Their job is to loft a simply gigantic mount of CO2 by the end of the year by combusting an immense amount of fossil fuel. Yes they could give up, but there are no signs they will. They drill. They haul. They buy. They sell. It’s gung ho. They will not flag. They will not give up. To suggest their efforts could be erased by some silly Pacific index – LMAO.

      • Girma wrote:

        We have been in the warm PDO phase. As a result, CO2 concentration has been going up [or so Girma hypothesises]. Let us wait and see what will happen to the CO2 concentration when we enter the full cool PDO phase.

        The previous negative/cool phase of the PDO (1947-1977) didn’t see a reduction of atmospheric CO2 (or even a reduction in the rate of growth of CO2, as shown by your WFT derivate of CO2 ppm graph). The Mauna Loa record of atmospheric CO2 only started in 1958, but it shows steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 over the period overlapping with the 1947-1977, and indeed for the entire record to date.

      • Some airily dismiss all the work of all the Chemists who measured atmospheric CO2 before the Mauna Loa record (as collected by Ernst-Georg Beck). I don’t. (Some of the same people seem happy to accept oceanic pH measurements though.)

        I think it’s even harder to argue that not only could none of those Chemists accurately measure absolute concentrations, but that they were also incapable of measuring downward trends in the data.

        The Pinotubo cooling produced a commensurate dip in atmospheric CO2 increase. Post WWII hasn’t exactly seen a lot of cooling, so no surprise that Mauna Loa CO2 hasn’t declined. Hard as we try to exponentially increase CO2 emissions, the CO2 sinks don’t look like they are having any trouble keeping up.

        All these suggestions that there are some cool decades coming due to oceanic/solar influences: If this happens, why will the temperature-dependence of atmospheric CO2 levels suddenly change in a cool period when it hasn’t done so in the last 50 or 60 years that included warm periods? The rationale is based on observations of aqueous CO2 solutions that were established long before the first IR measurements.

  53. The very fact that we are now moving towards attribution arguments proves that the warming signal due to CAGW is not robust and is often lost within natural variability. Game over for CAGW as they have been reduced to clutching at straws in the wind, or in this case hurricanes etc…..
    Of course traumatic weather events bring with them emotional responses and it will be these that the alarmists will play to and not the science, but hasn’t it always been so?

    • Tomas Milanovic

      Thank you for your reply re Navier-Stokes. If I understand what you have said, the quest is: a “search for a PDF which describes all probabilities of these patterns (oscillations) on all time scales.”

      This I have linked in my mind to your subsequent statement:

      “As the variables don’t separate in non linear systems, it is hopeless to want to quantify what “contribution” comes from X or Y knowing that everything varies simultaneously.”

      And my question from the above: Is there some way to derive the strength of a contribution? If I understand correctly, the answer would be: no. Yet you listed several: orbital considerations may be number one, solar variability number two, hydrological cycle may be number three. Orbital influences could be profoundly strong, and then wane only to return at a later date. One phase of solar variability may be strong, and another phase inconsequential; etc.

      I am curious about the hydrological cycle as it may relate to the narrow boundaries of global temperatures for the last 4 billion years. It seems by its energy storage and release, that an understanding of its strength at dampening oscillations may provide a route to a PDF for all time scales.

      Again, thank you for your thoughtful replies.

  54. Tomas Milanovic

    (My personal view is that theories that tell about serious consequences only later than 200 years in the future should not worry us now.)

    I have the same view Pekka with the small difference that I would replace 200 by 100. Just to keep a round figure.

    I also agree with your first paragraph even if this is only a small part of the story.
    The problem of distingushing the variations in some dynamical variable, f.ex temperature, due to a variation of a parameter X or a parameter Y knowing that both varied is at the heart of the never ending argumentation about what is “natural” and what is not even if this distinction is hopelessly inadequate to describe a non linear chaotic system.

    The way I see it qualitatively is the following:

    – the strongest factor of all is the one which leads the system to oscillate between glacial and interglacial periods. Assuming that Milankovitch is right (and there is sofar no alternative) then the Milankovitch cycles are the strongest variability factor which can’t be overidden by anything. From there follows that the climate will necessarily get warmer untill it reverses and we’ll head again to a glacial age. When this will happen, no climate theory gave even a hint of answer sofar. Admittedly there is no evidence that the Milankovitch cycles existed in their modern form for the 4 billion years of the Earth’s climate. Hence the second factor.

    – the second strongest factor is the Sun’s variability. This mainly because the Sun is there to stay. It is not known to have gone into some fancy and exotic transitories during billions of years. But even a very small variation in the power or frequency domain is largely enough to dominate a chaotic system’s behaviour on the small Earth’s scale when it lasts.

    – at very short time scales (centuries) anything goes. Vulcanoes, cloudiness, atmospheric composition, oceanic oscillations, biosphere may induce strong transients which temporarily move the attractor to a slightly different topology. This means concretely that the probabilities of this or that pattern on these time scales will change when the above factors change.
    As the variables don’t separate in non linear systems, it is hopeless to want to quantify what “contribution” comes from X or Y knowing that everything varies simultaneously.
    So at these time scales I don’t know which one of these factors would be the “strongest” but I know that nobody knows either. I suspect that the strongest factor is albedo variation, the second strongest water vapour feedback (related to the former) and the third strongest the CO2.

    That’s why I don’t even argue with those who say that the strongest factor is the CO2.
    Perhaps yes or perhaps no.
    Because it is a tautology, I agree that on a hypothetical time scale where nothing would vary much with the exception of CO2, most variations on that time scale could be (mainly) explained by CO2. Of course by “explaining” I mean probabilistic explanations because a unique deterministic prediction is not possible as I said above.
    Only data on a larger scale (e.g thousands of years with significant CO2 variation) would give evidence of relative strengths and we don’t have them
    .
    But I don’t consider that very important anyway – even if one assumed that there would be a short transient in the probability of patterns (mainly) driven by a CO2 perturbation, it wouldn’t last. On longer time scales than centuries, the dominating climate features take again over and the fundamental evolution would not change – it will get warmer untill it stops and we head to the next ice age.

    • Assuming that Milankovitch is right (and there is sofar no alternative) then the Milankovitch cycles are the strongest variability factor which can’t be overidden by anything.

      There is a really an excellent alternative. Ewing and Donn climate theory is much more believable than Milankovitch.

      • The reason that I mentionned the period of 200 years was to make the argument insensitive to the slowly developing variability that may ultimately be very strong.

    • - the strongest factor of all is the one which leads the system to oscillate between glacial and interglacial periods. Assuming that Milankovitch is right (and there is sofar no alternative) then the Milankovitch cycles are the strongest variability factor which can’t be overidden by anything.

      It seems the Milankovitch cycles are only effective when there is ice at the poles. When the poles are ice free, the normal situation for plant Earth, the extreme warm-cold cycles do not seem to be have much effect (see Jim Hansen’s Figure 1 here http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

      (I recognise we did not have such detailed data on temperature before the current ice sheets. However, we do have pretty detailed information on the warm-cold phases in previous ‘cold house’ phases so clearly the cycles have much greater temperature variations when there is ice at the poles than when there is not.)

      “Vote for a stable climate. Warm the Earth. Avoid the next ice age.”

  55. Tomas Milanovic

    When you smooth out ENSO, what you are left with is with the climate signal:

    Girma the purpose of what I wrote was precisely to explain that you can NOT “smooth out” ENSO. At least not for longer time scales.

    Because you don’t know what PDF the ENSO obeys (if any) and not even whether it is a stationary distribution or not, all you can do are just wild hypothesis that are based on nothing.
    Sure you can say for a given ENSO that it changes all temperatures by x so what I do is just T – x everywhere. The problem is that you don’t know x everywhere, only in a part of the Pacific. There are lags too.
    However if you can prove what is the PDF of ENSO and on what independent variales it depends, I suggest you publish it fast – nobody has found that sofar and nobody will for a long time.

    • Tomas

      What is wrong with the following smoothing of ENSO?

      http://bit.ly/OsdxJf

      (The smoothed curve has has a correlation coefficient of 0.93 with the observed annual GMST)

      • Tomas Milanovic

        Girma your chart doesn’t say what you did to “smooth out ENSO” so I can’t say what is wrong with it.
        However ENSO (and other oceanic oscillations) IS climate.
        So I wonder why you’d want to “smooth out” climate.
        Ultimately if you succeed to “smooth out” everything you will get a horizontal line with a correlation coefficient of 1.
        To that I would add that statistical techniques (filtering) are only possible for windows narrower than the time scale of the whole observation.
        That means that they are inadequate to say anything about larger time scales unless you have a theoretical model which shows that the filtering done can be generalised to all time scales.
        It is precisely such a theoretical model that doesn’t exist.

  56. R. Gates | November 21, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    Your insistence that volcanic activity is related as a major causative factor in SSW events, despite all solid physical evidence to the contrary, ……… leads me to see that we see the universe so differently that it’s probably not worth continuing a conversation.
    Good day sir!

    Indeed.
    However, if the Sudden Stratospheric Warming is a bet on to ‘get out of jail card’ for absence of forthcoming NGW ‘No Global Warming’ it may not work.
    – Polar jet stream is more often diverted into ‘meridional’ flow by the Icelandic and the Aleutian lows (caused by down/up welling in the two areas)
    – Stratosphere contains no energy of any significance, to affect global temperatures.
    – SSW in the Northern Hemisphere is a regular occurrence every winter, and moves inconsistently between December and April.
    – SSW does not correlate with the any of SST regimes (during the above months) either in the North Atlantic or the North Pacific.
    – SSW appears to follow volcanic gas emissions from Kuriles. Kamchatka and Aleuts, there were over 100 eruptions (and many more hot gas blow-outs) in the 3 areas in the last 30 years.
    – In the last 30 years there was only one notable Antarctic SSW event, in 2002, coinciding with strong activity at the Mt. Erebus volcano (Ross Island)

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Erebus.htm

    but good explanation by the ‘climate science’ for the Antarctic SSW in 2002
    “The Antarctic Stratospheric Sudden Warming of 2002: A Self-Tuned Resonance”

    You and colleagues have a bit of a problem on your hands.
    And good luck to you Sir.!

  57. Whither Climate Science? Global Cooling hasn’t been trotted out in a while, sounds like it could be a lucrative field of study.

  58. captdallas
    November 21, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    vuc, to avoid the same “sensitivity” hamster wheel, SSW events are poorly defined and need to have a energy based scale in order to be useful. Volcanic aerosols likely do have a significant impact, but are not likely “the” cause.

    Cap’n
    (sorry, Reply link stop working on my pc)
    I don’t think it is much to do with either energy or the aerosols, just hot gases from volcanic blow-ups punching into stratosphere.
    Take a good look at the intensity and short time span breaking the previous max (top black line) of the well known 2009, then record breaking SSW

    January 2009 KVERT (Kamchatka Volcanic Eruption Response Team)
    Seismic activity at Shceveluch (Kamchatka) was above background levels during 2-9 January.
    Ash plumes rose to an altitude of 8.8 km (28,900 ft) a.s.l. on 7 January and to an altitude of 5.7 km (18,700 ft) a.s.l. on the number of other days during the reporting period.

    The sudden surge in the stratospheric temperature in the first half of January is consistent with above volcanic activity.
    Peaks of that kind are not generated by the surface warm air flux.

    If ash plumes went to ~29000 ft, what about the hot air and atmosphere above it? Moving in the direction of the least resistance upwards, i.e. decreasing air density.

    Now look at the jet stream on 01/01/2009 near Kamchatka –normal

    4th Jan 2 days later after first blow-out – strong deflection as plumes move clockwise, US and Canada basking in the warm air from Pacific of Mexico.

    10th of Jan vortex forming in the N. Pacific funneling warm air upwards
    US and Canada cooling down, air from the N.Pacific

    15th Jan jet stream moving to near N.Pole blasting Canada and US blasted from the Arctic.

    25th Jan Kamchatka gone to sleep. US and Canada get respite, warming is back

    • Vuc, that little spike in energy cause a cold snap that covered most of the US including Florida. The transition started in Jan. peaked in Feb and returned to below average in March. The cold was so intense if killed fish in the Florida Keys, latitude 25N. The total energy loss was in the Ballpark of 10^21 Joules or about a years worth of ocean energy imbalance. Now if there were an energy index associated with SSW, it might be interesting to compare how the 1988 to `1998 lull looked compared to some other “forcing”, like say CO2, just for grins.

      comparing all the squiggles is neat, but once you assign energy to the squiggles, a whole different perspective emerges.

      • The spike doesn’t need much energy, just enough to shoot into the stratosphere. Cool jet stream goes around it, they don’t mix one goes upwards high density, the other lower density circulates horizontaly.
        Have you looked at the links?
        First and last link show jet stream not too far from Kamchatka, as soon as the first gas blow out happened (second link), jet stream gives it wide berth, and when the volcano goes to sleep jet stream is back.
        Occasionally jet stream creates local vortex –link 3, this pulls more warm air upwards, as shown in the Gates graphs, but that is very rare.

      • The spike it self doesn’t need much energy since that is only at 10mb. the entire impact of the event that caused that spike is where the money is.

        So take the time of that spike and look at the surface temperature anomaly and area impacted during that time. Until then we are not on the same page, it is all about the energy.

        Now those vary rare “major” events typically occur every two years, from 1988 to 1998 there was only one event. That would be a lull that had an impact on surface temperature whatever the cause may be.

        That is why Gates and I are talking about attempting to determine the energy associated with the events and setting up an index to grade the impact of the events on the energy balance.

      • There was SSW in 2003 which was analyzed in great detail by scientists, and guess where the satellite caught up with it, just off Kamchatka, few degrees anticlockwise.
        .http://www.ann-geophys.net/28/2133/2010/angeo-28-2133-2010.pdf

        Energy is down at the ground and sea surface level mainly in the subtropics where the lot of portable energy is to be found, and as it rises up it is moved around by the Rossby wave eastwards to the higher northern latitudes. There is no huge amount of energy in the stratosphere; the air is so thin, that even if every molecule of the stratosphere was at 1000C, it would not volume for volume match the energy contained in the air of your living room.
        You can do calculation, or Gates should have done it.
        Here I give up.

      • If Gates is a wise and cautious man he would study Jan the 2009’s SSW and consider what kind of physical process, associated with his ideas could create that spike which appeared out of nowhere, to reach its maximum intensity within matter of hours.

        Then he should consider next:
        January 2009 KVERT (Kamchatka Volcanic Eruption Response Team)
        Seismic activity at Shceveluch (Kamchatka) was above background levels during 2-9 January. Ash plumes rose to an altitude of 8.8 km (28,900 ft) a.s.l. on 7 January and to an altitude of 5.7 km (18,700 ft) a.s.l. on the number of other days during the reporting period.
        The choice is simple.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        CaptnDallas said:

        “The total energy loss was in the Ballpark of 10^21 Joules”

        This is the first estimate I’ve seen. How did you arrive at it? WAG?

      • Gates,
        I roughly converted surface anomaly to absolute temperature (BEST has area estimates of Tmax and Tmin) times area times time. Too crude to be of much use but the order of magnitude is impressive.

        BTW the average northern to southern hemisphere land temperature difference is ~2C for both Tmax and Tmin. That does change with ocean oscillations which would impact average Wall flux.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        The number is impressive and your technique as well. Independently, through a completely different method invovling ocean to atmosphere heat flux, I’d arrived at a similar order of magnitude, so your number caught my eye. It’s roughly 0.25 w/m2 averaged over the planet by my rough calculations, but others are getting much more refined numbers. Not insignificant.

      • CaptDallas,

        IF the current TOA energy imbalance is really around 0.8 to 1 w/m^2 (and I happen to think this is a pretty reasonable range), this does not include calculations of energy involved in SSW events, which would reduce the actual TOA imbalance by some not insignificant amount as we’ve been discussing. Some level of SSW event occurs I either the SH or NH every year, with major ones now about every 3 years. Based on early calculations, the minor ones could be roughly equal to .04 to .08 w/m^2 and the major ones up to around .25 w/m^2. None of this SSW outgoing energy is currently accounted for in either GCM’s or estimates of Earth’s energy balance.

      • R. Gates,

        Following your discussion of SSW*s i have been pondering what happens to the energy after the event. A warmer stratosphere radiates more to the space but it emits radiation also downwards returning a significant part of the energy back to troposphere. There might be some additional effects that affect the final contribution to the energy balance.

        Have you considered this in your estimate?

      • Gates, “this does not include calculations of energy involved in SSW events, which would reduce the actual TOA imbalance by some not insignificant amount as we’ve been discussing. ”

        It does now. Part of the 20Wm-2 minor adjustment appears to be due to Arctic mixed phase clouds, which appear to my anyway, to be linked to
        SSW.

        The internal physics are much more interesting that the silly TOA which includes rather poor polar coverage until recently.

      • Pekka, “but it emits radiation also downwards returning a significant part of the energy back to troposphere. There might be some additional effects that affect the final contribution to the energy balance.”

        Yep, that is the hard part though. The mixed phase clouds in the Arctic are like a ground plane for an IR Antenna. The polar TOA measurements are poor at best, so it is hard to get a reliable estimate of how much energy is going where. In fact, in the Antarctic, the OLR measurements even show what appears to be the lines of geomagnetic flux. At very low energy levels, it is hard to tell what is what.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Pekka,

        Your question about energy radiating back downward into the troposphere and the effects on the energy calculation is a good one. In fact some of the energy does radiate and advect back down into the troposphere, but the calculations I looked at are net of that. In an average sized SSW you might get 1 to 2 x 10^22 Joules net loss which would be roughly equal to .07 to .13 w/m^2 negative forcing on Earth’s energy system. Again, these figures are rough estimates but the general scale is correct.

  59. I am a businessman, not a scientist, and I am afraid to admit a lot of scientific stuff on this site is way above my head, so please go easy on me. Seems some of my fellow business men are getting deeply concerned, newspaper quote “ A coalition of the world’s largest investors called on governments on Tuesday to ramp up action on climate change and boost clean-energy investment or risk trillions of dollars in investments and disruption to economies.
    In an open letter, the alliance of institutional investors, responsible for managing $22.5 trillion in assets, said rapidly growing greenhouse gas emissions and more extreme weather were increasing investment risks globally.”

    I can see the distribution of CO2 in not equal in latitudes, but from what I can understand is that we are in trouble if the concentrations get up to 450 ppm in the (mainly Northern Hemisphere) industrial areas as shown in red in this 2008 NASA image. I can understand a red line at 450 ppm and rising trends, as I use this sort of information in my business dealings daily.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/airs-20081009_prt.htm

    I see climate etc is a site with considerable climate expertise, knowledge and some degree of scepticism, could one of you kind persons please confirm my understanding or explain it to me if my understanding is wrong. Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen

    • Nothing to be concerned about unless you are in the carbon trading, if so get out double quick.

    • Thanks Vukcevic – guess you can’t believe everything you read in the press

    • TeamLeader,

      I am a scientist, not a businessman, and I am not afraid to admit there is no scientific merit, absolutely none, in calls for governments “to ramp up action on climate change and boost clean-energy investment or risk trillions of dollars in investments and disruption to economies.”

      The alliance of institutional investors, responsible for managing $22.5 trillion in assets, spoke utter nonsense when they “said rapidly growing greenhouse gas emissions and more extreme weather were increasing investment risks globally.”

      Why ?

      1. There is no convincing evidence CO2 causes global warming.

      2. If CO2 caused global warming, the solution would not be to close CO2-emitting plants in the United States and Western Europe and move them to Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.

      3. Calls to “ramp up action on climate change” are calls to transfer more wealth to further reduce inequalities.

      4. I agree inequalities were obscene in the past, but deceit is not the way to solve this problem.

      5. The integrity of government science was compromised after 1945, in a futile attempt to eliminate inequalities and nuclear wars in the future:

      See: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/ and

      http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1807

      - Oliver K. Manuel
      PhD Nuclear Chemistry
      Postdoc Space Physics
      Former NASA Principal
      Investigator for Apollo

    • Thank you for the strong comments and opinions they are genuinely appreciated

      • Thank you for your willingness to consider information that is both
        a.) Factually correct, and . . . b.) Distasteful

        Purposefully deceptive information on energy stored in cores of heavy atoms and stars started to be published in 1946.

        George Orwell wrote a futuristic novel in 1948 about a post-WWII government that would control people by distorting information and electron surveillance in “1984”:

        http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

        President Eisenhower warned in 1961 of this threat to our form of government in his farewell address to the nation:

        Finally, do not be discouraged ! Deceit provides only short-term advantage; Truth always wins the war.

      • As noted in some of the comments below, there is great stress in society today. Depression, suicide, mental illness and addiction are on the rise because world leaders decided in 1945 to establish the United Nations and to manipulate data and experimental observations in order to hide, obscure the powerful force of destruction and creation after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were destroyed on 6 & 9 Aug 1945.

        “Neutron repulsion,” The Apeiron J. 19, 123-150 (2012)

        http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf

  60. “With the science established, we must move to more direct solutions in service to society, directly supporting those on the front lines who can make the most of our insights”

    The arrogant bastards.
    Obviously never done a history of science or ethics of science course. Eugenics all over again. Lysenkoism all over again.

    15 years ago the major income stream for psychiatrists was the treatment of male impotence. It was ‘known’ that male impotence was the result of an unresolved Oedipal complex in patients. Very expensive therapy was the only solution; Viagra proved to be better that the shrinks.

    • The only thing you need to refute the phrase “With the science established…..” is a few decades of experience having witnessed one sure thing theory after another blown to kingdom come. There is a strong correlation between the level of trust I have for a scientist and the amount of humility he shows in an admission of how little he knows.

  61. Chief Hydrologist

    That is too glib by far – Vuk – as response to a serious and polite comment.

    Although I would argue from the data that most warming was quite natural and anthropogenic emissions are a mere 4% of natural flux – the potential for emissions of 8%, 16%, etc in short order this century (as economies grow) suggests the potential for destabilisation of climate. This is so because of what is known about complex and dynamic systems. They are subject to abrupt – and potentially extreme – change as the system is pushed to a tipping point and then changes propagate through multiple positive and negative feedbacks.

    ‘The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic–and often extreme–shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less. The causes of abrupt climate changes have not been clearly established, but the triggering of events is likely to be the result of multiple natural processes. This report looks at the current scientific evidence and theoretical understanding to describe what is currently known about abrupt climate change, including patterns and magnitudes, mechanisms, and probability of occurrence. It identifies critical knowledge gaps concerning the potential for future abrupt changes (including those aspects of change most important to society and economies), outlines a research strategy to close those gaps, surveys the history of climate change, and makes a series of specific recommendations for the future.’ http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Abrupt-Climate-Change-Inevitable-Surprises/10136

    The question then is what to do about it. There is the fantasy of carbon taxes – a one stop pseudo solution that has the force of unswerving and magical belief.

    ‘Numerous scholars have demonstrated that, while the scale of the needed carbon emissions reductions is extremely large, price-based systems by themselves are not likely to induce sufficient technology change to deliver the needed reductions, particularly given the “lock-in” of cheap, readily available dirty technologies and the modest pollution prices that are tolerable to politicians…A major problem with all carbon pricing solutions is the fact that the private sector will not (for recognized reasons) invest adequately on its own in low-carbon solutions and technology change – even in the presence of carbon pricing.’

    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-carbon-tax-fantasy/

    Tolerable to the public as well I would suggest. Although a ‘revenue neutral tax’ seems to be getting a run – the fact remains that any serious substitution requires higher prices than any tax yet in place and would result in the dying up of revenue. Leaving higher energy prices, a poorer populace and less productive economies.

    Solutions must focus on technological evolution – but there are many other approaches that involve global economic growth, safe water and sanitation, education and democracy and good governance. These measures reduce population pressures, improve efficiencies and production methods, reduce pollution, conserves and restores ecosystems and agricultural land. There are multiple approaches with multiple objectives that are more likely to succeed.

    ‘Climate Pragmatism, a new policy report released July 26th (2011) by the Hartwell group, details an innovative strategy to restart global climate efforts after the collapse of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. This pragmatic strategy centres on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures — three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. As such, Climate Pragmatism offers a framework for renewed American leadership on climate change that’s effectiveness, paradoxically, does not depend on any agreement about climate science or the risks posed by uncontrolled greenhouse gases.’ http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

    Cheap and abundant energy is the solution – for instance http://www.ga.com/nuclear-energy/energy-multiplier-module- with that we can strip COsub>2 from the atmosphere and turn it into liquid fuel.

    The other significant technological innovation is the simple ideas of ‘conservation farming’. With these ideas food production can be increased by the neccessary 70% by 2050 , soil and water can be conserved, inputs of chemicals can be reduced substantially, downstream ecosystems are protected and immense amounts of carbon sequestered in organic content in agicultural soils. This is happening globally because it makes so much economic sense.

    Conservation farming remains a critical issue for the US as the current – and multi-decadal – drought evolves. ‘Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent and/or severe (prolonged?). Vice-versa for negative AMO. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive values of the AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dust bowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought.’ http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html

    It would be criminal not to learn the lessons of the past in this. I love this one a lot.

    There are many global challenges – but the problem remains of building a global momentum to solve them. Or perhaps we shall just muddle through as usual.

    Robert I Ellison
    Chief Hydrologist

    • The preachers of an AGW Doomsday scenarios have their apocalyptic faith-based beliefs. Hysterical religious beliefs aside, the simple fact is that climate is always changing. The geophysical record of the Earth tells the story of warm periods and huge dinosaurs that once flourished and then perished and ice ages and long periods when mile-deep glaciers covered the lands. We know glaciers come and go–sometimes obliterating everything–and, more than that: we know it is nature’s way: there is nothing humanity can do to cause or prevent it. That is the science; and, only superstition prevents us from seeing this natural process at work, without our help and irrespective of our concerns about it.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The world is not warming for a decade or three more – as a result of chaotic climate shifts on multi-decadal scales. This is very little understood in political and social circles – but the meme being picked up is that these shifts imply even greater climate sensitivity. It is both true and not true. It depends on how close to a tipping point climate is at – climate is exquisitely sensitive in the region of the phase space topology transition but not otherwise. Transitions are inherently unpredictable – and forecasts must be approached as a probability density function as discussed above. There is a finite probability that the next transition – in a decade or three – could be catastrophically (in the sense of René Thom) warmer or cooler. In this sense the very term global warming misunderstands this underlying global chaotic dynamic entirely.

        You are right – it could be entirely natural. But to discount entirely the potential for ever increasing emissions of carbon to destabilise climate is an argument from ignorance. We had best be prepared at any rate. And there are other things such as the ocean and hydrological issues that we have a better historical handle on. Th US should prepare for extended drought – for reasons entirely unrelated to anthropogenic carbon emissions.

        However, the cultural future belongs to those who can frame a positive agenda. This has been the failure of the cultural right for many decades. It has all been reflexively negative. Useful when there was an external enemy – but not useful against the barbarians inside the walls of the citadel of scientific enlightenment.

        Nothing the Hartwell group proposes is problematic for economies and human development. Indeed – it is based entirely on increasing human capacities and dignity. Continued technological innovation is a key to the future.

      • A positive agenda? Unfortunately, too much government is not the only problem. The most unfortunate thing possible for any society is when institutions founded on truth begin to prefer fiction. For example, from Huffington Post:

        In the absence of aggressive government policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions… potentially dangerous temperature elevations… not just a possibility… a near certainty even if things start to change.

        We have seen this kind of propagana before: Jews have been the target of it in the past and they are again. And, every American that works in the free enterprise economy have also been targeted by individual liberty have been targeted by the the liberal fascism of the Left.

    • I take on board and thank you for your opinions and comments

  62. As fears of AGW wither away, whither the scientific method?

    • That, Wagathon, is the key question.

      I hope the deep roots of false AGW fears – going back to misinformation published in 1946 about energy in the cores of heavy atoms and stars – will be replaced with rigorously honest information based on the best available experimental measurements and observations.

      Then we will know there is, in fact, no energy crisis. Abundant energy is freely available for our use if governments will base policies and actions on scientific information, instead of misinformation parading as “settled science” – as real as the Emperor’s new clothes:

      http://www.mordent.com/folktales/hca/emperor/

  63. We look ter the future which is uncertain, where there be black
    swans, and we cannot make predictions with any certainty.

    Judith has posted threads on preparing fer uncertainty and fer
    disaster events. Seems all we can do is be resiliant, bulwarked
    by buoyant, low debt economies and by having in place response
    procedures fer emergencies like hurricanes, fire storms and flood.

    But what about IPCC and green activist advice ter governments?
    Living in the meme of CAGW, they have ‘seen’ the future and it
    is ‘hot’. But is this so? The science ain’t settled and the future
    could just as likely be ‘cold.’ Thirty years PDO cool period and predominance of la ninas is possible.

    In climate and economics we inhabit Extremistan and need ter be
    flexible and adaptive. So what are we doing?

    # We’re putting our eggs in one basket, that’s what we’re doing …
    living in the global warming meme though we don’t know which way
    the cold winds of reality will blow tomorrow .

    # We’re introducing wealth depleting carbon taxes on efficient energy
    …where we could be increasing produtivity, sequestering CO2 by conservation farming and increasing crop yields.

    # We’re subsidizing inefficient, intermittant ‘sustainable’ energy
    technology. like windturbines that shut down when the wind stops
    blowing or blows too hard. In the UK BBC weatherman Paul Hudson reported in 2011, that in 3 consecutive winters of intense cold there
    was little or no wind ter generate electricity.

    # Emergency plans? We are preparing fer some envisaged emergency scenarios like hurricanes but ignoring others like extreme cold weather when people die of hypothermia, pensioners who can’t afford heating, fer instance, and there are accidents on icy roads beause there’s no salt treatment, local governments jest didn’t anticipate cold weather.

    Say, I think I have seen the future and … it appears … ter be …
    foggy …and …confused…

    What’s new. )

    • “We have a situation where everything is presented out of context in space and time. Natural events are identified or presented as unnatural. Normal events are identified or presented as abnormal. Speculation about more unnatural or abnormal events is self-fulfilling.” (anon)

    • “# We’re putting our eggs in one basket, that’s what we’re doing …
      living in the global warming meme though we don’t know which way
      the cold winds of reality will blow tomorrow .”

      Life is robust because of it’s diversity- the tendency toward the monolithic
      has many potential bad consequences.

      “# We’re introducing wealth depleting carbon taxes on efficient energy
      …where we could be increasing produtivity, sequestering CO2 by conservation farming and increasing crop yields.”

      Inhibiting the use of energy, only makes sense in terms of buying time.
      It’s sort of like saving money for retirement. Part of the assumption is as you grow old, you will become weaker, and the clock is running- you will die.
      It’s fairly desperation situation if think we need to save resources for the future generation- in the long term it can’t possibly work.
      No civilization [a entity which multi-generational in it's nature] can function this way.
      Many people have the opinion that civilization fails precisely because it failed to conserve resources and I believe the main fallacy with such ideas is the idea that civilizations are *suppose to* remain static.

      That it is somehow good that a civilization should be unchanging for centuries or thousands of years. Instead of the idea that a non changing civilization is a dying civilization. Something not desirable.
      There are so many aspects about idea of limited resources which illogical, but I will grant that perhaps if one were living a thousand ago, it could pass for wisdom.
      And quite simply, we live in a different world and should eager to transition to a newer worlds. And such a world could be comprised of near infinite resources [which may become infinite].

  64. Science should always be backed up by empirical evidence, so I thought I’d summarise what empirical evidence exists for the main points I have made. Links and references for all these have been provided in previous posts and/or papers and articles I have provided before.

    There is empirical evidence …

    (a) that the heat transfer between two blackbodies is in accord with the quantification in Section 4 of my paper.

    (b) that air in equilibrium in a tall sealed insulated container will be warmer at the base than at the top, the difference being explained by the same adiabatic lapse rate which is proportional to the acceleration due to gravity – no coincidence.

    (c) that placing a cool blackbody close to a warmer one does slow the radiative rate of cooling of the warm one.

    (d) that evaporative cooling accelerates to compensate for any slowing of radiative cooling of the water surfaces.

    (e) that low clouds at night slow overall cooling of the land surface at night, this being because the compensating effect of conduction takes a longer period.

    (f) that surplus thermal energy in the atmosphere (causing temperatures above the plot based on the lapse rate) will be radiated away

    (g) that radiation from a cooler atmosphere does not transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface, and nor does conduction or convection.

    (h) that the surface temperatures of all planets with atmospheres can only be explained using the solar intensity and the adiabatic lapse rate. This is very clear cut on Venus where the surface hardly receives or emits any energy, so most heating of the atmosphere occurs when the atmosphere absorbs incoming Solar radiation. You cannot explain Venus temperatures using any radiative greenhouse effect, because such does not exist here, there or anywhere.

    • “(c) that placing a cool blackbody close to a warmer one does slow the radiative rate of cooling of the warm one. ”

      Not by any amount?

      What if they are the same temperature.
      They do effect each other, correct?

      And then what if cooler object was less than 1 C cooler?

      What experiment proves this?

      • Heat will transfer from the warmer body to the cooler one until they are the same temperature. That’s Physics. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How much? That’s standard physics also, demonstrated in numerous experiments and worked out using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for each and taking the difference – which is represented by the area between the Planck curves. When the temperatures approach each other that area of course approaches zero. It’s all in Section 4 of my March 2012 paper linked above. Try studying it one day.

      • I am sorry I read what you wrote wrong.

        I thought you meant the cooler bodies doesn’t slow the cooling of warmed body.

        I was interested in how much a cooler body does slow the cooling of warm body.
        I suppose, if two objects are different temperature, say 300K and 400 K, loosely one has 100 K difference. Or minus the Planck curve of 300 K blackbody from the 400 K blackbody, with remainder of energy heating cooler blackbody.
        But with everything [which is not blackbody] it gets more complicated.

    • You got if figured out and for the rest of the story, the globe stopped warming. AGW climate modelers cannot understand why and where their ‘warming’ went. However, they do know that all of their predictions were wrong and for everyone to see! That makes them feel very afraid; and, project their self-deception and hatred of America wherever they look. It makes them want to leave our world and look elsewhere in vain and deluded attempts to keep their global warming hoax alive. That is why they say, don’t look here on the Earth, look over there at Venus and at Mercury. See how hot it is there. Do you want that here?

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Except of course for the fact that the “globe” hasn’t stopped warming. The largest heat sink, the ocean, had doubled energy content since 2005:

        http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv

      • R Gates > The largest heat sink, the ocean, had doubled energy content since 2005:

        We don’t have reliable data for that.

      • –R Gates > The largest heat sink, the ocean, had doubled energy content since 2005:

        “We don’t have reliable data for that.” —

        The ocean is about 3 C or 276 K
        We know the ocean has not increase 276 times 2
        Or the ocean is not now 552 K [278 C]
        Nor increase by 10%: [303 K] 29 C
        Nor even 1%. Or .1 %
        As far humans having anything to do with
        it, you can try to claim .01%, but it’s pretty wacky idea.

      • Now the sun is anomalously quiet and it has been quiet for a while now. It is not surprising to many scientists that the combined satellite and radiosonde temperature data now indicate that there has been a cooling trend for years corresponding with this observed change in solar activity. The technology has been explained very well by Dick Thoenes (‘The stabilising effect of the oceans on climate’):

        High quality subsurface ocean temperature, salinity and density data are now available from a fleet of 3000 submersible floats that are distributed throughout the world’s oceans.18 The floats are designed to sink to a depth of 1000 or 2000 m, drift at that depth for ten days, then return to the surface, acquiring data during the ascent. At the surface, the data are transmitted via satellite to a series of ground monitoring stations. The floats then repeat the descent/ascent cycle. The floats are not tethered and drift with the ocean currents. The principal features of the solar heating of the ocean at various latitudes through the year may be understood by examining the results from selected Argo floats. Figure 1 summarizes a year of data from 5 Argo floats covering a range of latitudes from the equator to the Antarctic Circle in the southern central Pacific Ocean. The temperatures at 5 depths, 5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 m are shown as a time series for the year. The latitude drift of the floats is also shown. Because of variability in the float actuators, the depths are averages for each float with a standard deviation of approximately 0.2 m. The average latitude, longitude, depths and temperatures for each float are given in Table 1. The average temperatures show the expected decrease in temperature at higher latitudes.

  65. Agree, gbaikie, re yer ‘fallacy’.

    Plato, so influential in the western world, thought change was unnatural’,
    that ‘reality’ was the original form of things and it was important ter
    arrest change and return ter the golden age.’ This was what
    philosopher kings should seek ter bring about. Even I, a mere minnow
    in philosophy (and everything else )can see that Plato erred, nature
    ‘is’ change and complexity, adapt or die.

    But there are many ‘phiposopher kings terday, in ac-uh-dem-ic
    cloud towers, who know …KNOW… like (Plato) that we hafta return
    ter the golden age, we hafta stop the goddam flux!

    • The more things change the more they stay the same.

    • Ol’ Gaia’s gots
      The ADD
      And can’t leav’ off
      Activity

      And it’s not for
      That Plato flake
      That Gaia does
      The Booty-Shake

      For she pays prigs
      No never mind
      When they decry
      Her bump and grind

      No! Gaia craves
      Those manly bucks
      Who are in bed
      With her sweet flux

    • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

      And to contrast that to so much of Eastern thought, which realized that change was all there was, especially Taoism, and sought to understand it and even embrace it.

  66. Beth Cooper

    It seems that I learn something new every day. Today it was in the context of Plato.

    Thank you

  67. Popping some popcorn and sitting back to watch Mosh fight the “impacts” battle. Should be fun. Kind of like the sound of one hand clapping.

  68. RiHo08, thx, Popper’s ‘Open Society’ is a devastating critique of
    enemies of open debate .including Plato.
    Mike, witty metaphor, lol.

  69. The Sun is both the first and terminal reality and any variation in it that effects this is merely a qualitative change change in it but not the reality of it: it is the Sun, stupid.

  70. ‘Climate science’ – Wither or Whither? For the sake of our weak global economy and in the interests of real science, my fervent hope is that it is “Wither”.

  71. Tomas Milanovic

    I am curious about the hydrological cycle as it may relate to the narrow boundaries of global temperatures for the last 4 billion years. It seems by its energy storage and release, that an understanding of its strength at dampening oscillations may provide a route to a PDF for all time scales.

    RIH somebody who would be able to answer the question about the remarkable narrowness of the variation domain of the dynamical parameters (not only temperature) over 4 billions years would have the ultimate answer on climate dynamics.
    Nobody has that and I not more than anybody else.
    So I can’t answer that.

    I can only tell what it may suggest.
    It suggests that the chaotic attractor is rather small compared to the infinite dimensional phase space where the system lives.
    It suggests that the dynamics of the system are very strongly constrained.
    As this generally happens in systems with strong negative feedbacks, one might think that this particular system has indeed very strong negative feedbacks on most time scales.
    As the most important actor in energy flows which operates on most time scales is water and as we are in a domain where water may exist in all 3 phases, one might think that this is the factor which is mostly responsible for the “smallness” of the attractor.
    Of course it is just luck that put the Earth on a place where water is in all 3 phases but it may be this luck which explains the strongly constrained climatic dynamics.

    Now to answer quantitatively over such huge time scales, one would need a full dynamical theory of the climate what is probably the hardest scientific task there is.

    • The primary negative feedback is obviously the Planck response, i.e. the simple fact that a body heated with approximately constant power maintains an approximately constant temperature. From this point of view it might be more natural to ask:

      What are the positive feedbacks that have led to the surprisingly large variability in climate on the timescale of glacial cycles and beyond?

      The history of the glacial cycles appears to tell that there are rather strong positive feedback in certain domains but that the range of these feedbacks is bounded and cannot lead to warming or cooling beyond these bounds. Our present state is close to the upper bound. Thus there should be some nonlinear effects that counteract further warming.

      This observation may sound reassuring and tell that global warming is not a threat, but concluding so is overextending the argument because the upper bound may depend on the amount of carbon that participates in the non-geological carbon cycle. Releasing carbon from fossil fuel deposits may still have a sizable warming influence.

      As a personal judgment I would, however, conclude that the history speaks against the possibility of a tipping point that would lead to sudden strong additional warming from a state that’s already as warm as the present is.

      • @Pekka “As a personal judgment I would, however, conclude that the history speaks against the possibility of a tipping point that would lead to sudden strong additional warming from a state that’s already as warm as the present is.”

        For once, Pekka, I agree with you. Negative feedback will ultimately win, else we wouldn’t be here to tell the story! I also believe that CO2 levels have been way higher in the distant past, because fossil fuel burning on a large scale is hardly the exclusive preserve of humans.

        The current observations of CO2 mainly come from Mauna Loa and these are hardly representative of the globe, in particular, of the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

      • Something else burned fossil fuel at the same scale as humans? I gotta hear this.

      • WHT may be interested in this article.

        http://www.helium.com/items/1903061-the-major-sources-for-carbon-dioxide-emissions

        In the distant past, I believe that volcanic activity and the wildfires that were caused by them, lightning strikes and even the odd meteor strike, would be the source of higher much CO2 levels that are now recorded in the vicinity of Mauna Loa.

      • Do you have any familiarity with logic? You stated that “fossil fuel burning on a large scale is hardly the exclusive preserve of humans. “
        Yet, then you talk about lightning and meteor strikes, which every logical person would assumes burns things like trees, and then mention volcanoes, which would emit gases not derived from fossil fuels.

        It’s not worth it to continue this discussion much further, as I assume that those words accidentally spewed out of your mouth without you thinking.

        Let me just state that humans have burned, and will burn in a couple of hundred years, the remains of ancient biota that covered the surface of the earth. That is essentially equivalent to having the situation of two biotic surface realms decaying at the same time, yet we only have one real surface to process the carbon cycle. That is logic in action. I do not think that you comprehend this, and neither do people like Salby and his accolytes.

      • As far as sources of CO2 in the past I saw one that was interesting. Not sure what is known for sure about this as I’ve seen other theories.

        I saw it in 2009 in Science and also on the History Channel. Supposedly the 13,000 year old extinction event responsible for the paucity of large mammals in N. America and also for the low populations of humans in the Americas until recently was (possibly) caused by meteorites that caused massive continent wide wild fires. I watched on the history channel as they showed this inches thick black layer that I guess is found on most of the continent? Interesting. A few years earlier I had read Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” and he had speculated that early man had been such avid hunter’s that they had wiped out all of the potentially domesticable large mammals in N. America which is why most of them we have today originate from Europe and other places. His theory was also concerning the 13,000 year old extinction event.

      • WHT fossil fuels include ignateous rocks that are burned during volcanic eruptions but the concept should surely not be confined to coal, oil and gas deposits?

      • err Igneous not ignateous

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Peter Davies said: “For once, Pekka, I agree with you. Negative feedback will ultimately win.”

        Yep, it will. There will be no ” run away” GHG catastrophe, but there is lots of room for a very warm climate long before we get to catastrophe. The global rock-carbon cycle is the natural negative feedback, but that can take tens of thousands of years. If somehow we induce say, a mid-Miocene climate, which is certainly not a catastrophe from the Earth’s perspective, will we be able to feed the 7+ billion humans just fine?

      • Peter Davies, Fossil fuels do not include igneous rocks.

        Jeez, most of this discussion is covered before the 6th grade.

      • Pekka, I think the glacial cycles are if anything due to negative feedbacks not positive feedbacks. They may in fact simply be chaotic oscillations driven by constant solar input plus a nonlinear negative feedback.

        The view from nonlinear dynamics is very different from the classical physics view which you seem to take.

      • David,

        I don’t think that you can pretend to be knowledgeable of nonlinear dynamics. You should first learn some classical physics before you can even begin learning about it.

      • Tomas Milanovic

        David, Pekka is right.

        If your system is stuck in some corner of the attractor (f.ex ice ball Earth) you need a positive feedback to get out of there.
        But then, like he also rightly says, you can’t have it all the time because you’d diverge to infinity what the attractor forbids.
        So what you have in reality are interacting positive and negative feedbacks where the former accelerate and the latter break so that the whole oscillates.
        Non linearity may do exactly that from a mathematical point of view while the physical interpretation is the one of competing positive and negative feedbacks where alternatively each wins.

      • Pekka, chaos is a mathematical property not a physical one. The primary physical question is just where the math applies? I lectured on this at the Naval Research Lab 20 years ago, trying to get the physicists to grasp the basic chaos principles.

        Tom, where is the positive feedback in the logistic equation? A chaotic regime does not require a positive feedback.

      • David

        You may create an infinity of mathematical equations that lead to chaotic behavior, but almost all of them have nothing to do with any real world system. If you wish to discuss the real world you must know something about it and you must choose models that describe it.

        Unfortunately this is not at all the first time you make strong statements in a way that makes me think that you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are writing about. You are only looking for new excuses to support unsupportable.

      • David, “Pekka, chaos is a mathematical property not a physical one. ” You obviously have never been to a dysfunctional family reunion.

        One example of mechanical chaos is weakly damped response curves, kinda like climate. You can apply the same force and get different responses.

      • “If your system is stuck in some corner of the attractor (f.ex ice ball Earth) you need a positive feedback to get out of there.”

        It seems a positive feedback for glaciers is easy. Snow gets dirty.
        kind of odd example:

        http://www.astrobiology.com/lter/album05/578.html

        But at some point one has to stop getting as much fresh snow. And a cooler world would one element in slowing down the addition of fresh snow. And/or if you keep adding snow to some place, it starts weigh so much it deformed the surface of Earth. So the only way one have constant snowfall and therefore clean snow is to have flowing glaciers. But flowing glaciers if given enough time gouge up the landscape.
        So there number factors which work against having nice white snow for tens of thousands of years. And if ten thousands doesn’t do it, hundreds of thousands of years, will.

        Not that I am a believer in snowball earth, just saying glaciers are sort guarantee to have positive feedback, if given enough time.

      • I disagree Tomas. I am sure positive feedbacks can create interesting behavior but the essential conditions for chaotic oscillation are merely a parameter that wants to change and a nonlinear negative feedback term that inhibits that change in the proper, chaotic way. The chaotic oscillations are due to the struggle between these two factors.

        In the logistic equation for example the driver is k times x and the nonlinear negative feedback is minus k times x squared. There is no positive feedback term, nor need there be. Hence positive feedback is not an essential condition for chaotic behavior.

        I am here doing what is called “foundations” analysis in philosophy of mathematics, which I do. It means finding the essential logical postulates or conditions that make the math work. It is very different from doing the math, which you do and I do not do.

  72. Wagathon, explain yerself! There is no ‘inherited truth?’ That is
    jest goddam dogma. There’s ‘truth’ ter real world data, ‘jest the
    facts, ma’am.’

    ‘Pardon me, Wagathon and Judith O/T but I am feeling quite
    distressed Jest drove past the railway station at the end of my
    street and saw an ambulance and police car. Two young boys
    told me that a young girl threw herself under a train. What is
    going on in the land of sunshine and opportunity? Had to toss
    down a double whiskey, again apologies.( I’m a teacher, Wagathon.
    at times worked with students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
    Yer can only weep when you think of a young person fed stones
    of bread. Better go off air.

    • I’ll join you in a drink Beth. Tragedy is happening everywhere and we get to know more about them – all around the globe – thanks to the media. There is not much that we can do about poor choices being exercised. My drink is red wine and Australian reds have been and remain extraordinarily good value.

    • “We all stand on the shoulders of giants.”

  73. Tomas Milanovic

    The primary negative feedback is obviously the Planck response, i.e. the simple fact that a body heated with approximately constant power maintains an approximately constant temperature.

    Well as the Earth is anything but a constant temperature body, it shows that this observation is quite irrelevant and useless for what happens with the dynamics on the Earth as opposed to isothermal black bodies in equilibrium.
    The same approximately constant power supply (even if on larger time scales it is anything but constant too) can produce both an ice ball Earth and a hothouse Earth.
    And of course anything in between.
    This is a well known result of dissipative chaotic systems. If one changes the properties of the fluid (density, viscosity etc) or even the geometrical boundary conditions while maintaining a constant power for the Lorenz flow, the attractor (defining among others the range of variation of the dynamical variables) may change dramatically. This for just a 3D phase space so one can imagine the diversity of states in an infinite dimensional phase space.

    Clearly what matters is not how much energy the Earth receives but what part of this energy is stored and how it is distributed in time and space.
    What I said was that despite huge variations of both internal and external parameters, the Earth climate’s attractor stayed remarkably stable over billions of years.
    From that I infer that there must exist process(es), which are necessarily independent of the power supply and which explain the attractor’s stability.
    I suspect that these processes are linked to water because water has an important latent heat and impacts not only the major dynamical variable which is albedo but is also the main factor in the energy storage and distribution.

    • Well said. At its simplest chaotic systems are aperiodic oscillators. They oscillate even under constant forcing. Moreover the oscilations do not average out over time. This strange physics is hard for clasically trained physicists to grasp.

      • Wojick is either aggressively stupid or deliberately misleading. Consider sunspots. These are considered chaotic phenomenon, yet they do average out over time. The sun only changes output over the long term because it is a finite source of energy. The energy constraints and boundary conditions set the limit cycles, not some madness in Wojick’s mind.

      • Web, what about sunspots averages out over time? I think you will find that the average changes with the time scale, as do many climate variables.

  74. David Springer

    @Milanovic

    It’s all about albedo not greenhouse gases. Water (ice, clouds, ocean) potentially varies the amount of solar energy absorbed by the planet by large fractions with open ocean having an albedo less than 10% while ice and clouds have an albedo over 90%.

    Why is global could cover about 70%? Why not a much larger or smaller percentage?

    It must be understood that albedo is The Big Kahuna of climate modulation. Anything else is just minor detail in comparison.

    On a water world it’s all about the phases of water not the non-condensing gases in the atmosphere. Write that down.

  75. David Springer

    Pekka Pirilä | November 22, 2012 at 4:35 am | Reply

    “As a personal judgment I would, however, conclude that the history speaks against the possibility of a tipping point that would lead to sudden strong additional warming from a state that’s already as warm as the present is.”

    Gee, ya think?

    Maybe there’s hope for you after all, weasel boy.

  76. Tomas Milanovic

    They oscillate even under constant forcing. Moreover the oscilations do not average out over time.

    David if I may make a comment, this is not fully correct.
    I will outline a rigorous mathematical demonstration illustrating the above statement.
    Let’s take the Lorenz system as example but the demonstration can be easily generalized for any chaotic system.

    If you maintain the 3 control parameters constant (power is one of 3), then the attractor in the phase space, the famous butterfly, is an invariant of the system.
    The system just wanders forever on the attractor.
    Now you can easily compute the average state in the phase space – it is equivalent to computing the center of gravity. As the attractor is dense, its average in the phase space is a point which will actually be near to the center of the attractor where the “body” of the butterfly would be.
    Now if the system is ergodic (and the Lorenz system is) then following the ergodic theorem the phase space average is equal to the time average when time goes to infinity.
    Ergo the time average is a constant and the oscillations do “average out”.
    QED
    Of course if you change a control parameter, the attractor changes and the averages too. But if the system is ergodic, the new time and phase space averages are still equal.

    Now if you take a non ergodic system, the above is no more true.
    You can still compute a phase space average of an attractor but it is no more equal to the time average. If the Lorenz system was non ergodic it would mean for example that the system spends more time in one “wing” than in the other “wing” during a certain time and then does the opposite for another time..
    Then indeed the oscillations no more “average out”.
    An equivalent of that phenomenon is when the control parameters are no more constant but change with time.
    Then the attractor changes with time too and this is equivalent to having averages variable with time. If one had a statistical sample of a non ergodic system, the series would be non stationary.

    I think that the weather (and its averages) belong to the latter category.

    • Notice Milanovic never mentions the absolute scale on which this limit cycle occurs on. In terms of temperature, we exist on an absolute scale, which hovers at least 273K above zero (i.e. the freezing point of water). We can only vary around the quiescent point depending on the stimulus from the sun. If you look at the sun’s output, that also varies only slightly about some absolute reference. Sun spots will only vary the radiative output by about 0.1%. Here is a figure showing the scale:

      3 degrees change of the earth’s absolute temperature average is about 1%, and the phase change of water plays a significant factor on the low end. These are small perturbations that we are talking about.

      AGW in fact is about very slight changes in the earth’s average absolute temperature. The fact that climate sensitivity is high in the first place suggests that the addition of radiatively modifying gases to the atmosphere is something worthy of research. Increase the amount of GHG in the atmosphere and the average temperature will rise. The research is about finding out how much this rise is. Nonlinear dynamics cannot reverse the direction of this process, and chaotic limit cycles simply ride the top of this process.

      • “3 degrees change of the earth’s absolute temperature average is about 1%, and the phase change of water plays a significant factor on the low end.”

        And it isn’t a significant factor on the high end? 1/3 of of the solar energy absorbed is in the atmosphere.

      • Webby, you write “Increase the amount of GHG in the atmosphere and the average temperature will rise. The research is about finding out how much this rise is.”

        I agree completely, but you have left out the most important part. How big is the CAGW rise compared with natural variations? And until we understand just about all there is to know about natural variations, this question is impossible to answer. All we can sat is that the absence of any CO2 signal in the modern temperature/time graphs, gives a strong indication that natural variations completely dominate all of the observed changes in global temperatures, and the contribution of CAGW is negligible.

      • If Web were correct then increasing CO2 would be sufficient to prevent the next ice age. There is no reason to believe this. Not only can nature dominate the CO2 rise it can reverse the warming potential and cool the earth. The average temp can go down when CO2 goes up.

    • Tomas, I am referring to the so-called strange statistics such that the averages continuously change over time. This sounds like your second case, but in any case taking the attractor average would be averaging over infinite time.

  77. CO2 concentration increases with global warming as shown:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/normalise/from:1979.3/plot/rss/normalise/trend

    As a result, it should decrease with global cooling.

    This means that the CO2 Concentration in the 1970’s trough MUST be lower than that in the 1940’s peak.

  78. As CO2 concentration increases with global warming as shown:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/normalise/from:1979.3/plot/uah/normalise/trend

    The CO2 concentration must decrease during global cooling.

    This means that the CO2 Concentration in the 1940’s global warming peak MUST be higher than the that in the 1970’s global cooling trough.

    • The empirical test will be to see if CO2 concentration levels off, now that both the atmospheric and ocean temperature have stopped rising.

      Max.

      • Lol, so when atmospheric CO2 continues rising you will finally admit Hadcrut and RSS are Hadcrappy and OHC was, in fact, rising the whole time.

      • Pekka

        Looks like CO2 increased from 369 ppmv end 2000 to around 392 ppmv today.

        Yet atmospheric temperature actually cooled.

        ARGO data tell us that the upper ocean also cooled after 2003 (although these data have been “corrected” to show no change in OHC).

        IOW there was no “added heat” after 2000 (the “unexplained” missing heat Trenberth referred to as a “travesty”).

        Does this:

        a. show that Girma is wrong when he says “temperature drives CO2″?
        b. show that IPCC is wrong when it says “CO2 drives temperature”?
        c. both of the above
        d. neither of the above

        “Physical theory” (the GH effect) tells us increased atmospheric CO2 should increase temperature (by how much is highly uncertain, however).

        “Physical theory” (solubility of CO2 in sea water) tells us increased temperature should increase atmospheric CO2 (from outgassing – solubility tables exist).

        As a matter of basic logic (forgetting “physical theory”), I’d say “c” above fits best.

        How about you?

        A simple answer will do.

        Max

      • JCH

        None of them were warming recently.

        The “unexplained” missing heat, which Trenberth referred to as a “travesty”.

        Yet CO2 emissions continued unabated and atmospheric concentrations reached new record levels.

        The theoretical CO2/temperature correlation is beginning to falter empirically.

        How long do we have to wait until further “lack of warming” despite continued increase in atmospheric CO2 falsifies the theoretical CO2/temperature correlation?

        That seems to be the real question here, with “CAGW believers” saying “12 years is too short, we need much longer”, and “CAGW skeptics” asking “how much longer?”

        Ben Santer suggested that it would take 17 years.

        Does that mean that “CAGW”, as posited by IPCC, would be falsified after another five years of “no warming” despite continued CO2 increase?

        I have had a hard time getting a “CAGW believer” answer these questions.

        Max

      • Max,

        The uniform trend in CO2 concentration is strong confirmation for the absence of new natural phenomena. It’s difficult, or rather it’s impossible, to imagine any natural process that would presently be so uniform but that would not have existed for much longer than the Mauna Loa measurements cover. On the other hand it’s known that the anthropogenic contribution has strengthened rapidly during the 20th century and that their influence is fully consistent with observations when combined with expected division of the additional CO2 between atmosphere, oceans and biosphere.

        Don’t try to confuse this clear message with the other weakly related questions. They have been discussed elsewhere. The new values add nothing to that.

      • Pekka

        As a scientist you know that “lack of correlation” is clear evidence of “lack of causation”

        Since 2000, we have no “correlation” between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature.

        If this period were long enough to be “statistically significant” (Santer) we would have evidence of “no causation” (either way: “CO2=>temperature” or “temperature=>CO2″)

        Question: How long a time span is long enough to be considered “statistically significant”?

        Santer says 17 years.

        What say you?

        (If you think Santer is wrong, explain what would be a better number and why. If you agree with Santer, say so.)

        Max

      • Max,

        The correlation is strong on the timescales it should be present. That the temperatures haven’t dropped like they did in 1940’s is part of the evidence for the correlation on those time scales.

        The significance of the plateau has been discussed in hundreds of messages on this site already (I haven’t done an actual count, but that’s indicative). Numerous of those messages have told, how Foster and Rahmstorf present one plausible explanation for it.That alone is enough to prove that the plateau does not contradict main stream understanding.

        Right now there’s not much more to say on that until someone presents a new and better analysis that adds to understanding.

      • Max, you write “Question: How long a time span is long enough to be considered “statistically significant”?”

        I know, I know. I keep asking the same sort of question. However, we both ought to know that dedictated warmists like Pekka are NEVER going to answer it. To do so would be against their religion, and nothing short of heresy. And in any event, if they tried to answer the question it would undermine the credibility of CAGW.

        Nevertheless, I am sure both of us will go on asking the same sort of question in to the indefinite future.

      • My view is that the most relevant questions are not those that can be answered yes or no. It’s more correct to ask what the data tells about the strength of AGW. A measure of that might be the transient climate response (TCR).

        Every new observation affects a little the best estimate of TCR. A value that deviates more from the expected value based on the previous best estimate affects it more. Thus continuation of the plateau by one or two more years has rather little effect while even one year of very low temperature affects the result more than two at the earlier level. In addition to the change in temperature also the other observable factors must be taken into account. Checking how extrapolating the Foster and Rahmstorf approach fares with new data is one possibility that I have already tried (and reported the outcome up to Sep 2012).

        Giving a specific number of years like that of Santer is meaningful only when presented in combination with many other assumptions.

      • Max, the best correlation is between temperature level and change in atmospheric CO2 (T and ΔCO2). The annual change has already leveled off (~15 years no trend), no wonder since it closely follows the temperature.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.pdf

      • re cooked books

        This would only be a “conspiracy” if one assumes the IPCC is out to discover the truth. But since clearly they’re activists for world governance, any attempt in their ranks to discover the truth is what would count as a “conspiracy”.

      • Max

        Since 2000, we have no “correlation” between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature.

        Actually there is a remarkable correlation between CO2 concentration and GMST.

        The correlation between GMST and CHANGE (DEREVATIVE) in annual CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is as shown.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/normalise/from:1979.3/plot/uah/normalise/trend

        This means that the annual CO2 concentration is the Integral of the GMST. Though the GMST was flat, the Integral of the GMST (the cumulative sum) has been increasing just like the CO2 concentration.

        To see a decrease in the CO2 concentration, we need a declining GMST trend.

      • The above result for the period since 1978 suggests, the CO2 concentration in the atmopshere was also increaseing for the previous warming period 1910-1940.

        The may have cooked the books regarding the flat CO2 concentration before mid-20th century.

      • I posted the message mistakingly.

        I had written that you are the worst example of absolute misuse of data.

        This particular example has absolutely no connection to the data. The construct that you tell about is totally artificial. It’s incredible that a scientist (Salby) lowered himself to that, but so he did.

      • Girma

        The may have cooked the books regarding the flat CO2 concentration before mid-20th century.

        I presume you mean ‘they’? If so, who are ‘they’? And whoever you think ‘they’ are, you are proposing conspiracy theory. Unwise.

      • BBD

        To Girma’s statement:

        “The may have cooked the books regarding the flat CO2 concentration before mid-20th century.”

        you ask

        “I presume you mean ‘they’? If so, who are ‘they’?”

        Girma refers to the IPCC conclusion (as stated in AR4), based on Vostok ice core data, that CO2 concentrations prior to Mauna Loa in 1959 followed a smooth gradually increasing curve from 280 ppmv in 1750 to the measured 315 ppmv in 1959, contrary to the many actual physical analyses that were made over this period, which showed significant ups and downs instead.

        Got it?

        Max

        PS “Conspiracy”? Fuggidaboudit, BBD, to invoke this makes you look like a paranoid.

      • Max

        contrary to the many actual physical analyses that were made over this period,

        So you question the reliability of the ice core CO2 records now?

        Are you referencing the debunked stuff by Beck btw?

      • PS “Conspiracy”? Fuggidaboudit, BBD, to invoke this makes you look like a paranoid.

        No Max. For Girma to accuse ‘them’ of ‘cooking the books’ makes him a conspiracy theorist.

        For you to defend the indefensible makes you foolish.

      • So you question the reliability of the ice core CO2 records now
        Are you referencing the debunked stuff by Beck btw?

        A more general question : what do you call it when a debunking is debunked?

    • …we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases…

      ____________

      Reference, see–e.g., Bicentennial Decrease Of The Total Solar Irradiance Leads To Unbalanced Thermal Budget Of The Earth And The Little Ice Age, APPLIED PHYSICS RESEARCH, 4(1):178-184

  79. @ WebHubTelescope | November 22, 2012 at 8:35 am |

    Do you have any familiarity with logic? You stated that “fossil fuel burning on a large scale is hardly the exclusive preserve of humans. “
    Yet, then you talk about lightning and meteor strikes, which every logical person would assumes burns things like trees, and then mention volcanoes, which would emit gases not derived from fossil fuels.

    Web – I’m waiting for you to produce a differential equation that supports your contention. In the meantime, if you would stoop so low as to consider data, consider this:

    http://nd.water.usgs.gov/lewisandclark/points/burning_coal.html

    • Tectonic shifts would also expose fossil fuel deposits to volcanic action and cause the release of CO2 as well. WHT has a low tolerance for commenters who fail to toe the party line and this is one of the reasons why Judith’s blog needs more moderation.

      • “Peter Davies | November 22, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Reply

        Tectonic shifts would also expose fossil fuel deposits to volcanic action and cause the release of CO2 as well. “

        Fossil fuel deposits are rarely found next to volcanically active sites, and many people seem to intuitively understand that they are not found near igneous rocks. Here is a simplistic explanation that took a second to find:

        “http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_fossils_not_found_in_igneous_rock
        Lava usually burns the plants and animals that make the fossil fuels, and they have no way of getting into the lava. Also, fossil fuels are not found in igneous rocks because igneous rocks are too hot and if an animal dies on a volcano then lava spews up and onto the fossil, the only thing it could do is to burn the fossil up.”

        “WHT has a low tolerance for commenters who fail to toe the party line and this is one of the reasons why Judith’s blog needs more moderation.”

        Like moderate away the close to 50 crackpots who comment here? That would be too funny. This place would turn into a dead zone, with only a handful of fossils remaining to pontificate.

      • Effects of igneous intrusions on coal petrology, pore-fracture and coalbed methane characteristics in Hongyang, Handan and Huaibei coalfields, North China
        by: Yanbin Yao, Dameng Liu
        International Journal of Coal Geology (March 2012), doi:10.1016/j.coal.2012.03.007 Key: citeulike:10508876

        The effects of igneous intrusions have proved to be important for the exploration and development of coalbed methane in many coal basins. However, the studies of the influences of localized intrusions on coalbed methane reservoirs are still insufficient. In the context of five typical dike/sill intrusion patterns (i.e., dike cut-through, dike cut-in, floor intrusion by sill, roof intrusion by sill, and dual intrusions of roof and floor by sills), this study investigates the changes of coal organic composition and pores/fractures resulting from igneous intrusions.

      • Combustion metamorphic events resulting from natural coal fires

        Ellina V. Sokol*,1 and
        Nina I. Volkova1

        + Author Affiliations

        1Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia

        Abstract

        Fossil-fuel fires in coal-bearing and bituminous complexes and associated combustion metamorphic transformations of sedimentary protoliths have been observed adjacent to many coal and oil deposits worldwide. The geologic and topographic features governing the distribution of fossil-fuel fires are similar for the majority of combustion metamorphic complexes. There are more than 40 such complexes in Europe, Asia, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Combustion metamorphism is a striking geologic phenomenon, and the geologic history of Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary basins prior to the ignition of any fossil fuels they contain determines the characteristics of future combustion metamorphic rocks. The evolutionary trend of combustion metamorphic systems is: formation of a fossil fuel → ignition and combustion of the fuel → decomposition and alteration of adjacent sedimentary strata and minerals, respectively → formation of pyrometamorphic rocks → retrograde alteration. The thermal energy for high-temperature and low-pressure metamorphism is supplied by the combustion of coal, gas, oil, or bitumen.

      • 11. Geology and Natural Burning Coal Fires of the Ferron Sandstone Member of the Mancos Shale, Emery Coalfield, Utah [411] — FULL
        Sat., 15 Oct. Cosponsored by GSA Coal Geology Division.
        Glenn B. Stracher, East Georgia College, Swainsboro, GA 30401, +1-478-289-2073, fax +1-478-289-2080; Paul B. Anderson; David E. Tabet; Janet L. Stracher.
        On this trip we will travel to the Emery coalfield in central Utah where we will examine and discuss the structural geology and coal stratigraphy of the Ferron Sandstone Member of the Mancos Shale, visit actively burning natural coal fires, and gain hands-on experience with data collecting techniques for mine fires research. Subsidence features, gas vents, and ground fissures associated with Utah’s coal fires will be observed.
        Max.: 36; min.: 12. Cost: US$90 (1L, 1D, R, vans).

      • 200 million tons per year of coal has burned underground naturally for million years
        Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 12/03/2005 – 2:49pm
        in

        Breaking News
        Skeptics

        Coal burns underground naturally. In China alone, 200 million tons coal burns up per year in underground coal fires. This has gone of for millions of years and continues to this day. 200 million tons is even more coal than China exports.

        And that’s just coal – remember that oil and natural gas burns spontaneously much more easily than coal. And that 200 million tons of underground coal burning per year is just coal just in China just in *known* underground coal fires.

        http://www.climateimc.org/en/breaking-news/2005/12/03/200-million-tons-year-coal-has-burned-underground-naturally-million-years

      • Australia’s Burning Mountain
        A Challenge to Evolutionary Time
        by Andrew Snelling
        March 1, 1993
        Semi-technical

        age-of-earth
        author-andrew-snelling
        creation-magazine
        geology

        Featured In
        This Issue

        For as long as anyone can remember Mt Wingen has been burning, with an acrid smell of sulphur in the fumes issuing from cracks along its summit. Australia’s Aboriginal inhabitants had known about this burning mountain for many years before the European settlers reached the area, but soon after they came this spectacle attracted scientific attention. The earliest European visitors to describe the phenomenon, Reverend C.P.N. Wilton (between 1828 and 1832) and Sir Thomas Mitchell (in 1829 and 1831), correctly recognized its cause, although this burning mountain became widely known overseas at that time as a volcano or pseudo-volcano.1

        One geologist, a staff member at the time at the University of Newcastle (New South Wales), observed where previously molten volcanic rock has cut through the coal seam at some time in the past and cooled (Figure 2).14, 15 Now it is well known that such molten rock can be intruded at temperatures around 1000°C causing thermal metamorphic effects in the rocks it intrudes, while the intense heat radiates outwards from the molten rock as it cools over subsequent weeks and months. In other places, such molten rock intrusions through coal seams have been known to have either severely metamorphosed the coal or ignited it.

        This then is the most likely mechanism for the igniting of the burning coal under Mt Wingen. Furthermore, since this appears to have happened less than 6,000 years ago, this intrusion would have been sufficiently close to the surface for fractures to supply the necessary air to the ignited coal to keep it burning.

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n2/mountain

      • Thanks Jim2 for the links on the estimated effects of natural (as opposed to “unnatural” human) combustion of fossil fuels. The information on this phenomenon is rather sketchy but it appears to have been contibuting quite significantly to CO2 emissions for thousands if not millions of years now.

      • Webby

        Aw c’mon. Nobody is calling you a “crackpot”, even though you are among the 50 who comment here.

        “Sticks and stones…” you know.

        Max

  80. As usual you have the whole thing arse about face.

    The question you should ask is “is it a problem”. If it isn’t a problem then you do not need to know how to model it or how to attribute natural and manmade forcing.

    This is the real difference between academia and commercial science. In commercial science you don’t bother with something if it isn’t a real problem. In academia, you worry away at something until you can convince someone that it may be a big enough problem to get a grant. And eventually you begin to believe your own paranoia.

    • Mike Haseler SCEF

      As usual you have the whole thing arse about face.

      The question you should ask is “is it a problem”. If it isn’t a problem then you do not need to know how to model it or how to attribute natural and manmade forcing.

      Dead right. The few commenters here who are also honest, sincere, and knowledgeable are interested in temperatures, trends, physics, etc. Few are interested in addressing your question – is it a problem? If so, what are the consequences? What are the costs and benefits? In fact, they shy away from these questions, divert the discussion or just avoid it altogether.

  81. “Two young boys
    told me that a young girl threw herself under a train.”

    This is terribly sad of course. I’ve heard it said that teens don’t really appreciate what death means, and I think that’s true. I know it was for me. Makes me think of Anna K. climbing onto the tracks, truly one of the great scenes in literature. Of course Anna was a smart lady and understood what she was doing. It only dawned on her that she was making a mistake when it was too late.

    I recall reading an article about the Golden Gate Bridge which is the scene of many suicides. Very occasionally, a jumper survives. One of them reports that as he went over the railing he had the horrifying though that every single one of his problems was fixable…except for what he’d just done.

  82. Whither climate science? Well there are certainly settled and unsettled parts of the science.

    Eg

    Climate Fact 1) Temperatures today are far warmer than the Medieval “warm” Period*

    Climate Fact 2) The world continues to warm. Accelerating warming*.

    Climate Fact 3) The world is now warmer than it has been for over 800,000 years and will get even warmer yet*

    *As determined from CO2 measurements, as per the work by Dr Girma and Dr Murray Salby that finds CO2 level is strongly determined by temperature, not man. Thus we can use CO2 as a proxy for temperature itself, rather than having to rely on those unreliable surface and satellite “temperature” records.

  83. You should read this in full

    ” The story was always the same: our ability to predict performance at the school was negligible. Our forecasts were better than blind guesses, but not by much.

    We were downcast for a while after receiving the discouraging news. But this was the army. Useful or not, there was a routine to be followed, and there were orders to be obeyed. Another batch of candidates would arrive the next day. We took them to the obstacle field, we faced them with the wall, they lifted the log and within a few minutes we saw their true natures revealed, as clearly as ever. The dismal truth about the quality of our predictions had no effect whatsoever on how we evaluated new candidates and very little effect on the confidence we had in our judgments and predictions.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/dont-blink-the-hazards-of-confidence.html?pagewanted=all

  84. Steven Mosher
    @ November 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/20/whither-wither-climate-science/#comment-269893

    Replied to someone’s comment up thread:

    You still don’t get it.

    The discussion is going to shift to impacts.

    I responded:

    Good!

    Where are [they] described/defined and the costs estimated?

    Sea level rise is a trivial cost. So what are the others?

    Steven Mosher avoided the question. Instead he responded, apparently in a rage, telling me I don’t have the right to ask him questions. What a pompous, arrogant prick.

    You still don’t get it. … It doesnt matter whether you get the answers to your questions or not. Nobody owes you an answer.
    You dont get to ask questions. If you had the power to decide, then your questions might be important. But you dont, so they are not. You get to play in a sand box. If you want answers about impacts and costs, go read WG2. If you have questions sign up as a reviewer. Ask away. The point remains that the conversation will shift to impacts. Other people will ask the questions. Not you. If you want to influence power, you supply answers. Get it. You have no power. Those in power get to ask the questions. To influence them, you better have answers, not questions.

    What a pompous, arrogant prick.

    Clearly he’s made a statement in a comment, knows noting about the subject he made a pronouncement on, and went into a rage when asked a question that showed him up as ignorant on this subject.

    This suggests a characteristic that probably extends to other subjects he pontificates on.

    So, now let’s get to addressing the question I asked on the subject that Steven Mosher made his initial statement about. My question is:

    Where are the impacts described/defined and the costs estimated?

    Sea level rise is a trivial cost. So what are the others?

    • Peter Lang would go into an uncontrollable rage if someone mentions that crude oil reserves are following a predictable decline.
      .. and he would get further upset if he is reminded that much of renewable energy research is funded to investigate alternatives to the loss of this remarkably energy-dense liquid hydrocarbon fuel.
      … and the fact that renewable energy research could also mitigate global warming might tip him over the edge.

      He gets mad about this stuff even though he is the one advocating nuclear. Why gets mad, no one really understands, since nuclear is also an alternative, which can mitigate both peak oil and climate change.

  85. Manacker
    @November 22, 2012 at 10:47 am

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/20/whither-wither-climate-science/#comment-270131

    Let’s take Steven Mosher’s $400 billion impact for a 1m rise in sea level.

    At the “accelerated rate” of 3 mm/year, that will take 333 years.

    At a discount rate of 5%, we can afford to invest $35 today in order to save $400 billion in 333 years.

    Question: what can we get for $35?

    Yes. And here is another way of looking at it:

    According to Anthoff, Nichols and Tol (2010) ‘The economic impact of substantial sea-level rise‘ the estimated damage cost would be about $1 trillion for 1 m rise and $0.2 trillion for 0.5 m rise, (for the central assumptions).

    How significant is a $1 trillion cost over 90 years when compared with global GDP during that period. Answer: the $1 trillion amounts to about 0.03% of global GDP. In other words the damage cost of sea level rise is trivial.

    Even if the damage costs were two, three or five times greater, it’s still trivial. It’s far less than the costs of the mitigation policies being advocated by the CAGW alarmist – like carbon pricing and renewable energy.

    Furthermore, when we acknowledge that the advocated mitigation policies have very low probability of delivering the hoped for benefits, it shows how badly we’ve been misled by the CAGW alarmist.

  86. BBD

    Here is question.

    CO2 concentration increased with increase in GMST for the period since 1978 as shown:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/compress:12/from:1900/offset:0.5/detrend:0.7/normalise/plot/jisao-pdo/compress:12/scale:0.1/normalise

    Since 1978, the CO2 concentration increased from about 335 ppm to 390 ppm by 55ppm as shown:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/compress:12

    In the period 1910-1940, GMST increased as shown below:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1911/to:1941/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1911/to:1941/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:2011/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:2011/trend

    Is it not reasonable to assume CO2 concentration also increased by about 55ppm in the period 1910-1940?

  87. If the GMST climate model trends are not cooked with assumed acceleration after 1970’s (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html) instead of just the warming phase of the PDO, how come they don’t match the sea level profile?

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

  88.  
    There really is overwhelming empirical evidence that gravity causes the formation of natural adiabatic lapse rates on all planets with atmospheres.

    If anyone wishes to try to disprove that there are natural adiabatic lapse rates, such as on Venus, then they would have to produce an energy budget diagram for Venus showing that such low incident Solar radiation at the surface somehow raises the surface temperature by hundreds of degrees. It can’t . Instead the temperature gradient was established as the Sun started to warm the atmosphere when the planet first formed.

    Gravity acts on molecules as they drift between collisions, and increases the propensity for the downward component of their motion to increase, and the upward component to decrease. So more molecules exist at the base of the atmosphere as is well known. As potential energy converts to kinetic energy when some molecules “fall” there is a resulting increase in temperature.

    That’s why the Venus surface is hot – the atmosphere heated first and the gradient meant the base of the atmosphere was hundreds of degrees hotter than the mean radiating temperature somewhere in the middle. So the surface itself had to get hotter by conduction and radiation at the interface.

    Thus, none of the surface temperature on Venus is due to backradiation or any radiative Greenhouse effect. And if there’s no radiative GHE up there, then neither is there down here on Earth.

     

    • Thank you Billy madison

      • Steven Mosher,

        Thank you for showing the video. Was he addressing that comment to you?

        I guess there would be few people as arrogant and pompous as you, eh?

        I notice you’ve been avoiding responding to the comments which highlight your arrogance and your habit of making statements about subjects you know little about, then getting flustered and aggressive if someone dares to ask you a question about your comment. Like this classic you posted in a reply to a straight forward question I asked you yesterday:

        You still don’t get it. … It doesnt matter whether you get the answers to your questions or not. Nobody owes you an answer.
        You dont get to ask questions. If you had the power to decide, then your questions might be important. But you dont, so they are not. You get to play in a sand box. If you want answers about impacts and costs, go read WG2. If you have questions sign up as a reviewer. Ask away. The point remains that the conversation will shift to impacts. Other people will ask the questions. Not you. If you want to influence power, you supply answers. Get it. You have no power. Those in power get to ask the questions. To influence them, you better have answers, not questions.

      • Like I said peter, you dont get to ask the questions. You may think you do, but you dont. No body owes you an answer because you dont matter.
        What you think doesnt matter, what you write doesnt matter.
        This is a sand box. get it?

  89. Steven Mosher says:

    You still don’t get it.

    The discussion is going to shift to impacts.

    So, let’s talk about the impacts of ACO2.

    Impacts

    What are the impacts of ACO2?

    Are they a net cost or a net benefit?

    If they will be a net cost at some time in the future, what is the estimated net cost?

    When will the costs be realised?

    When will net costs exceed net benefits?

    Some preliminary thoughts to kick this off:

    Sea level rise is the most often quoted impact of ACO2. However:

    First, the expected amount of sea level rise is often overstated and exaggerated and the analyses often use cherry picked upper bound on top of cherry picked upper bound values. Professor Ross Garnaut, was picked by the Australian Labor Government to advise the government on climate change policy and carbon pricing. He used an expected value of 1.1 m of sea level rise by 2100. That is massive exaggeration. It is dishonest. But that is what has been used to justify Australia’s carbon tax. Another example: the Australian Treasury assumed we are heading for CO2 concentration of 1500 ppm and used that figure for modelling the benefits that Australia’s CO2 tax would deliver (and also assuming the world acted with us). That’s the sort of lying distortions being used by the government departments we are supposed to trust to give us good analysis to support our policies – lie carbon tax and mandated renewable energy targets at any cost.

    Second, the impact of sea level rise is trivial (about 0.03% of world GDP to 2100).

    So, what are the other impacts? Are any of them significant? If so, what should be done?

    Regarding what should be done, simplistically, we can say there is a choice between endpoints of adaptation and mitigation.

    Adaptation is a no brainer. It will happen without central control directing us what to do.

    Mitigation policies need careful consideration and analysis by people who are objective, unbiased, impartial and not in the slightest tied up in the CAGW alarmists’ ideology.

    Any Mitigation policies proposed should be able to demonstrate with a high degree of confidence that they will actually cause changes for the better

    Certainly, no one has demonstrated carbon pricing and renewable energy will deliver the benefits. They are both wasting an enormous amount of money and world wealth. That means they are prolonging disadvantage for the poor and disadvantaging most people for no net benefit. Therefore, they are really bad policies.

    So, what might be good mitigation policy?

    I’d suggest, it is essential:

    1. there is a high probability it will deliver benefits that greatly exceed the costs

    2. this high probability of success can be clearly demonstrated and is widely accepted.

    Therefore, carbon pricing and renewable energy schemes should be ruled out.

    • See, you cant even get the impacts right. Nobody talks about the impacts of c02. You cant even frame your questions right.

      The debate will shift from “does c02 cause global warming” to
      What are the impacts ( regionally) in a warming climate.
      That is why the “old debate” is “beating” skeptics at the “Is AGW real”
      and the new debate will be ‘What are the impacts”
      Like it or not, the goal posts will be moved.
      You dont get to proclaim that the old debate is still viable.
      They’ve moved on.
      You dont get to frame the questions of the new debate.

      It’s pretty damn simple. I dont get to frame those questions, you dont get to frame those questions. They dont owe me answers. they dont owe you answers.

      If you want to play, you need to understand the role you are assigned.

      • Steven Mosher said:

        See, you cant even get the impacts right. Nobody talks about the impacts of c02. You cant even frame your questions right.

        I framed the question that way deliberately. If you weren’t so arrogant you might have been able to address the questions as asked.

        However, since you are arrogant, I’ll explain the reason I framed it that way, just for you.

        Mitigation policies being advocated by the CAGW alarmists are mostly aimed at cutting ACO2 emissions. Therefore, the questions should be framed as I framed it. That is, what are the impacts of ACO2 emissions.

        Do you get that?

        Yes, the CAGW alarmists have moved on (made a logic jump) and now assume that ACO2 = catastrophic climate change. But that has not demonstrated. The connection between ACO2 and impacts have not been demonstrated. That is why I framed my question without the logic jump.

        Do you get that?

      • Steven Mosher,

        How dis you get to be such an arrogant twit. I can’t beloieve this pile of arrogant twoddle:

        The debate will shift from “does c02 cause global warming” to
        What are the impacts ( regionally) in a warming climate.
        That is why the “old debate” is “beating” skeptics at the “Is AGW real”
        and the new debate will be ‘What are the impacts”
        Like it or not, the goal posts will be moved.
        You dont get to proclaim that the old debate is still viable.
        They’ve moved on.
        You dont get to frame the questions of the new debate.

        It’s pretty damn simple. I dont get to frame those questions, you dont get to frame those questions. They dont owe me answers. they dont owe you answers.

        If you want to play, you need to understand the role you are assigned.

        If you believe that no one has a right to make comments of ask questions, why do you write anything. Why do you think it is your role to tell me how I should pose my comments and questions?

        Can you not see how hypocritical you are, and how arrogant are your comments?

    • Like I said, you dont get to set the topic. You dont get to set the battlefield.
      Get it. you have no power. Not over the debate. not over anyone on the blog.
      Get it?

      • Steven Mosher,

        You are certainly a very arrogant, pompous twit, aren’t you. You keep repeating these statements about me not setting the debate and not getting to ask questions. Do you not see how ridiculous those statement are? Everyone on blog sites posts comments and questions. You do, too (Do you not recognise that?). You make statements implying you think you know what you are talking about. But when asked a question about statements in a comment, you reveal:

        1. You don’t know much about the topic you posted a confident statement about.

        2. You make an arrogant, defensive-aggressive response and try to divert attention from the fact you’ve been shown up to know nothing of substance about the subject you made the confident statement about

        3. You’ve displayed you have nothing more to offer than others on this subject

        4. You’ve shown you are a twit, and a pompous arrogant one at that.

  90. Steven Mosher has made a pronouncement:

    Steven Mosher says:

    You still don’t get it.

    The discussion is going to shift to impacts.

    However, when questions about what the impacts are and hat are the cost estimates he’s told me I am not allowed to ask questions. What a dick.

    Anyway, getting past his arrogance and hypocrisy, I’ll take another tack.

  91. However, when questions about what the impacts are and hat are the cost estimates he’s told me I am not allowed to ask questions. What a dick.

    Anyway, getting past his arrogance and hypocrisy, I’ll take another tack.

    The policies being advocated by climate alarmists are irrational. Given this, is it any wonder that there is strident opposition?

    Let’s focus is on what is relevant for informing rational policy development. My view, for what its worth, is as follows:

    1. There are many parameters, but four key parameters, in estimating the costs and benefits of ACO2 emissions and of CO2 mitigation policies to reduce emissions:

    a. Climate sensitivity (T2xCO2)

    b. Damage function

    c. Decarbonisation rate (the rate the world could decarbonise)

    d. The probability that the proposed mitigation policies will provide the hoped for net benefits

    2. The orthodoxy’s view of climate sensitivity (T2xCO2) is that the central estimate is about 3C. However, the uncertainty is huge. Furthermore, the uncertainty has changed little in over 20 years.

    3. It is unlikely that the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates will be reduced quickly.

    4. Since uncertainty in climate sensitivity is large and unlikely to be reduced by much in the foreseeable future, the research effort should be refocused on reducing the uncertainty in the ‘damage function’ and the ‘rate of decarbonisation’ function. Because, even if climate sensitivity is high, if the damage function is small, the net cost of global warming would be small. So we should not risk implementing policies that will do significant economic damage to the world for little or no benefit.

    5. If the damage function turns out to be high (that is not what current information suggests), then global decarbonisation of energy will be important. Then the decarbonisation rate that could be achieved, realistically, is important.

    6. Therefore, research should also be focused on the rate of decarbonisation that could be achieved and how to achieve it.

    7. Real progress in that area is currently blocked by the very people who are the CAGW alarmists. They advocate impracticable, unrealistic policies like: world government, (and all that would be required to make it work: police, army, taxation, bureaucracy); carbon taxes and/or ETS, renewable energy and they oppose the least cost way to reduce global emissions: nuclear power. So no real progress is possible. Progress is prevented by ideological beliefs.

    8. As JC has pointed out, we need to apply robust decision analysis methods to advise policy, not just mandate policies – especially ones that will do huge harm with virtually no evidence they will do any good (such as carbon pricing and renewable energy)

    • Peter Lang

      Impacts, meet reality.

      i think Mosh is not aware that the battlefield is being dramatically shaped by economic reality. Britain is backpedalling furiously from its green agenda with a drastic cut in the amount to be used to subsidise renewables. In addition we are pushing back the date when decisions need to be made to decarbonise our economy by 2030.

      The significance of this is that Britain-through the worlds first ever legally binding climate change act-was further down the officially sanctioned ‘impacts’ road than any other country. Its now at a crossroads, blinking, and wondering if it should stop going down the green road in the face of protests about costs from industry and the public

      Mosh is gazing down the theoretical road when he makes his pronouncements. Its an entirely different route to the one marked ‘reality.’
      tonyb

      • Climatereason,

        Mosh is gazing down the theoretical road when he makes his pronouncements. Its an entirely different route to the one marked ‘reality.’

        I agree. That’s the respectful way to put it.

        His comments have prompted me to think some more about what is really going on. Those who write on web sites like this are a tiny minority of the voting public. We do not represent what most people think and what they are concerned about. Most people are concerned about their day to day life. That is rational. That is their top priority.

        Those who are convinced, as Mosher is, that ACO2 means catastrophic climate change are the wealthy elitists of the world. They have no connection and no understanding of the reality. [I agree with your comments about UK and starting to recognise what a dreadful mistake they've made. Australia has too.]

        If it could be shown that ACO2 is a severe threat, it would have clearly been demonstrated by now. It has not been! A few degrees of warming has not been shown to have severe impacts. In fact, logic and analyses seem to indicate global warming would be relatively benign – perhaps even net beneficial up to about 2C warming. And certainly far better than global cooling. If there was a strong case to show the impacts of warming were seriously negative, Alarmists like Mosher would have made the case persuasively in response to my question. Instead, Mosher apparently flew into a rage, refused to answer the question, said I have no right to ask him such questions about his beliefs, and tried to divert from answering the question. That is not the sort of reaction you would expect from someone who is confident he has a good case to present.

        What Mosher did in answer to my question is done by most if not all the Alarmists who blog on Climate Etc. None of them have been prepared to get involved in a discussion about impacts ACO2 or the cost-benefits of mitigation policies. They avoid it like the plague. Clearly they do not have a case they are prepared to argue for.

      • Peter

        I agree with much of what you say although I have a somewhat more benign view of Mosh.

        Did you ever see my article carred here on carbon reduction?

        http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/

        Reality is a cruel mistress and with the economy of most of the west in serious trouble, the rampant use of fossil fuels by the developing world making our efforts increasingly irrelevant, coupled with lack of warming in recent years, I suspect that shw will have an ever greater impact on our respective governments thinking.
        tonyb

      • Peter and Tony B

        I am not really sure what Steven Mosher “believes” when it comes to CAGW.

        Is he a “lukewarmer”?

        Read his book on Climategate and you’ll see that he does not support IPCC’s CAGW premise (the “catastrophe” part) but writes:

        “…we believe that global average temperatures will rise by 1,5 to 2 degrees Celsius. But it won’t be even, and it won’t happen smoothly over the rest of the century. It will hit some places like a ton of bricks and leave others untouched. A slow motion tornado that picks and chooses.

        The idiots running the global warming campaigns (and make no mistake), a bigger bunch of idiots would be hard to find) didn’t trust people to react to the truth. They thought you wouldn’t understand and if you understood you wouldn’t care. So they lied to you, repeatedly and with a smile on their smarmy faces. Catastrophe! Dramatic sea level rises! Unbearable heat waves every x months! Pick your own stupid pet trick.

        He and his co-author, Thomas W. Fuller, close the book with their own “belief”:

        But as clearly as we are able to see the truth, we have written it here. Global warming is real and it is a problem, if not the catastrophe they want you to believe. It needs our attention. CO2 is a contributor, along with other factors, some natural and some manmade. And, yes, we need to do something about it.

        I would agree with Mosher that IPCCand a group of insiders have run a fear mongering campaign and they have lied, cheated, fudged the data, etc., to make AGW look like a major potential threat (=”CAGW”).

        I’d also agree that there has been a gradual global warming (in unexplained fits and spurts), which has been caused by natural phenomena plus( possibly) by an anthropogenic bit.

        Where I would question Mosher is:

        – I have not seen any empirical evidence to show me that it will warm by 1.5 to 2 degrees C by the end of this century as a result of AGW. These data are just not there.
        – Ergo, I do not believe that “global warming is a real problem”, that will ” hit some places like a ton of bricks”. Nor do I believe that AGW will be like a “slow motion tornado that picks and chooses” [maybe like a light summer breeze, instead]..

        I suspect that Mosher’s basic problem is that he “believes” the models (it’s his game, and it is an addictive one). While he chastises IPCC for moving away from reality and into the never-never world of paleoclimatology, he, himself, falls into the same trap of believing that the models can tell you anything you didn’t already feed into them in the first place.

        Mosher accepts (“a priori, in my opinion) the notion of a high 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, which is the underlying fallacy of the CAGW premise.

        And since he is unable to tell us how this hypothesis could be falsified (Popper) or cite empirical evidence, which supports this premise (Feynman), it appears to be more a matter of “belief” in his models, rather than in the underlying “science”.

        That’s my take on it, but I may be wrong (if so, Mosher can straighten me out).

        Max

        .

      • Max

        It would be interesting to see if Mosh agrees with your analysis. But that will depend on which Mosh happens by. If its the cryptic drive by Mosh I suspect we wont understand his reply, so lets hope its the expansive Mosh

        Tonyb

      • Tonyb.

        Thank you for your comment. I was surprised by the Mosher that showed up to day and posted a number of rude, arrogant, pompous comments. His comments today demonstrate he lives in works in narrow field – an igloo of modellers – and has no idea of reality.

        Yes, I did read your article when you posted it and Ed Hoskins’ paper. I’ve just reread your post. I agree with much of it, but do not see renewable energy as being able to make much of a contribution.

        Parts of your post that particularly caught my eye and are relevant to this discussions are copied below:

        This policy has resulted in an explosion of anger from the UK business community over what the resultant policies and taxes would mean to them. TATA Steel is mothballing a steel mill, citing carbon taxes as one reason. This is occurring at the same time taxes are being progressively raised to pay for a raft of renewables, mostly based on wind farms, which the general public has to pay for. Add in other green taxes – fuel duty and air passenger duty amongst others – and the costs and restrictions of going green are being revealed to the British public, who seem to be the guinea pigs for much of the rest of the West.

        The point that you make – the policies being implemented will have enormous cost but no benefit – is so obvious, I don’t understand why intelligent people don’t get it. Why doesn’t Mosher, for example, get it?

        This is a genuine question. Why don’t they get it?

        BTW Tony, did anyone find a significant error in this:

        “It seems that the UK government is expecting to spend about £32 billion, (~2.2% of UK GDP), according to the Stern Review [1], every year for the foreseeable future in order to achieve by the year 2100 at the absolute maximum global temperature reduction of ~0.0019°C, (less than 2 thousandths of a degree Centigrade). This temperature reduction would have to involve the total elimination of all future UK CO2 emissions. Any lesser goal for reduction as proposed could only be even less effective temperature wise. The Stern review was released in 2006, so as ever with government budgets the sum will have escalated since. If the UK is proposing to spend £32 billion ($50 billion) per annum to partially influence ~1.7% of world CO2 emissions, it means that the equivalent global spend could be as much as ~$3,000 billion per annum for the foreseeable future. At present this would amount to about ~4.5% of the global GDP, ($69,000 billion) to achieve a reduction in temperature for the whole World of 0.11 °C about 1/10 degree Centigrade, on the basis that all future CO2 emissions were eliminated.”

        Why don’t people get this?

      • Max,

        Thank you for that window into the way Mosher thinks. Clearly he thinks he is God’s gift to knowledge on Planet Earth and, therefore, everyone that doesn’t believe what he believes are idiots, ignorant, smarmy and stupid.

        That’s plenty to confirm he’s a pompous, arrogant twit. Such people have a limited understanding of reality.

        I won’t bother reading his book.

        I wonder why he bothered writing it since today he’s made it clear, in his opinion no one except CAGW alarmists have any role to play in trying to influence policy. They should just be quiet, listen to the Great Mosher, and don’t ask any questions. Possibly his ego tells him he’s an exception because, in his mind, he does have something to say that policy makers should listen to.

      • Peter

        Do you watch The Big Bang theory? In which case you’ve seen Sheldon Cooper and can understand that Mosh is a variation of him. It simply doesnt occur to him how rude he can appear to be, as what he says-he believes-is so obvious. He has complete contempt for historical climatology-my subject- whilst in turn I think he ought to be more sceptical of the data he uses which is often highly suspect. (SST’s are laughable if you go back more than 30 years or so)

        As a result we seem to get on ok, with him throwing the occasional brickbat at me whilst I annoy him by being polite in return…

        As regards your other question, as far as renewables go its horses for courses.For example, using Solar power in northern Europe is completely crazy especially when many of the countries-such as the UK-could benefit greatly from wave/tidal power. Solar in Spain however is probably a good idea, whilst tidal power in Switzerand would be impossible. Renewables are part of the mix but they are being introduced before they are either fully formed or cost effective.

        No, nobody has really refuted the figure of what temperature reduction could be ahieved by the west dumping their economies in the trash bin. I wrote to a dozen or so of the top climate scientists and it was evident that very few of them had even carried out the calculation.
        tonyb

      • blueice2hotsea

        Peter Lang –

        Ran across an old cynical comment of mine which I hope turns out to be wrong.

        My prediction: Mosher will one day be excommunicated as an endoheretic for promoting honesty as a means to convert skeptics.

        I have generally appreciated your analytical comments. I don’t value the emotional ones such as where you have raged over Mosher’s sandbox experiment and with Pekka in the Fukushima thread. (Btw, I thought Pekka shared a rather interesting insight: What might be the potential impact of Japan adopting a culture of safety? Think about what happened when Japan adopted a culture of quality? It changed the world.)

        Recall the infamous murder case in L.A. where police apparently framed a guilty man by using tainted evidence and which resulted in a Not Guilty verdict. Sometimes skeptics forget that tainted evidence does not necessarily mean innocence of the accused. It also suggests the possibility of multiple criminals.

        My personal belief is that current CO2 levels are dangerously low. Yet, any transition to higher safer levels could be hell in the short term and especially in some regions. It is prudent to research and plan carefully for that possibility and to be ready to provide special adaptation assistance where rising CO2 might be an obvious culprit to a real problem.

        A related but separate concern is that corrupt regulatory authorities might absorb and waste most if not all of the funds targeted for emergency adaptation. The complete non-concern for abuse by many CAWG proponents paves a road for criminals in positions of power and creates a potentially enormous looming problem for everyone.

        bi2hs

      • blueice2hotsea,

        Excellent comments. Thank you. I recognise what you say about the emotional responses are a turn-off. There must be a better way of making my points in such situations. I’m still trying to find it. I do recognise the issue and do try to improve. Will try harder!!

      • BlueIce2HotSea

        While acknowledging your point that emotional comments are not helpful, I can’t let your comment about the argument with Pekka go by without a comment. My underlying irritation about Pekka is as follows:

        1. he made statements that were shown to be false but could not admit them

        2. he tries to avoid admitting he is wrong by diverting the discussion and obfuscating

        3. He frequently says things like “it is a clear fact” but when asked to substantiate his “clear facts” he cannot. He repeatedly said that Denmark’s wind power generated 29% of Denmark’s electricity in 2011 (from memory) but couldn’t substantiate this “clear fact”. It turned out he was wrong. But he never admitted it. He continues to this day to say things are “clear facts” without being able to substantiate them. He seems to believe that if he believes something that makes it a “clear fact”.

        4. He maintains that wind power reduces emissions on a 1 to 1 basis or close to it – i.e. 1 kWh of wind energy avoids the emissions of 1 kWh that the grid would have produced with no wind power (all else equal). This is false.

        5. He also maintained that the amount of wind energy generated in Denmark was (eventually) used in Denmark. This also is wrong. Only about half the wind energy generated in Denmark is eventually used in Denmark. Again he couldn’t admit it.

        6. He maintains that renewable energy is a viable option for significantly reducing global CO2 emissions. This is nonsense.

        7. He tried to defend carbon tax and ETS. He realised his argument was weak then tried to argue that fuel taxes, as in Finland and elsewhere, can substitute for a carbon tax/ETS. He was completely wrong in that belief too. Again he couldn’t admit he was wrong.

        Once someone has carried on like this, I do not trust anything that person might say from then on. I was annoyed because he was trying to use his previous position to imply he was an authority. Clearly he doesn’t know anywhere near as much as he thinks he does. He makes statements on matters and tries to imply he is an authority on matters that are outside his area of expertise.

        That’s where I got to with Pekka.

      • blueice2hotsea

        Peter Lang –

        OK. I have not found errors in your calculations when I have spot checked. Nor do I recall Pekka’s erroneous comment(s) wrt renewables. However, I agree that admitting to errors of fact is important. Recanting opinions is not as necessary because opinions are assumed conditional given that facts are correct.

        Pekka can be very nuanced and can split hairs verrrry thin. This I have interpreted as a penchant for precision rather than disingenuous or weaselly attitude (per DS).

        Hope I have not caused offense.

        bi2hs

      • Max,

        Do you watch The Big Bang theory?

        Yes, sometimes. I like the girl. She’s reality. The rest of them are Moshers. I think she’s coming to visit me soon (while my wife is off on a trip to Ireland) :)

        as far as renewables go its horses for courses.

        How much of your opinion about the viablility of renewable energy do you think is objective and how much is derived from the feel-good hype of the advocates?

        Here is an alternative proposition:

        Non-hydro renewable energy can be viable in some small applications. For example, some off grid situations. They are not viable for most grid applications. They are very expensive and offer virtually no benefits over other electricity generation technologies. If low CO2 emissions is important, then clearly nuclear power is what is needed.

        Here are some reasons for the above statements:

        1. renewables require about an order of magnitude more material than nuclear per TWh of electricity supplied. Clearly, for that reason alone, renewable energy cannot provide a large proportion of the worlds electricity demand.

        2. Renewables do not reduce emissions by anywhere near the amount claimed. This has been known for a long time, but those promoting renewable energy are better at getting their message out to a gullible public. A new paper, soon to be published shows that wind energy in Ireland produced 17% of Ireland’s electricity in 2011 but was only 50% effective at reducing emissions. [I’ll make a separate post with abstract, extract and comments].

        3. You say solar power could be viable in Spain. I say nonsense to that statement. The solar power stations is Spain are not even close to viable. Gemasolar, for example, costs around $26/W average power delivered.

        4. The latest and largest solar power station in the world in under construction in Califormia. It costs about $19/W average power delivered.

        The world’s largest and most recent solar thermal plant, Ivanpah, http://www.ecc-conference.org/past-conferences/2012/BrightSource_ECC_Presentation_combined.pdf will cost about $19/W of average power delivered:

        • Nameplate capacity = 370 MW.

        • 1,000,000 MWh/year. This means average power output is 114 MW (about 1/10th of a new nuclear plant).

        • Capacity factor is 31%.

        • Cost = US $2.2 billion = $19/Watt average electricity delivered.

        • This is 3x the cost of some recent nuclear powerplant builds that most environmentalists have accused of being prohibitively expensive.

        • The heliostats used in the project weigh in at 30,000 tonnes. That’s 262 tons of heliostats per MW electric average. That’s just for the heliostats, not even the foundations, not to mention the tower and power block.

        • The powerplant area that had to be bulldozed over is 20x larger than a nuclear reactor of equivalent average (real) capacity (twin unit AP1000).

        5. The solar and wind advocates have been telling us for 20 years “solar/wind is basload capable now and cheaper than nuclear, if only the stupid government would give us more money to make it happen”. Nothing much has changed in 20 years. Most people are still suckered in by the renewable energy dream

        6. Wave power is not viable. Tidal power may have a small role to play in some places. But it is a small bit player. A distraction. Likewise, Geothermal (engineered geothermal systems, not hydro thermal) is not viable. We’ve been at it for 40 years and there has been little progress. I can explain why in more detail if you want. These are all bit players. They are a distraction. They’ve been distracting us from focusing on viable options for well over 30 years.

        7. If the NEM’s (Eastern Australia’s electricity grid – the largest grid in the world in areal extent) electricity was to be generated by a mix of solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, hydro and either biomass or natural gas as the backup the CO2 abatement cost would be about $300/tonne CO2 avoided: http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ (Figure 6). That’s about thirty times the current EU carbon price and thirteen times the Australian carbon tax.

        8. nuclear is by far the cheapest way to reduce global CO2 emissions from electricity generation. It could be far cheaper still if we removed the impediments. Cost could reduce at about 20% per doubling of capacity if we allowed small, modular nuclear power plants.

        9. nuclear is already the safest electricity generation technology – safer than wind and solar. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html The safety will improve faster the faster the technology develops. The faster the rate of manufacture and roll out the faster the technology will develop (like the aircraft industry over the past 60 years).

        10. In short, renewable energy is not viable, it is a waste of time, a distraction , and enormous waste of money, and doesn’t deliver the benefits claimed by its advocates.

      • BlueIce2HotSea,

        Definitely no offence. Very constructive comments. I’m taking them on board.

      • “The world’s largest and most recent solar thermal plant, Ivanpah, http://www.ecc-conference.org/past-conferences/2012/BrightSource_ECC_Presentation_combined.pdf will cost about $19/W of average power delivered:

        • Nameplate capacity = 370 MW.

        • 1,000,000 MWh/year. This means average power output is 114 MW (about 1/10th of a new nuclear plant).

        • Capacity factor is 31%.

        • Cost = US $2.2 billion = $19/Watt average electricity delivered.”

        Not sure how one calculating the $19/Watt, I suppose
        it’s 2.2 billion divided by 114,000,000 Watts being 19.29 Watts.
        Which related to idea of getting solar panel to cost a $1 per watt except with these panels one is adding the lifetime of the solar panel [15-20 years or something]. And it seems in terms long term viability in terms of cost of the above facility, it could be much better than typical solar panel. Or simply things could wear out- mirrors, boilers, plumbing ect, but replacing and maintaining them doesn’t seem to as high cost in comparison. Or the basic infrastructure could last a century or more, if designed adequately. And it seems the basic infrastructure involves significant portion of entire costs.
        Plus of course with this facility there some degree storage of the energy- which could add significantly to it’s value. Or this a big problem this non thermal solar energy production.

        But some my interest related to topic is non-earth generated solar energy- such on the Moon, where one gets twice the average solar energy [or more]. And wondering if that would make much difference. Would it just be, one could use less mirrors [therefore not very significant]. There many factors in regard to moon and solar energy use, but just wanted to focus on just this aspect.
        Or also related to issue getting more solar energy [per square meter] does matter much if using this thermal solar plant which going to receive
        less solar energy. Or stating simply is this type solar energy generation as sensitive to higher or lower amount solar energy as compare to PV panels?

      • Tonyb,

        I said I’d post a comment regarding emissions avoided by wind generation, so here it is:

        Joe Wheatley – “Quantifying CO2 savings from wind power

        This paper is under review at Energy Policy (Elsevier). IMO it is a valuable contribution. It is one of the most thorough analyses of empirical electricity generation and CO2 emissions data I have seen. An earlier draft can be accessed here: http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wheatley-Ireland-CO2.pdf

        Abstract

        A method of quantifying operational CO2 savings from wind power generation is described with reference to the 2011 Irish electricity grid. Based on an emissions model and 1/2-hourly generation time-series for each grid connected thermal generator, it is shown that wind power saved 0:28 tCO2/MWh on average, relative to an implied average carbon intensity in the absence of wind of 0.53tCO2/MWh. These savings are significantly lower than expected. The origin of this result is explained in terms of the response of individual thermal generators to high levels of intermittent generation. The empirical method used here has application to other electricity grids.

        Ireland is a near ideal grid for such a study; as the author states:

        Ireland in 2011 is a good empirical test case for the following reasons:

        1. high average wind penetration (17% in 2011)

        2. minimal electricity exports meant that virtually all wind generation was accommodated on the domestic grid in 2011

        3. modern thermal plant portfolio with large amounts of relatively flexible gas generation (~ 58% of demand) as well as coal and peat plant

        4. zero nuclear and a low level of hydro (_ 2%)

        5. highly volatility of wind generation helps statistical analysis over relatively short timeframes such as one year

        6. availability of relatively high frequency grid data and mandatory emissions reporting at plant level under EU-ETS.

        The conclusion (in my words): wind generation avoids only about half as much CO2 as claimed by wind energy proponents.

        If this factor was applied to the CO2 emissions abatement cost for a mostly renewable energy Australian National Electricity Market (NEM), the $300/tonne CO2 abatement cost reported here would be even higher: http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

        Point to note: The last sentence in Wheatley’s Abstract says “The empirical method used here has application to other electricity grids.“. But this is not true for Australia because we do not have CO2 emissions data like Ireland has. The data published by the Australian Electricity Market Operator (AEMO) is virtually useless for the analysis undertaken by Joe Wheatley. This paragraph explains how Ireland estimates CO2 emissions from electricity generators:

        EirGrid, with the support of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, has together developed the following methodology for calculating CO2 emissions. The rate of carbon emissions is calculated in real time by using the generators MW output, the individual heat rate curves for each power station and the calorific values for each type of fuel used. The heat rate curves are used to determine the efficiency at which a generator burns fuel at any given time. The fuel calorific values are then used to calculate the rate of carbon emissions for the fuel being burned by the generator.

        http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/co2emissions/

        You can see the emissions intensity of the Irish electricity system charted in real time at 15 minute intervals here: http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/co2intensity/

      • > the battlefield is being dramatically shaped by economic reality. Britain is backpedalling furiously from its green agenda with a drastic cut in the amount to be used to subsidise renewables. <

        Backpedaling, yes, but from it's advanced position as All-world Leader of the Lemmings.

        The next push will be world government to block all such escape routes. The intention all along of course.

  92. Morgan may recognize the crucial inadequacy the attribution argument, but Bogdan clearly is diametrically opposed to this – ie wants keep the Gore political blindfolds firmly in place, and pretend ‘the science is settled’

    STOP FIGHTING THE LAST WAR – Spend less energy battling skeptics
    – With the science established…,

  93. ““Quit fighting the last war.”

    Translation : quit answering when you have no real answer.
    Just duck the question, and move ‘forward’ simply assuming what you know full well you cannot show.

  94. “It’s not worth it to continue this discussion much further, ” (Web, in this instance)

    If I had a dollar for each time someone said this and carried on the discussion anyway…..

    • The full context of the quote was “It’s not worth it to continue this discussion much further, as I assume that those words accidentally spewed out of your mouth without you thinking” We all have accidents, particularly if you are a 5th grader, and my apologies for wasting everyone’s time. /sarc (in case other 5th graers don’t get it).

  95. Tom Bogdan’s statement that “the science is settled” is a lie. If you don’t think it’s a lie, just Google the Petition Project and see the names and credentials of 31,000+ practicing degreed scientists, 9,000+ of them Ph.D.’s, who say anthropogenic global warming is bullgarbage.

    There goes your so-called consensus. Bullgarbage. People ,like Bogdan need to have their funding cut off posthaste. I resent my tax dollars being spent to support his politicking and disinformation campaign.

    Om another note: here in California we just had the first cap-and-trade auction for CO2. I’m just waiting to see when the AGW scaremongers discover that farm animals emit more CO2 through respiration that is generated by fossil fuel burning in California. Will we then have a carbon tax on livestock? Beware.

  96. Actually, the science IS settled, but it’s the opposite of Bogdan’s smarmy lies: AGW has been amply proven to be a fabrication ginned up for political purposes -m and to benefit profiteers. AGW is a lie, and Bogdan is a liar for claiming otherwise.

    • But Bogdan works for Morgan, who controls the NSF funding of climate science research. Morgan funds NCAR, Mann’s institute at Penn State, plus many other CAGW research centers. He, not the IPCC, is the real problem because money talks.

  97. Whither? CH V11 Taleb, on approaches ter Extremistan:

    Some ‘would rather do something than nothing,’ even when
    doing something may be harmful. (Frenetic approach?)

    Some would ‘rather use a map of the Pyranees when lost in the
    Alps than use nothing at all.’ ( It worked then.)

    A Book of Feathers:

    White Cockatoo.

    Dazzling plumage, white cockatoo,
    Personality type A -wakes at dawn – full on –
    What do we do today?
    Same as yesterday –
    Food, full flight display and frenzy.
    Voice rises from high register to piercing shriek
    Across the quiet valley: ‘Wait fer me, Maisie, wait!’
    Sulphur crest, barometer of mood swings – by the minute,
    Shifting from subdued hysteric
    To flat – out frenetic.

    Black Cockatoo.

    Cockatoo funereus, your mournful cry – ‘keee aah’
    Bespeaks the long history of ancestors,
    Of Pangaea and the shifting of continents,
    Of separation from exotic kin, the flashy
    Macaw cousins from Brazil.

    Black cockatoo, in appearance you exemplify
    The fallacy of Plato’s perfect form of things –
    Of birds, your helmet crest, remnant of dinosaur origin,
    Your awkward form, less defined than
    The shape of more dazzling kin,
    Of sulphur crested epigone. Your slow moving
    Heavy flight, precursing the flight display
    Of birds of prey, the dalliance of eagles.
    Your diet, befitting mourning.
    Not for you nectar of sweet blossoms.
    Instead, hard-crack seeds, fruit of hard times
    From narrow-leafed trees of adversity.

    At dusk a flock of funereus choose the tops of trees
    To roost in – jungian response to memories of tree-top foraging
    By dinosaur predators. You thrumm your insecurity
    In reassuring chorus until, exhausted, you sleep.
    Do you, then, dream the dream of your ancestors?

    BC

  98. Beth

    Wow!

    Max

  99. IMO, what is needed is good, unbiased economic analysis. If such analyses were not overly influenced (biased) by climate alarmism, I expect the results would show that there is no urgency and that rational policies will deal best with the risks. I’d argue the last thing we need is bureaucrats deciding what is best for humanity – especially when the bureaucrats seem to be of the Left ideological persuasion, gullible and ready acceptors of the latest Left scaremongering campaign and very willing to accept loony Left schemes like carbon tax, renewable energy schemes, world government and the like.

    The Australian Treasury modelled the effects of the carbon tax and ETS through to 2050. They titled their work “Strong Growth, Low Pollution future” (they should have called it the “Weaker growth, no effect on the climate future”).

    To get their modelling to support the government’s policy Treasury made some rather unjustified assumptions. They assumed CO2 concentration would increase to 1500 ppm. They assumed sea level would rise by 1.1 m by 2100. They assumed the whole world would participate in a carbon pricing scheme for all greenhouse gasses – with, for example, USA starting in 2016.

    We need good economic analyses by a truly independent, impartial, unbiased, objective group. We need proper due diligence. However, I have no idea how such an independent, unbiased, objective body could be established having witnessed how the Australian Treasury has been politicised.

    • Peter Lang

      The alarmists will avoid a cost/benefit analysis like the plague for two very simple reasons.

      – First of all, they ALL involve making investments TODAY to (possibly) avert a (posited) FUTURE disaster (which may or may not occur some day in the far distant future).

      – Second, even using IPCC’s exaggerated 2xCO2 mean climate sensitivity of 3.2 degC, NONE of these proposals result in a perceptible change of our global climate by 2100.

      There have been no actionable proposals for “changing our planet’s future climate” which even work – let alone which would show an attractive rate of return based on a cost/benefit analysis, especially if a reasonable discount rate is applied.

      I can see how a theoretical scientist (or even a theoretical economist) could fall into the trap of believing that mitigation could work, but anyone who has ever been involved with evaluating real investment decisions can see right away that it is a loser.

      A direct or indirect carbon tax will not change our climate one iota – no tax ever did.

      The most absurd are the political promises to “reduce CO2 emissions to X% of what they were in year Y by year Z” or (even more ludicrous) the hollow pledges to “hold global warming to no more than 2 degC”.

      The only sensible answer is adaptation on a local and regional basis, i.e. being prepared for any weather or climate surprises that Nature (or anyone else) throws at us, if and when it becomes apparent that these could be imminent.

      Max

    • Peter Lang

      To come back to your statement:

      To get their modelling to support the government’s policy Treasury made some rather unjustified assumptions. They assumed CO2 concentration would increase to 1500 ppm. They assumed sea level would rise by 1.1 m by 2100. They assumed the whole world would participate in a carbon pricing scheme for all greenhouse gasses – with, for example, USA starting in 2016.

      If the Australian Treasury used these assumptions to bamboozle the Australian public, they should all be removed from their bureaucratic posts and replaced by more honest individuals. Do the voters have any influence on this in your country?

      The idiots, who assume an eventual CO2 level of 1500 ppmv from burning fossil fuels, are obviously unaware of the fact that there isn’t that much total fossil fuel on our planet today. Based on WEC 2010 estimates of optimistically inferred total fossil fuel resources left on our planet, we could only reach around 1000 ppmv CO2 when they are all burned up!

      At a continuation of the 3mm/year sea level rise of the late 1990s and early 2000s (which has now slowed down again, as it has done historically in multi-decadal oscillations) it would take us 333 years to reach 1 meter rise (not 88 years). It a more reasonable long-term projection of 1.8 mm/year it would take 550 years. So the Australian Treasury is ignorant of the facts here, as well.

      “They assumed the whole world would participate”. How utterly naive and stupid! There is absolutely no reason to believe that the 21st century’s principal CO2 emitters, China and India, will “participate” in a what they perceive to be a “rich white man’s folly”, which would be directly counterproductive to their plans to improve the quality of life of their citizenry. It is also highly unlikely that the USA will do so.

      And, finally, there is a large dose of arrogance to go along with the ignorance described above. One could “shut down” Australia completely today and the total impact on 2100 temperature would be a theoretical few hundredths of a degree Celcius.

      And you know what Einstein said about “ignorance” and “arrogance”: here you have both on the part of your Treasury folks.

      My advice: Replace them.

      Max

      • Max,

        Thank you for your comments. I agree we need to replace Treasury and the government. Buts its easier said than done. And they are embedding their left-wing culture throughout the government departments. Would you believe this government moved the Head of the Department of Climate Change to be the Head of Treasury? And, apparently, they are about to move the new head of Department of Climate Change to be the new head of the “Productivity Commission”. Unbelievable!

        I should substantiate my statement about Treasury assuming 1500 ppm by 2100. See Box 3.1 http://archive.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/report/07chapter3.asp :

        The global average surface temperature has risen around 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850. It will rise further in the coming decades as a result of emissions that have already occurred, based on current scientific studies. Without further mitigation, atmospheric concentration is projected to rise to around 1500 ppm by around 2100. This has a 50 per cent chance of a temperature increase of 7 degrees above pre-industrial levels, leading to catastrophic consequences for the world.

        That’s just part of the crap used to justify Australia’s carbon tax.

        Here is and extract from Treasury’s propaganda:

        Costs of inaction

        While the modelling cannot accurately measure all the costs to the economy and environment of unmitigated climate change, there is no doubt that these costs far outweigh the modest cost of transforming our economy.

        The science is compelling, the threat is real, the economic and environmental benefits are tangible, the need for action is clear.
        It is not something that gets easier the longer we leave it.
        In fact the opposite is true. The longer we leave acting, the more it will cost the Australian economy.

        Without global action, we will experience severe water shortages, higher temperatures and less water in the Murray Darling for irrigation. The consequences of not acting will flow through to food prices and the cost of living more broadly.

        Australia faces significant environmental and economic costs in a warmer, more unstable climate. Extreme weather events are likely to become more frequent and severe. This threatens our homes, businesses, communities and vital industries.

      • Here is the link for the Treasury’s propaganda on “Cost of inaction”:

        http://archive.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/overview/page16.asp

      • Peter, 1500 ppm is an insane projection so blow the whistle on Treasury. There must be skeptical groups, blogs and scientists in Oz. Point this out to them or go to the press yourself. It is a good story.

  100. Tomas Milanovic

    You may create an infinity of mathematical equations that lead to chaotic behavior, but almost all of them have nothing to do with any real world system.

    Pekka you are really uninformed and you should do what you suggested to David : learn about fields of physics where you obviously have no understanding.
    Alternatively if you can’t do that, avoid sweeping statements like the one above which only clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of what chaotic systems really are and do.

    Here just 3 equations among your infinity :
    – d²(OM)/dt² = K.m/r²
    – Dv/Dt + (v.grad)v = 1/rho (µ.grad²(v) – grad(p))
    – L= f(,dtheta1/dt, dtheta2/dt, theta1, theta2)

    All lead to demonstrably chaotic behaviour and it has been known for at least.a century.
    As for you they have nothing to do with any “real world system”, one may wonder what you learned in your physics lessons.
    The truth is exactly opposite – most fundamental equations lead to chaotic behaviour. This is of course not necessarily always a problem because deterministic chaos even if it is omnipresent doesn’t mean that anything goes.
    But like with most physical disciplines, one can give an informed statement only when one has carefully studied it.

    • Indeed Tomas, by way of example I have a standard text on biogeochemical science. It has a long section on the logistic equation, pointing out that it is widely used in many physicsl contexts. But the book never mentions that it has a chaotic regime which probably occurs frequently, or what that means, hence chaos is simply ignored.

      The real problem is that because of the butterfly effect chaos cannot explain anything in the classic sense of explanation as retroactive prediction. That is one cannot fit the equation to the data because the equation produces many different forms depending on unknowable initial conditions. Intrinsic unpredictability entails intrinsic unexplainability in the classic sense of explanation as retroactive prediction.

      So the classical physicists shun chaos in a fruitless attempt to find classical explanations and predictions, where none can possibly be found. I think this is the fundamental problem with climate (and weather) science today, namely the failure to properly consider the limits to predictability and explainability.

      Discovering what cannot be known is a new kind of science. But as my mentor at NRL used to say, after 400 years it is about time we got something new.

      • Contemporary science is founded upon the principle of induction: most people have seen a certain phenomenon precede or follow some other phenomenon most often, and conclude therefrom that it will ever be thus. Apart from other considerations, this is true only in the majority of cases, depends on the point of view, and is codified only for convenience.

      • Not really. It is based on mechanisms not simple inductive correlations. Look at the journal literature. They are describing things and processes, not just correlations.

      • It would only be true when the system is proven also to be ergodic and as Tomas has said several times previously in other threads, climate science has never done this. Relationships can never be assumed to repeat themselves since the system never approaches anything suggesting equilibrium.

    • Tomas,

      I consider my sentence a obvious fact. I cannot see, how you could disagree on that, unless you read it in a very different way from what I wanted to say with that. By “almost all” I refer to the relative number of mathematically presentable equations to physically relevant ones. That ratio is surely large enough to justify the claim. There may still be very many physically relevant equations but there are many more that are not relevant.

      The comment was also a relevant response to David Wojick’s comment as that comment was based on a false generalization. Pointing out this fact was the idea behind my formulation.

      • Pekka, I do not see the relevence of your point. There are also infinitely many false physical equations, in fact there are infinitely many false varients on any one equation, but so what? My point was simply that if the glacial cycles are due to chaotic oscillation then they are due to nonlinear negative feedback, not positive feedback as you claimed. There is no generalization in my point.

      • David,

        You may have noticed that Tomas agreed with me on the point that negative feedbacks cannot lead to the transitions.

        It’s funny that Tomas picked my rather general comment to criticize when that comment was part of an exchange where he agreed with me on the actual issue.

        I still maintain my view that you misunderstand totally the role of positive and negative feedbacks in chaotic dynamics as well as in glacial cycles.

      • Pekka, I disagree with Tomas. I am sure positive feedbacks can create interesting behavior but the essential conditions for chaotic oscillation are merely a parameter that wants to change and a nonlinear negative feedback term that inhibits that change in the proper, chaotic way. The chaotic oscillations are due to the struggle between these two factors.

        In the logistic equation for example the driver is k times x and the nonlinear negative feedback is minus k times x squared. There is no positive feedback term, nor need there be. Hence positive feedback is not an essential condition for chaotic behavior.

        I am here doing what is called “foundations” analysis in philosophy of mathematics, which I do. It means finding the essential logical postulates or conditions that make the math work. It is very different from doing the math, which Tomas does and I do not do.

    • Tomas, the first equation seems to be Newton’s gravity equation, at least It has a similar form, but what are the other two?

  101. Peter Davies,
    Thx fer yr kind comment 22/11 @ 3.54 am. People have left posies of flowers at the railway station.

    Glad you and Max liked me poems ) I wrote The Black Cockatoo yesterday & today.
    Beth

  102. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Whither Climate Science?
    Overall Summary

    Scientific Finding 1:  Relatively simple Hansen-style thermodynamical models predict that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will cause accelerating climate-change in coming decades.

    Scientific Finding 2:  Detailed dynamical simulations have broadly affirmed Hansen’s general conclusions.

    Scientific Finding 3:  If it happens that Hansen’s prediction of an “accelerating rate of sea-level rise this decade” is affirmed, then rational debate regarding the scientific reality of AGW will diminish, and the main focus of the climate-change debate will shift to political, economic, and technical options for mitigating catastrophic global outcomes.

    These three findings are not hard to understand, but they are sobering, and facing-up to them responsibly does require both scientific understanding and wise moral foresight.

    So the science tells us that political/economic ideologies that are too simple and/or too short-sighted are not likely to prove useful. Ideologues won’t like this conclusion … and might not even be able to imagine it … and so ideologues might vehemently deny the science, eh?

    Yet in the long run, ideology-driven denial of climate-change is utterly futile, because “Nature cannot be fooled.”

    That is why we are (all of us) best-off facing-up responsibly to these scientific realities.

    Happy Thanksgiving Holidays to all! \rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\ \heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fan,

      That 2nd link was pretty cool. Very nice look at the world’s ocean currents in motion.

      What would cause you to decide that the warming was less of a problem? What might make you think that the temperature increase might only be 1.5 to 2 C by 2100? And what would cause you to reconsider the catastrophic consequences part of the outcome? After all, a change in sea level of a foot in 50 years could be problematic but if there are relatively long lags and/or negative feedbacks things could change more slowly. An extra foot of sea level rise or an extra 2C over 300 years is much more manageable, isn’t it?

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Bill comments

        That 2nd link was pretty cool. Very nice look at the world’s ocean currents in motion.

        • What would cause you to decide that the warming was less of a problem?

        Impressive animation? Yah, sure, you betcha! For me, that NASA animation shows how (relatively) simple global thermodynamic arguments (“globally, energy is conserved” and “globally, entropy increases”) can lead to robust climate-change predictions.

        As for myself, I’ll worry less about climate-change:

        • if sea-level rise does *not* accelerate in coming decades, and

        • theory strongly suggests that’s because cloud feedbacks mitigate greenhouse gas effects, and

        • experiments strongly affirm our strengthening theoretical appreciation of cloud-related feedback physics.

        Conversely, if during the coming decade we find short-lived aerosols have been *masking* the long-term power of long-lived greenhouse gases, then responsibly averting a horrendous planetary-scale calamity will require drastic actions.

        Conclusion Fore-sighted moral-minded science-focussed folks perceive these issues as being mighty tough. Short-sighted wishful-thinking ideology-first denialists, not so much, eh?

        Happy Holidays Bill! \rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\ \heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Fan,

        You could have left off the last paragraph.

        I think it’s great that you have such high regard for yourself and those who agree with you. You do realize that those on the other side think your side is the one that is short-sighted and ideology-driven, right? They may agree that you are moralistic, but might find it sad and ironic when you cause more harm than you realize, and actually promote the things you say you are against.

        But I’m with you. I will observe what happens over the next 10-15 years and modify my understanding of the world based on the science.

        Happy Holidays to you as well.

  103. Things are not looking good for the incumbent Australian Labor
    Party with regard to alleged connections to misappropriated
    Union funds. Not only do we need a reformed Treasury but
    a change of government as well. Tony Abbott has said that he
    would abolish the Carbon Tax. Amen ter that!

    • “Two young boys
      told me that a young girl threw herself under a train.”

      (Beth, Just in case you’ve not seen my above comment…nothing great but wanted to respond)….This is terribly sad of course. I’ve heard it said that teens don’t really appreciate what death means, and I think that’s true. I know it was for me. Makes me think of Anna K. climbing onto those tracks, truly one of the great scenes in literature.It only dawned on her that she was making a mistake when it was too late. She was no teen of course, and quite intelligent, but even she wasn’t thinking clearly

      I recall reading an article about the Golden Gate Bridge which is the scene
      of many suicides. Very occasionally, a jumper survives. One of them reports that as he went over the railing he had the horrifying though that every single one of his problems was fixable…except for what he’d just done.

    • Beth

      From what Peter Lang has posted about your Treasury bureaucrats (and your Labor Government), I’d say it’s high time to “git riddada bums!”

      Max

  104. Pressure on Britain to cut its carbon emissions cost 1,500 jobs yesterday – and they will not be the last, the Government has been warned. Tata Steel announced the redundancies at its Scunthorpe and Teesside plants, blaming ­climate change legislation required by Brussels and the UK’snew Climate Change Act. The prospect of higher energy costs aimed at reducing carbon emissions by imposing limits would push the price of British steel to uncompetitive levels. –Sarah O’Grady, Sunday Express, 21 May 2012

    Is it anywonder UK and EU are in such a financial mess. They’ve been forcing manufacturing businesses to move to Asia for the past 30 or 40 years. And don’t forget, the CO2 emissions move from UK and EU to Asia too. So the jobs are exported and the emissions are exported. Result, UK and EU go broke but there is no reduction in global CO2 emissions.

    Isn’t that brilliant, eh? Why can’t the CAGW alarmists see it? Or don’t they want to? Don’t they care?

  105. Morgan is mouthing the new CAGW mantra of extreme events, thresholds and tipping points. The old song with new words. Note too the focus on social systems which means focusing the scares on specific political groups. What Mosher calls impacts.

  106. Peter Lang

    Coming back to our topic, here is where and how guys like Steven Mosher lose their sense of reality when thinking about the impact of AGW.

    They accept the results of the CGMs as “truth” when, in actual fact, these are only simulations derived from assumed inputs, most of which are based on GH theory, model calculations using laboratory derived spectral band data, or interpretations of reconstructed paleo-climate proxy data.

    What is missing are actual empirical data from real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation (Feynman).

    Yet these do exist.

    Since 1850 we have a globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature record. Admittedly, this record has “warts and blemishes”.

    – The land portion is distorted to some extent by the urban heat island effect, land use changes, spotty coverage in underdeveloped regions, elimination of a large number of Arctic and sub-Arctic stations in the 1990s plus other changes in weather stations over time; many of these factors introduce a warming bias.

    – The sea portion is very spotty, with data prior to around 1979 extremely suspect (although there is no known warming bias in the data – it’s simply lousy data).

    But let’s accept the global land and sea record “as is”. It shows us a total linear temperature increase since 1850 of 0.7°C

    We also have a record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since Mauna Loa measurements started in 1959; prior to that we only have estimates based on Vostok ice core data (see IPCC AR4), but let’s also assume that these are OK.

    Based on these estimates, CO2 increased from an estimated level of 290 ppmv in 1850 to 392 ppmv today.

    The key question now is: how much of the observed past warming can be attributed to the increase in CO2 concentration?

    IPCC has estimated that the overall forcing from all other anthropogenic factors, other than CO2 (i.e. other GHGs, aerosol, etc.) have cancelled one another out, so that CO2 forcing = total anthropogenic forcing.

    IPCC also estimates that only 7% of the past warming can be attributed to natural forcing (solar), with the remainder attributed to anthropogenic forcing. IPCC does, however, concede that its ”level of scientific understanding of natural (solar) forcing is low”.

    Several independent studies have concluded that around 50% of the past warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest is several thousand years).

    So we have a range of forcing by CO2 from 50% to 93% of the observed warming and a CO2/temperature response of 0.35°C to 0.65°C.

    Using the logarithmic CO2/temperature relation we can use these data to establish the CO2/temperature response for 2xCO2, as follows:

    [IPCC estimate, 7% of 0.7°C natural]
    2xCO2 response = ln(2)*0.93*0.7/ln(392/290)
    = 0.6931*0.651/0.3014 = 1.5°C

    [Solar studies, 50% of 0.7°C natural]
    2xCO2 response = ln(2)*0.5*0.7/ln(392/290)
    = 0.6931*0.35/0.3014 = 0.8°C

    This can be expressed as 0.115°C±0.035°C

    This is the physically observed 2xCO2 temperature response since we have a global temperature record 160+ years ago.

    Note: It could be slightly lower than this if the UHI distortion is taken out of the temperature record.

    If we could get the likes of Steven Mosher to accept the actual physical observations, rather than the model outputs and theoretical GH deliberations, we could get some reality into the climate debate.

    But I personally believe this is an impossible task, as can be seen from the posts of the “CAGW believers” (and even the self-proclaimed “luke warmers”, like Steven Mosher) here.

    Max

    • It would not take Feynman long to realize we are in the experiment.

    • typo in above

      observed 2xCO2 temperature response is

      1.15°C±0.35°C

      (NOT: 0.115°C±0.035°C)

      Sorry.

    • Brandon Shollenberger

      manacker, why would you act like a transient response is the climate’s sensitivity? We wouldn’t expect an instantaneous response function.

  107. JCH

    That’s right. I honestly believe that any real scientist would do so, as well.

    But apparently that’s not what we are dealing with here.

    Max

  108. pokerguy, appreciate yr response. As a teacher i’ve worked with kids
    with problems and Iv’e always felt that the adults in their lives need
    ter work at passing on what skills they can and expanding life opportunities. There’s gotta be some joy. You and I know the
    pleasure of literature, Tolstoy ) … I haven’t read the new Hillary
    Mantell novel as yet but it’s supposed to be her best!
    Wolf Hall was wonderful.

  109. Bureau-think is so pervasive, Max. The UN, the IPCC, the EU…
    and jest about any dern com-bin-ai-shun of letters you can
    think of! ( Rustling of silk in the corridors of power straight out
    of ‘Name of the Rose.’ )

  110. @Peter Davies | November 22, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    What I wonder is if all these natural coal fires is have they been adequately taken into account in the CO2 inventory. After all, burning coal obviously will have the same isotopic signature whether burned by man or nature otherwise.

  111. Peter Davies –

    Yes, the CAGW alarmists have pointed to the methane emitted through livestock flatulence. But the volume of CO2 from their respiration is hundreds, if not thousands, of times the volume of CH4 coming out of their kiesters – more than enough to make up for the (supposedly) greater greenhouse effect of methane compared to CO2.

    Other folks –

    Any comments on the Petition Project?

  112. Lauri Heimonen

    Judith Curry

    ‘Whither (wither?) climate science?’

    As far as I understand by the scrutiny of my own, AGW will be a loser. Natural laws will save the climate science. The sooner you find it the better. Our task is to make decision-makers understand that early enough. Otherwise we are threatened to be getting badly lost. The real uncertainty – or even ignorance – of the cause on the recent warming, expressed for instance in this thread, is one symptom of that. What we have to learn to accept is that the recent increase of CO2 in atmosphere has been dominated by the gobal warming and not vice versa.

    gbaikie http://juditcurry.com/2012/11/17/week-in-review-111712/#comment-269414 :

    ”It seems to me the idea that humans are causing 100% of the increase in CO2 to be an unsupportable position, but likewise it seems difficult to prove that human have caused 4% or less of the increase.”

    As one – like gbaikie – seems to be really unprejudiced and so ready to adopt what the real share of anthropogenic CO2 in the total CO2 content in the present atmosphere is I propose him/her to consider what Nir Shaviv in his text wants to say:

    ”And now for the really last point. Don’t believe a word I write. If you are a genuine scientist, or wish to think like one, you should base your beliefs on facts you see and scrutinize for yourself. On the same token, do not blindly believe the climate alarmists. In particular, be ready to ask deep questions. Does the evidence you are shown prove the points that are being made? Is the evidence reliable? Sometimes you’ll be amazed from the answers you find”

    Comment of mine http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/17/week-in-review-111712/#comment-268811 :

    ‘In my synthesis the influence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is so minimal that the cutting of CO2 emissions – already realized or being planned – is not any working solution.

    Curryja: http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/17/week-in-review-111712/#comment-268378 :

    ”The point is that there are BOTH natural and anthropogenic factors at play. The question is how much can be attributed to anthropogenic. My point is that it is unlikely to be 0 or 20%, and also unlikely to be 80 or 100%. Somewhere between 30 and 70% is where I think it lies, but I have left plenty of room in my estimate (with the ‘likely’ confidence level) to be wrong.”

    The point of mine is between 0 and 5%.’

    This should have been the point question of the uncertainty to be solved before any realized measure to cut emissions of anthropogenic emissions of CO2. In the scrutiny of my own I have proved in many ways that the share of antropogenic CO2 emissions in the total increase or the content of CO2 in atmosphere is minimal i.e. insignificant. This is a point that is enough to prove the anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not dominate the increase of CO2 content in atmosphere, and even their influence on global warming, which is believed to be dominating, is still a more unreasonable possibility.

    Quotations from my earlier comments; see e.g. http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 :

    ”What do we know theoretically about anthropogenic cause of CO2 increases in the atmosphere?

    a) Total CO2 emissions from sources to atmosphere and total CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to sinks together determine the CO2 content in atmosphere
    b) Total absorptions of CO2 from atmosphere to sinks determine, how much CO2 from total CO2 emissions stays in atmosphere to increase its CO2 content
    c) Quantity from a single source of CO2 emission in relation to total CO2 emissions from all CO2 sources during the same time determine a share of the single CO2 emission in the total quantity of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere
    d)As nowadays the anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere are about 8 GtC a year (CO2 calculated as C), and the natural CO2 emissions to the atmosphere are about 200 GtC a year, the maximum share of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the total CO2 emissioins to the atmosphere is about 4 %, the rest 96 % being from natural CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.”

    And further.

    ”- Endersbee has proved that during the latest three decades the global average SST dominate the CO2 content in the atmosphere: “Oceans are the main regulators of carbon dioxide”
    – By interpreting what Bob Tisdale presents the average SST mentioned by Endersbee is controlled by SST on the higher latitudes where sea surface of CO2 sinks are. The warming of sea surface areas acting as CO2 sinks lessens CO2 absorption from atmosphere to them. As a result of that more CO2 from the total CO2 emissions stays in the atmosphere to add its CO2 content, untill a new dynamic balance between CO2 sources and sinks is reached.
    – Further interpreting of Bob Tisdales analyses indicates that during periods of several decades dominated by El Niño events (e.,g. 1910-44 and 1976-2009) change trends of SST are increasing, and during same kind of period dominated La Niña -event 1945-1975 there are changes of SST but not such a trend.”

    The correlation between CO2 content in atmosphere and sea surface temperature is connected especially with global sea surface temperature during time periods when El Niño events are dominating. The key role there appears to be related to the temperature of sea surface on higher latitudes where the sea surface CO2 sinks are.

    • In the scrutiny of my own I have proved in many ways that the share of antropogenic CO2 emissions in the total increase or the content of CO2 in atmosphere is minimal i.e. insignificant.

      I agree.

      Because that is what the observed data shows:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/normalise/from:1979.3/plot/rss/normalise/trend

      • As a result, trying to control CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a fool’s errand. Because it naturally increases during warm PDO (El Nino stronger than La Nina) for about 30 years, and slightly decrease during cool PDO (La Nina stronger than El Nino) for about 30 years.

        During warm PDO, the warming due to the stronger El Nino is generally greater than the cooling due to the weaker La Nina, and this results in a warming trend, which in turn results in increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

      • According to you, CO2 causes warming and warming causes CO2. A runaway greenhouse. Where did you go wrong?

      • You are spewing more nonsense Girma, and unfortunately it seems some unwittingly have fallen for it. During the entire Holocene ENSO has gone on with El Nino favored periods and La Nina ones. Never once during this period, including the Holocene climate optimum and Roman Warm period, did CO2 levels come close to what we have today. In what manner must you contort your mind and the principles of logic and science or what “narrative” must you tell yourself to justify why, during these warmer periods of the Holocene, that CO2 didn’t jump up to the levels we have today?

      • @R Gates “Never once during this period, including the Holocene climate optimum and Roman Warm period, did CO2 levels come close to what we have today. ”

        Citations please. I rather think that absolute measurement of CO2 and that of changes in its global levels during the periods that you have mentioned would have not been as well developed as it is today.

      • See the law dome CO2 record for example:

      • Thanks lolwot. This study seems to be a reasonably good application of scientific method, particularly in view that it was performed by Australian scientists ;) Possible contamination of the air bubbles being analysed would be a concern as it has been for other scientific paleo sample analyses.

      • “See the law dome CO2 record for example:

        http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/lawdome.GIF

        Of course that graph is a splice of measurements.
        One can’t measure CO2 in ice core for recent years, as glacier ice takes decades or depending on specific conditions hundreds of years to form.

        And:
        “Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.”

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

        And:
        “Recent stomata studies show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record.”

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

        Oh, here the actual reference I was looking for:
        “Accumulating ice layers can take a century or more to become buried deep enough to be isolated from the atmosphere, which at the South Pole occurs at a depth of approximately 120 m. ”
        From geocraft ref above

      • gbaikie, there is a reason they don’t use forest measurements to represent global CO2. Stomata generally exist in forests.

    • ENSO is not the cause of the current rise in CO2. During most of the this interglacial when ENSO was a natural ongoing cycle, even during periods when El Nino or La Nina would dominate (warm or cold phase of the PDO), CO2 levels have staying in a fairly tight range, not varying more than a maximum of 10% over the entire Holocene, (prior to the Industrial Revolution). Furthermore, going back 800,000 years, CO2 levels have stayed in a range of between 180 and 300 ppm, and certainly during this 800,000 years ENSO existed and went through many El Nino and La Nina dominated periods.

      To not accept the fundamental science– that humans are far and away the primary cause of the rise of CO2 levels from a pre-industrial 275 ppm to the current 390 ppm– is to deny basic and widely accepted data and physical and chemical principles. This kind of belief goes far beyond skepticism and is the reason and perfect example of why the term “denialism” is appropriate in some circumstances.

      • R. gates

        CO2 levels have staying in a fairly tight range, not varying more than a maximum of 10% over the entire Holocene

        From 1978 to 2011, CO2 concentration increased by about 15% from 335 ppm to 392 ppm, which is all due to global warming as shown:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/normalise/from:1979.3/plot/rss/normalise/trend

      • “To not accept the fundamental science– that humans are far and away the primary cause of the rise of CO2 levels from a pre-industrial 275 ppm to the current 390 ppm– is to deny basic and widely accepted data and physical and chemical principles. This kind of belief goes far beyond skepticism and is the reason and perfect example of why the term “denialism” is appropriate in some circumstances.”

        These numbers of CO2 in the atmosphere is based on the amount CO2 one measure from a high mountain in Hawaii. There is assumption that were to go to this mountain and measure CO2 in pre-industrial time [which ends around 1750 to 1850] it would be 275 ppm for year long average.

        So if had Stewie’s [Family Guy] time machine and had something like this:

        http://www.professionalequipment.com/alnor-indoor-air-quality-carbon-dioxide-co2-meter-compuflow-cf920/carbon-dioxide-gas-detectors/

        With specs of:
        Accuracy: ±3.0% of reading or ±50 ppm, whichever is greater
        Resolution: 1 ppm
        Flew and drove up the mountain, set the time machine for 1750, and went back in time. Measured the CO2 for a year, and averaged them
        I could get the result of 275 ppm ±50 ppm. Though by taking numerous reading each day, I could get lower error range.
        And in the year 1750, I would have not only the most convenience way to measure CO2, but probably the most accurate instrument available in the world at that time, but also I would be in the correct location to measure it.
        The question is how accurate could my measurement be. And instead going back time, I were get some glacial ice formed in 1750 and measure
        today, what would the difference in the accuracy between these two methods?
        Does the glacial ice provide a more accurate way to measure global CO2?

      • Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured in many other places.

      • JCH said that CO2 were being measured in other places. Back in the 1700’s?
        I rather think not. I prefer the satellite measurements being conducted right now.

      • These numbers of CO2 in the atmosphere is based on the amount CO2 one measure from a high mountain in Hawaii. – gbaikie

        I probably should refrain from trying to understand gbaikie.

    • Oceans are not currently a net source of CO2. They are a net sink.

      The CO2 rise is anthropogenic, not natural.

  113. Peter Lang,

    You admonish Steven Mosher with the comment:

    What an arrogant, pompous twit you are. You tell others their contributions are worthless. Yet clearly you think yours are of some value.

    Don’t you accuse others of worthless contributions? Don’t you think your POV, and others of like mind, are the only ones with any value?

    So, by your own definition, does that make you an “arrogant pompous twit”?

  114. Here is a better site on Mt. Wingen … this site has a descriptions of other coal fires as well.

    “Natural Coal Seam Fire at Burning Mountain, Wingen, NSW, Australia”

    http://www.coalfire.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:burning-mountain-nsw-australia&catid=39:worldwide-coalfires

  115. I do agree with Steven Mosher that blogging is ‘just playing in a sand pit’ and bloggesr have no power. It is frightening to think that modellers like him do have so much power.

    His comments about Obama’s capacity to bribe the state governors into submission are also correct and very worrying. How much more US debt will he run up in such bribes – and all because he trusts the modellers?

    I’d suggest the modellers are dangerous. I expect people who know more history than I do can point out the parallels.

    • I think of it as lost opportunity- rather than dangerous.
      Though obviously there can danger connected with this.
      Nor I am impressed with “Obama’s capacity to bribe” or
      making anyone [particularly governors] do anything, regardless of what it is.
      But I will be duly impressed if he does manage anything along those lines.

      I would be terrified if I lived in Israel- not because Obama going to do something, but the uncertainty that Obama will do anything.
      It’s the non action, or staring into the headlights, when action may be required, which is the main “worry”. As compared to say a Mrs Clinton as a president- I would worry what she would do.

      As climate matters, I think it largely depends on global temperature- and for last decade or so, it’s going no where. And seems like nowhere is where it’s going for next few years.

      • gbaikie,”If the climate modellers have as much power as they believe they have, they are driving us over a cliff. That is dangerous, IMO!

      • “gbaikie,”If the climate modellers have as much power as they believe they have, they are driving us over a cliff. That is dangerous, IMO!”

        I think their models precisely model their mind- delusional.

        More adjectives include, dull witted, dishonest, illusions of grandeur, and insufferable brown nosers.

        And perhaps they could be dangerous, but monkeys could be dangerous.

        If climate modeler were serious, well- simplest explanation is they can’t be that stupid.

        The cliff we could be flying over is global financial meltdown- and that requires no talent. And it’s far more consequential.
        Oh, and bunch small dick Iranians are making nuclear weapons.

      • Thinking about the comments that the loony Left make in advocating their beliefs, I realise it is impossible to communicate with them because they have no understanding of money, finances, economics or what makes the real world operate.

      • Peter, absolutely correct. For one very small but compelling example, I got into a little discussion with Mosher and it became rapidly clear that he’s really quite an unsophisticated fellow when it comes to business. Ar the same time, it’s also clear he has no inkling that this might be the case. That’s precisely why these guys are so dangerous.

        By the way, I do take exception to your “left vs right” characterization on the grounds that it’s overly broad. I’m a global warming skeptic as well as a life-long democrat.

      • pokerguy,

        Thank you for your comment and for explaining your experience with modeller Mosher which revealed that he lacks an understanding of the real world.

        I take your point about my Left versus Right comments. I realise such comments are sweeping statements, but it is impossible to get the message across in a few words any other way. In blog comments we have to use short terms to make the point rather than long nuanced statements before even getting to the substance of the comments.

        I also realise not everyone in any given political party supports a Left ideology on every issue. However, in the case of CAGW it is triue that most of the Alarmists are of Left/Green/Socialist/’Progressive’ persuasion.

        I recognise many Democrats do not fit the description of Left, Greenie, Socialist, so called ‘Progressive’. But notice that I didn’t say ‘Democrat’ and did not tie Left to a political group in USA. In Australia the Labor Party and Greens are Left, although even within the Labor party there is a fairly wide spectrum from Centre to far Left. The Greens are far left. Many are true communists. For them, CAGW is clearly a means to an end. I expect it is for many on the Left.

      • Peter Lang said:

        “I take your point about my Left versus Right comments. I realise such comments are sweeping statements, but it is impossible to get the message across in a few words any other way.”

        ____
        This is always the case when a point is not valid.Trying to place people into neat little boxes to suit your simplified us/them and black/white view of the world is the first sign your view is corrupt and you probably ought to toss it out. You’ll be much more successful if you embrace the multi-colored diverse human family we have. This proved enormously successful for Democrats and will have to be what the Republicans do if they are to survive as a party.

      • R. Gates. Point accepted. Do you think you can make that point to the CAGW Alarmists who blog here, the most extreme of who are clearly of the extremist, Loony Left ideological persuasion?

        If you succeed in getting them to wake up to themselves, it would be great. Then we can all focus on economically rational policies to address the world’s real problems. :)

      • Mr. Lang,

        You probably ought to clearly define the top 5 beliefs of someone you consider to be on the “Loony Left”. Even just this terminology is of course not one that will “build bridges”. My neighbor across the street was one of the 21,000 or so who was very sad after Obama won and signed the petition to have Colorado secede from the Union. Such act might be seen as “loony” but if it made him feel better, so be it. I certainly would not call him the “loony right” for his beliefs– though some racist things he’s said over the years make him something completely different than what we’re talking about.

      • 5 beliefs of the “Loony Left”

        1 Through government policy, justice demands that wealth should be redistributed.
        2. Government is the only means to make the world better place.
        3 Higher taxes are always better- it’s “the truth” which may be unpopular with many people. But we need more brave politicians willing to do the right thing.
        4 What would be fabulous is rock stars and scientist as government leaders
        5 More lying is required to overcome the sinister and numerous forces
        wishing to set back what must necessarily be done.

      • R Gates,

        Thank you for that comment. It seems the only way to respond to the repulsive way the Loony Left write their comments, which are supported by the other CAGW Alarmists, is to respond in kind. I notice you haven’t taken issue with the way those of your ideological persuasion write their comments.

        Therefore, I’d suggest your comment says more about you than me.

        BTW, do you know how to spell in English? Since you’ve stuck with the old British Imperial weights and measures system, when the rest of the world has moved on, you’d think you’d at least understand how to spell in English. :)

      • R Gates,

        The reply is posted in the wrong place. It is here:

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/20/whither-wither-climate-science/#comment-270886

      • “By the way, I do take exception to your “left vs right” characterization on the grounds that it’s overly broad. I’m a global warming skeptic as well as a life-long democrat.”

        Peter did say loony Left.

        I am sure most life-long Republicans would be eager to agree there are crazy right wingers.
        And it’s not as though the democrats, have always been so dominated by the Left- or some form of insanity.
        And It wasn’t that too long ago, when the three major news networks still made some effort to appear non-partisan.
        Yes, back in the day, when news anchors were saying if they were only given more time, then they could do in-depth news coverage.
        And on PBS with a younger Hugh Hewitt with two lefty to argue about various things.
        One thing about the older days- we got more filibustering. Having more time has changed that, but we don’t get more in-depth news coverage.

      • Peter Lang said:

        “Thinking about the comments that the loony Left make in advocating their beliefs, I realise (sic) it is impossible to communicate with them because they have no understanding of money, finances, economics or what makes the real world operate.”

        _____
        I’m an Independent Mr. Lang, but lean to the left on social issues, to the somewhat conservative side on economic ones, and certainly am a “warmist” in that I believe that humans are more likely than not warming the planet. I take great exception to your contention that the “loony Left” has no understanding of money, finances, economics, or what makes the real world operate. This continued bigoted viewpoint tends to reinforce my rather unfavorable perception of you.

  116. Peter Lang re ‘trusting modellers’.. Cloud towers ain’t reality, but
    sadly, oh so sadly, corridors of power, power elite decisions within
    the confines of UN, IPCC, CRU, secret policy meetings of theBBC,
    these are the reality backed up by a compliant media.

    • Beth and gbaikie

      I have posted a comment in which I’ve quoted and linked to many of Steven Mosher’s comments over the past two days. They were addressed to me an others. The comment is held in moderation. I think it is genuinely scary what it reveals about how these people think. My comment begins:

      The comments by Steven Mosher over the past two days provide a rare insight into the arrogance of the climate modellers and the power they believe they have to lead politicians by the nose.

      If other climate modellers don’t stand up and say this is not how the modellers in the groups he works with think, I’d suggest it is reasonable to assume he represents the culture in these groups. Steven Mosher, has exposed it.

      What he reveals of the culture is dangerous. Here are links to his comments from the past two days. They reveal how he thinks, and I expect they reveal how the people he works with think too.

      I’ll be very interested to see the responses when the comment is released. How many will come forward and say that climate modellers don’t think like Steven Mosher.

      • Hmm.
        My short answer is: I have no comment.

        My long answer would be about this:
        ” I think it is genuinely scary what it reveals about how these people think.”

        And, I am happy if they thinking at all.

        How they do it is interesting
        but also a deeply mysterious topic.

        But I guess I will add: Lefty are evil- they are just utterly unaware of this.

        If one can’t figure out that the Soviet Union was Evil, what hope does one have?

  117. The persistent global mean temperature plateau since 1998 according to the five datasets Hadcrut3, Hadcrut4, GissTemp, RSS & UAH.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/detrend:0.075/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/detrend:0.075/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/detrend:0.12/offset:-0.06/plot/gistemp/from:1998/detrend:0.12/offset:-0.06/plot/rss/from:1998/offset:0.13/detrend:-0.06/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/detrend:0.08/offset:0.28/plot/uah/from:1998/detrend:0.08/offset:0.28

    Despite what they see above, the alarmists still say it is “worse than we thought”

    What would they have said if it had really been increasing at 0.2 deg C per decade?

  118. Impacts – what are they?

    The self appointed expert on everything, Steven Mosher, stated up thread:

    The battlefield will now be impacts.

    So, what are they? What are the impacts of ACO2?

    Australian Treasury says the global average temperature will increase 7C by 2100.

    Australian Climate Institute and many other extremist organisations are saying the planet will warm 4C by 2100

    William Nordhaus’s DICE (2007) model was calibrated to the main GCM models and uses a central estimate of 3C by 2100. (Table 5-8, http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf )

    So, what should we believe? I’ll use Nordhaus in this comment because, although the results are 5 years old, I believe he is the most balanced and sensible of those inside the CAGW Alarmist camp.

    What are the impacts of 3C warming? Are they serious or are they inconsequential? How do we know?

    I would really like to know, but none of the CAGW alarmists seem to be wlling to address this question other than with statements of their belief, emotive language and emotional responses.

    To try to coax some constructive comments out of the alarmists, I’ll summarise some key points from Nordhaus (2007)

    Nordhaus used estimates available up to 2007 to estimate the damage cost of 3.06C warming (from 1900) would be $22.55 trillion (in 2005 US $) (Table 5-1). But…. wait for it ….

    The damages with the ‘Optimal’ carbon price policy would be $17.31 trillion. (Temperature change from 1900 = 2.61C, a saving of just 0.47C)

    Importantly, he estimated that the abatement cost with the ‘Optimal’ carbon price policy would be $2.2 trillion.

    So, Nordhaus estimated the cost at $2.2 trillion to avoid 0.47C of warming. But …. wait for it …

    Nordhaus also makes statements in the text that, when put together, show that carbon pricing cannot work in the real world. (I summarised them here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239089. Therefore, carbon pricing would set the world back $2.2 trillion (2005 US$) for no benefit.

    This is an important issue. No work has been done to show that carbon pricing can achieve the benefits that Nordhaus and the other carbon price advocates assume. They are making an unsupported assumption. Richard Tol acknowledged it in his reply to my question here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239101

    As an aside, Nordhaus also shows the damage costs, abatement costs and Temperature change (from 1900) for other policies. Here is an extract from three of the sixteen polices listed (Table 5-1)

    Damage cost (2005 US$ trillion):
    None (delay 250 years) 22.6
    Optimal 17.3
    Stern Review (discounting) 9.0
    Low-cost backstop 4.9

    Abatement cost (2005 US$ trillion):
    None (delay 250 years) 0.0
    Optimal 2.2
    Stern Review (discounting) 27.7
    Low-cost backstop 0.5

    Global Temp change (°C from 1900):
    None (delay 250 years) 3.1
    Optimal 2.6
    Stern Review (discounting) 1.5
    Low-cost backstop 0.9

    Low cost back stop policy is by far the cheapest, by far the least damaging and by far the small best temp increase.

    Yet the CAGW alarmists block it. Go figure!

  119. R. Gates,

    You asked:

    You probably ought to clearly define the top 5 beliefs of someone you consider to be on the “Loony Left”.

    Hmmm. That’s a tall order. With respect to climate change and those who tend to be the extremists and who believe ACO2 will be catastrophic (e.g. support extremist James Hansen’s opinions), here are a few points that come to mind. The Loony Left believe

    1. ACO2 will cause catastrophic climate change – no due diligence is required, just accept what the IPCC says

    2. The cost of mitigation is irrelevant – just implement the policies they want

    3. All other global issues are irrelevant – only CAGW is important

    4. Renewable energy must be implemented – the cost is irrelevant because renewables are good

    5. Globalisation is bad. Big companies are evil

    6. Population control should be imposed on the rest of the world, but not on themselves

    7. More regulation is good – to enforce the policies they believe in

    8. markets are evil

    9. World government and world taxation is needed – to enforce their beliefs on everyone

    10. More tax, more state control of everything we can say, do, think and eat is needed

    11. Larger bureaucracies are needed

    That is the message that is continually reinforced by bloggers who support CAGW. It is also the message that underpins much of what the Left leaning politicians and media say. [Yes, I've exaggerated a bit, but you only allowed me 5 points] :)

    • Peter,

      And the top beliefs of the “loony right”? Just invert the meanings of the 11 points above and that’s not a bad start.

      You could add a belief that:
      a) Obama is a Muslim and a Kenyan.
      b)Trades Unions are evil.
      c) Anyone who works in the Public sector is a parasite on society.
      d) The world’s universities are controlled by Communists.
      e) Anyone with a concern for the environment is a Communist
      f) Democracy is the power of the mob.

  120. Thx, fan fer link to animated NASA views of our perpetual ocean,
    which is awe-some. I’ve jest finished what i think is a final draft of
    a narrative about Pacific gyres and I will bookmark this link.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/perpetual-ocean.html

    In nature, always interconnections. And here with us likewise :-) x3.

    Beth.

  121. BFJC 25/11 3.41 am says,’China has changed, less socialist more capitalist than before’
    I’d say, ‘more fascist than before.’ There’s a close connection
    between statist ideologies of communism and fascism than
    capitalism.(Ref ‘Varieties of Fascism Eugen Weber.)
    Many fascist leaders, including Hitler and Mussolini, emerged fron
    socialist movements and continued to espouse statism, harnessing business to their state goals … ‘business will do what we say.’
    This was not free market capitalism.

  122. tempterrain | November 25, 2012 at 1:16 am |
    I would largely agree that statism as occurred under the the USSR was largely a tyranny. Some large corporations are tyrannies too. OK they don’t have gulags, but there can be a hire and fire mentality, and no dissent is tolerated

    Corporations hiring and firing and not tolerating dissent has nothing to do with tyranny. It is people making decisions with their own property, much like you or I deciding who we will or will not invite into our homes or play tennis with. That is out business and out business alone, as is hiring and firing a corporation’s business alone. And of course employees also hire and fire their employers too – ie change jobs – and noone thinks anything wrong with that.

    I suppose it depends on whether it is felt that large organisations are purely owned by the shareholders, or whether the stakeholders should have some say too.

    Anyone including stakeholders are free to buy shares. And to make decisions about what type of company to work for. One with a higher salary but less freedom and satisfaction, or one with a lower salary but more of the those other benefits. Corporations must come up with packages that satisfy employees, or they just won’t get any.

    the only defence against tyranny, of whatever form it may take, is a strong democracy

    No it isn’t. Necessary but not sufficient – there can just as easily be a tyranny of the majority. What is needed is a strong constitution that protects the public from abuse by government, no matter how many people voted for the government.

    PS Funny you should mention the army. I was just thinking that must be a socialist organisation too :-) It is owned by the Government, isn’t it?
    Well yes, the foundation institution of the state..

  123. The loony left, non-scientists accept the preachings of Algore and the main-stream media. They are no better than creationists in this respect – anything the left-wing priests say, they take on faith. For these people, it is religion.

  124. The amount of money in existence doesn’t in itself affect prices.

    A “price” is the exchange rate between money and a good. Assuming the good to exist, the amount of money in circulation is the only thing that effects the price.

    The speed of circulation of money and goods does not affect prices.

    • Erica,

      ” the amount of money in circulation is the only thing that effects the price.”

      Why do you think this? I’m not sure how any intelligent person can think that. Its a combination of both money supply and velocity of circulation.

      Think of it this way: If people put their money into a piggy bank, then for the time it is in the piggy bank it effectively doesn’t exist as far as the world outside the piggy bank is concerned. So it can’t have any inflationary effect on prices, when it is in there. Yet the central bank is still counting that money as part of the money supply.

      It is only when it is spent that it can have an effect. And, the more times it is spent after that, the more of an effect it will have.

      Pretty obvious eh?

    • the amount of money in circulation is the only thing that effects the price.

      Think of it this way: If people put their money into a piggy bank, then for the time it is in the piggy bank it effectively doesn’t exist as far as the world outside the piggy bank is concerned. So it can’t have any inflationary effect on prices, when it is in there. Yet the central bank is still counting that money as part of the money supply.
      Pretty obvious eh?

      Small problem. People don’t actually put their money in piggy banks or mattresses. They put their money in banks, where it gets lent to others, ie circulates. Pretty obvious eh?

      It is only when it is spent that it can have an effect. And, the more times it is spent after that, the more of an effect it will have.

      Well it’s correct that money in routine circulation is what matters; But spending money does not cause inflation, since that’s only demand half of the picture. There is also the supply half, the seller.

      Think of it this way. If pair of shoes is simply bought and sold once, do you think that will ’cause’ less inflation than if that same pair of shoes is bought and sold twice or a hundred times, ie the ‘velocity’ of both money and shoes goes up in tandem?

  125. There are large private companies that depend on the government funds for contracts, tax breaks, incentives, subsidies, or financial rescues or they wouldn’t be able to either survive or compete with foreign businesses.

    These government funds merely divert funds from companies that can provide value for money, to companies that cannot. They necessarily make the country as a whole poorer, although the propped-up weakling companies are better off.

  126. I quote from your response to Bogdan:

    “The science IS settled in terms of knowing that we are changing Earth’s climate, AND YET There are still significant questions and impacts that merit continued and deepening work…”

    Respectfully, I beg to differ. Exactly why do you think the science is settled? Is it because you really think that the greenhouse effect does warm the atmosphere in proportion to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration? There is a theory that says so and there is another theory – that of Ferenc Miskolczi – that is more complicated but tells us the exact opposite. It does not deny absorption, simply invokes a mechanism that modifies it in a way that seems counter-intuitive. His theory has been out since 2007 and has been vilified in the blogosphere. Small wonder because it sets water vapor feedback up as negative, not positive. When I mention him the reaction is that he is just a “well known nut.” But please take a note of the fact that no peer reviewed articles have come out proving that he is a nut, well known or not. This tells me two things: first, that the critics can’t handle his math, and second that they think they don’t even have to because the consensus proves him wrong. Problem is that this attitude carries over into denial of experimental observations. That is something a scientist is required to take seriously but they don’t. I am talking of Miskolczi’s 2010 paper here. A key concept of his theory is that atmospheric greenhouse gases cooperate by feedbacks to keep the IR transmittance of the atmosphere constant. He even calculated the theoretical value of IR optical thickness that is required for that: about 1.86. It corresponds to 15 percent transmittance. It means that carbon dioxide and water vapor must jointly stabilize the IR transmittance to this value. When carbon dioxide amount increases it starts to absorb more IR and this would reduce the IR transmittance according to IPCC. According to Miskolczi the amount of water vapor will then decrease just enough to keep the transmittance constant. It follows that if we could determine the IR transmittance of the atmosphere when carbon dioxide varies we should be able to choose between the competing hypotheses of IPCC and Miskolczi. And fortunately this is possible because NOAA database of weather balloon observations contains the relevant data for this. It goes back to 1948 and includes thousands of measurements covering the entire globe. Using these data Miscolczi found that the IR transparency of the atmosphere had stayed constant for 61 years while at the same time the the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This amount of additional CO2 had no effect whatsoever on the transparency of the the atmosphere in the infrared which decisively favors the Miskolczi theory over IPCC. This is an empirical observation, mind you, not derived from any theory, and it overrides any predictions/projections from theory that do not agree with it. Specifically, it overrides any predictions of warming by the IPCC version of the greenhouse theory. And this not the only test that IPCC has failed. In 2007 they predicted, using their greenhouse theory if warming, that global warming in the twenty first century shall proceed at the rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. We are now in the second decade of this century and there is no sign whatsoever of this warming while carbon dioxide keeps going up. It happens to be an esoteric custom in science that if a theory makes a false prediction that theory itself is also considered false and must be put aside. The greenhouse theory of IPCC has made such a false prediction and accordingly must be put aside, just as required by the Miskolczi theory. The Met Office tells us in fact that there has not been any global warming for the last 16 years. They are wrong in one aspect of this, namely the fact that despite lack of any global warming the Arctic is still warming today. But that is only possible because Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming. It is caused by warm water carried into the Arctic Ocean by North Atlantic currents as I proved in E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011) [http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf]. It is worth looking into history of warming to put it all into perspective. We keep hearing about anthropogenic global warming that was supposed to have started last century. But exactly when did it start and what happened after that is always left vague. Looking at standard temperature curves you realize that they are homogenized and ignore all breakpoints when physical conditions change. Since the beginning of the last century four important breakpoints besides the ENSO oscillations can be identified. They happened in years 1910, 1940, 1976, and 1998. They are all relate to global temperature changes and must not be treated as random changes, to be glossed over by computer fitted curves. In 1910 there was a sudden change from cooling to warming. In 1940 that same warming came to a sudden end when a precipitous temperature drop inaugurated WW II. It is laughable that almost all temperature curves show the war years, 1940 to 1945, as a heat wave. Apparently no one seems to know that the Finnish Winter War of 1939/40 was fought at minus forty Celsius. Or that general Frost and not the Red Army saved Moscow from Hitler. The Germans were close enough to see Moscow suburbs but their tanks were frozen in place, their soldiers were dying from cold in their summer uniforms, and their supplies could not move. Some heat wave. Next real warming came in 1976 and was called the Great Pacific Climate Shift at the time. It was a step warming that raised global temperature by 0.2 degrees and was over by 1980. And the next one after that was brought to us by the super El Nino of 1998. That one too was a step warming that raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years and then stopped. The actual temperature rise since 1900 breaks down this way: first, the early warming from 1910 to 1940 gave us 0.5 degrees; next, the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1976 added 0.2 degrees; and finally, the step warming from that super El Nino of 1998 gave us 0.3 degrees. That’s all, and it adds up to a degree. But the cooling in 1940 knocked down some of the previous warming so that the real total is under a degree, usually estimated between 0.6 to 0.8 degrees for the century. The rest of the time since 1900 was 76 years of no warming at all. And that’s the entire global warming history. There is simply no reason to call any part of it a greenhouse warming period. As Miskolczi said in the abstract to his 2010 paper,
    ***********************************
    “…The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying greenhouse effect is needed.”
    ***********************************
    Back to the drawing boards, fellows, before Uncle Sam’s money runs out.