Week in review 12/8/12

by  Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Conservative bias to IPCC projections (?)

TDC has an extensive article that discusses a recent study conducted by Naomi Oreskes, with subtitle “Checking 20 years of proections by the [IPCC] finds that the group has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of climate change – with severe consequences for the public it is tasked to inform.”  Excerpts:

“We’re underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. “And we’re underestimating the role of humans, and this means we’re underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for.” 

The conservative bias stems from several sources, scientists say. Part can be attributed to science’s aversion to drama and dramatic conclusions: So-called outlier events – results at far ends of the spectrum – are often pruned. Such controversial findings require years of painstaking, independent verification. 

Yet some events in nature are dramatic, conclude University of California, San Diego, history and science professor Naomi Oreskes and Princeton University geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer, co-authors of the study looking at the IPCC’s bias. “If the drama arises primarily from social, political or economic impacts,” they wrote, “then it is crucial that the associated risk be understood fully, and not discounted.”

Oreskes, Oppenheimer and their co-authors argue the conservative bias pervades all of climate science. 

Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, sees no need for the IPCC to do anything differently. “The burden of communication falls on policymakers, not scientists,” he said. Scientists are responsible for providing the hard data. It is up to policymakers to lead, connect the dots, and explain to the public the necessity of responding to global warming. 

But the consequences of a conservative bias by climate scientists can be significant, others like Oreskes note. A society blind to the full range of potential outcomes, particularly the most disruptive, can remain apathetic to the need for change, pushing hard decisions off into the future.

“The next report shows every sign of being even more conservative than the previous ones,” said Trenberth. Instead of 10 lead authors per chapter, 14 or 15 scientists will have a say, making consensus-building harder. 

“That builds in more conservatism, caveats, and wiggle room,” Trenberth said. 

IPCC’s internal rules and deadlines have also been tightened, preventing the inclusion of some of the most up-to-date studies, he added. 

Penn State’s Mann also feels that IPCC higher-ups, fearful of being attacked by climate skeptics, have “bent over backwards” to allow greater input from contrarians. “There’s no problem in soliciting wide views that fairly represent … a peer group community,” he said. “My worry is that they are stacking the deck, giving greater weight to contrarian views than is warranted by peer-reviewed literature.”

Well, +10 points to Andrew Dessler, for making a relatively sensible statement.  It seems that the others are frustrated that the IPCC AR5 isn’t sufficiently alarmist.

The Climate Scofflaw

The COP at Doha has been rather unremarkable, with the possible exception of the escapades of Christopher Monckton.

Foreign Policy has an interesting article on climate change policy titled Climate Scofflaw, subtitled “Is the U.S. really the impediment to a universal compact on global warming?”  Some excerpts:

According to theInternational Energy Agency, U.S. emissions have dropped 7.7 percent since 2006 — “the largest reduction of all countries or regions.” And in the coming years, as both new gas-mileage standards and new power-plant regulations championed by the Obama administration kick in, policy will drive the numbers further downwards; U.S. emissions are expected to fall 23 percent between 2002 and 2020. Apparently Obama’s record on climate change is not quite as calamitous as reputation would have it.

The real failure of U.S. policy has been, first, that it is still much too timid, and second, that it has not acted in such a way as to persuade developing nations to take the truly difficult decisions which would put the world on a sustainable path. 

What, then, can Obama do that is equal to the problem? He can invest. [H]e can tell the American people that they have the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the future, for themselves and for people everywhere. He can propose — as he hoped to do as part of the stimulus package of 2009 — that the U.S. build a “smart grid”  to radically improve the efficiency of electricity distribution. He can argue for large-scale investments in research and development of new sources of energy and energy-efficient construction technologies and lots of other whiz-bang things. This, too, was part of the stimulus spending; it must become bigger, and permanent. 

The reason Obama should do this is, first, because the American people will (or could) rally behind a visionary program in a way that they never will get behind the dour mechanics of carbon pricing. 

Finally, there’s leverage. China and India may not do something sensible but painful, like  adopting carbon pricing, because the United States does so, but they will adopt new technologies if the U.S. can prove that they work without harming economic growth. 

The fog of war

Bill Hooke has a thought provoking post titled The fog of war . . . and the Hurricane Sandy forecasts and emergency response.  Excerpts:

Wikipedia tells us that the fog of war is the uncertainty in situational awareness experienced by participants in military operations. The term seeks to capture the uncertainty regarding one’s own capability, adversary capability, and adversary intent during an engagement, operation, or campaign.

Any emergency manager will tell you that something similar happens in emergency response, even if there is no human adversary. The nature, location, extent and strength of an approaching storm can be known only to a certain point. Emergency managers work with the general public as opposed to well-trained and disciplined troops. The best plans become useless early on.

The National Hurricane Center, National Weather Service headquarters, and NWS field offices, as well as federal, state, and local emergency managers and their private-sector partners operated at different levels in this environment in the days and hours leading up to Hurricane Sandy’s landfall on the New Jersey coast.

Unsurprisingly, the results were less than perfect.

That said, we are left with a twofold problem, which none of the current dust-up will cure. The first is that the complaints have been confined to the forecasters and the responders…those who were operating in the fog of war. The fog will be there the next time as well, and will once again thwart any and all efforts at perfection. [Even if it won’t thwart second-guessing after the fact.] 

The real battleground; the real arena? Years of sunny days all along the middle-Atlantic and New England coast, when an entire population (You. Me. All of us) made short-sighted decisions about land use and building codes, about the deployment and extent and quality of critical infrastructure ranging from roads and utility lines to subway construction.

The real question? Why did we, when we knew better, make the flawed decisions and investments we did over all those years?

Crucial conversations

Bill Hooke has a second gem of a post this week titled Crucial Conversations.  It is based upon a book with the same title, and also this youtube video:  Crucial Conversations Explained in 2 Minutes – You Tube.   Excerpts from Bill Hooke’s post:

Turns out, according to the video, that crucial conversations have three defining features: High stakes. Strong emotions. Different opinions.

According to the video, the goal in conversations like these is to get unstuck…and to do that, we apparently need everyone’s input. We’re told to start by examining our own hearts and motives. We’re then supposed to look for signs that the conversation has become crucial, in the three senses: high stakes, strong emotions, differences of opinion. At such a transition, the conversants stop feeling safe, and shut down. By being sensitive, we can consciously recreate a safe environment, and ensure that our narratives don’t trigger negative emotions but are positive instead…and thus re-open the discussion. We can learn to state our views in ways that are direct but respectful. And get the views of others on the table as well. And then we’ll be able to move from conversation to action.

If you take the time to watch the video, which says all this more eloquently than I ever could, you, like me, will be struck by the fact there’s no escape clause. There’s nothing to the effect that “If you’re in the right, then you can skip/ignore these rules, because you have the truth on your side.”

That omission is anathema to many people, not least among them scientists. Everything we learned in all our formal training…all the mathematics and all the experiments and observations and data and statistics…every aspect of logic and analysis tells us that to be right is to hold the trump card. Nothing else matters.

We claim to be evidence-based beings. Our experience teaches us anew every day that proclaiming truth and then seeking to build relationships and trust doesn’t seem to work. We are more than stuck.

We need to reverse the order. We need to start with building relationships and trust. Then we don’t have to proclaim truth. We won’t be the only ones, the voices crying in the wilderness.

I found this article to be quite interesting, and very different from the other climate change communication strategy proposals that are floating around (including at the recent AGU meeting).  I have been trying some of the strategies proposed by Crucial Conversations over the past 3 years in my engagement with the public on climate change.  Those who are self proclaimed arbiters of the ‘truth’ about climate change seem to regard me (at best) as a dupe (e.g. the infamous Scientific American article and survey).   But I remain convinced that this is the best way forward.

http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=789

465 responses to “Week in review 12/8/12

  1. Thanks, Judith:

    I have to say…you and your work are the closest we have to an existence theorem that this sort of crucial-conversation approach will work in the climate change context. I wish more people would give it a try.

    • The crucial-conversation approach will work, if, and only if, both sides openly discuss reliable experimental observations and data.

      The AGW fable is the result of hiding data and observations, as shown by this CSPAN recording of NASA in action in 1998:

    • Bill Hooke and Judith Curry,

      Thank you for pointing to the 2 minute video. Definitely worth watching.

    • “Crucial Conversations [...] Bill Hooke”

      Judy omitted Bill’s ace moment…

      “Why should it be all about making the other person feel safe? [...]

      Left unsaid in this short video is a basic spiritual reality:

      You and I have to find our safety from some other source…not that other person.”

      • The false illusion of human control, in a world controlled by cause-and-effect, is at the base of the conflict over Earth’s changing climate,

        The best available experimental data and observations on our small part of the cosmos suggest that neutron repulsion is the fountain of energy that feeds the stream of cause-and-effect as the universe expands.

        World leaders may not allow government scientists to openly discussion the energy source that has been historically represented by the Hindu Trinity: The Creator, Preserverand Destroyer of the world.

        See: “Is the Universe Expanding?” The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011). http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang102.html

  2. Willis Eschenbach

    What, then, can Obama do that is equal to the problem? He can invest. [H]e can tell the American people that they have the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the future, for themselves and for people everywhere. He can propose — as he hoped to do as part of the stimulus package of 2009 — that the U.S. build a “smart grid” to radically improve the efficiency of electricity distribution. He can argue for large-scale investments in research and development of new sources of energy and energy-efficient construction technologies and lots of other whiz-bang things. This, too, was part of the stimulus spending; it must become bigger, and permanent.

    Right … because that worked so overwhelmingly well last time Obama tried it … can you say “Solyndra”? I knew you could.

    What planet are these folks inhabiting, where previous failure in trying the exact same thing is not only unexamined for needed lessons, it is entirely unmentioned?

    w.

    • Who is Richard Windsor?

      I’d like somebody to explain to me what’s so “inefficient” about our existing gridS (there are three of them), and how this “smart” grid is going to do anything but make infrastructure more vulnerable to an EMP attack.

      • Most of our grid is close to a century old. We suffer brownouts and blackouts at a per capita rate that is very high by developed country standards. Nobody has invested very much at all in our grids since the 70s. They need work. Badly

      • Who is Richard Windsor?

        That’s not an answer to the question. What’s “inefficient” about it?

        Part of the issue is that “grid” means different things to different people. To an electrical engineer, it means the transmission and distribution system. But I’ve noticed the media includes the generation sector in it, as well.

        Even with the generation system included, nothing out there is 100 years old. These plants are upgraded and replaced at regular intervals. That’s the main reason why so much coal-fired capacity is going away now; it was time to retire them, and it made sense to replace them with gas generators.

        Anybody saying that we’ve got 100-yo electrical equipment out there is talking baloney. A little bit of the water infrastructure is that old, but basically none of the electrical system is that old.

        “Smart” grid is a whole other thing, and one that increases many vulnerabilities.

      • Who is Richard Windsor?

        And BTW, this is completely analogous to another talking point we hear all the time, to wit: we haven’t built a new refinery in xx years. It’s a pointless claim. The existing refineries have been continuously upgrading and increasing capacity. The number of plants means nothing. In fact, the trend in many industries it toward fewer plants with higher total capacity. Nobody wants to build a new refinery because there’s generally no need to. They can expand the existing sites. Refining capacity hasn’t been a limiting factor. Other issues have.

      • Who is Richard Windsor?

        I agree with all your points. I’d add that a smart grid will not cut CO2 emissions.

  3. The minority that re-elected Obama. Hint: Not Hispanics.

    “You don’t hear nearly as much about the rise of single voters, despite the fact that they represent a much more significant trend. Only a few analysts, such as Ruy Teixera, James Carville, and Stanley Greenberg, have emphasized how important singletons were to President Obama’s reelection. Properly understood, there is far less of a “gender” gap in American politics than people think. Yes, President Obama won “women” by 11 points (55 percent to 44 percent). But Mitt Romney won married women by the exact same margin. To get a sense of how powerful the marriage effect is, not just for women but for men, too, look at the exit polls by marital status. Among nonmarried voters​—​people who are single and have never married, are living with a partner, or are divorced​—​Obama beat Romney 62-35. Among married voters Romney won the vote handily, 56-42.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nation-singles_664275.html

  4. Naomi Oreskes and her ilk are ones who let no catastrophe go blamed on anything but global warming. They lie.

  5. Fog of war? How about failure to prepare for the war?

    ALBANY, N.Y. — More than three decades before Superstorm Sandy, a state law and a series of legislative reports began warning New York politicians to prepare for a storm of historic proportions, spelling out scenarios eerily similar to what actually happened: a towering storm surge. Overwhelming flooding. Swamped subway lines. Widespread power outages. The Rockaways peninsula was deemed among the “most at risk.”

    But most of the warnings and a requirement in a 1978 law to create a regularly updated plan for the restoration of “vital services” after a storm went mostly unheeded, either because of tight budgets or the lack of political will to prepare for a hypothetical storm that may never hit.
    http://hosted2.ap.org/PAWIC/140fe8300e9c43bab097b794ca7594c6/Article_2012-12-08-Superstorm-NY's%20Warnings/id-4ab2d29642c4463caab647860d821139

    • Sandy wasn’t a remarkable storm. It simply hit a highly populated, coastal area. Had zip to do with global warming. Had more to do with people living in lower-lying areas and not preparing for something that happens pretty regularly to coastal areas in the US. It was just their turn and they weren’t prepared. End of story.

      • the storm was possibly fueled by global warming. Certainly there was some very warm sea surface temperatures under the storm in the north.

      • Sandy was possibly fueled by the Sun, just as its ancestors of the last couple of centuries. (That would be the null hypothesis.)

      • The damage caused by Sandy was largely “fueled” by the moon. The moon is what caused a large strong tropical storm/weak hurricane to create a damaging storm surge.

      • lolwot is correct. Global warming caused Sandy to come ashore at high tide with a full moon. brilliant!!

      • Funny, I’m sitting here helping my fourth grader with his word roots and spelling assignment, the word is anthropopathic. Meaning; relating human feelings to something not human. Example sentance; Some religions have given their gods anthropopathic qualities. For instance when lolwot believes that global warming can time and direct storms to have the worst possible effect.

    • Speed: “We have seen the enemy, and he is us” (approx).

      Much easier to lay the blame on external forces.

  6. So James Traub in his “Climate Scofflaw” article advocates that the U. S. embark on a series of super-sized, Solyndra-style, gravy-train-ready enviro-boondoggles in order to provide a “visionary” example for the rest of the world to follow. You know, LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY EXAMPLE, and all.

    And as always, LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY EXAMPLE, is only urged on the American people by one of our betters in a form that places the burden of the quality-of-life sacrifice on the “little guy” while opening up vast new opportunities for power-and-control/make-a-buck scams, hustles, and con-jobs for our well-connected, Philosopher King and Queen wannabees to exploit.

    On might wonder if our betters and their shameless agit-prop-toadies are ever conscience-stricken by their own grotesque, brazen carbon piggery as they ceaselessly hector and bully us proto-helots to accept carbon-penury in the name of SETTING THE EXAMPLE AND ENCOURAGING OTHERS? Silly question, I know.

    What contemptible, hypocritical, sanctimonious hustlers so many of our elite shot-callers have become–not to mention the ever expanding parasite-courtier, blood-sucking enabler-hacks they’ve fastened onto the wholesome, productive, compassionate, self-sacrificing, and decent core of our society to do their cynical, Platonic, rip-off bidding. .

    Want a start on the LEADERSHIP BY EXAMPLE AND FROM THE FRONT deal in matters environmental, Mr. Traub? Start video-conferencing all eco-confabs–cut out the on-site, high-carbon pig-out parties and the C02-spew travel to/fro. But if our proto-masters can’t convince even those most persuaded of the CAGW peril to forgo their GHG, blow-out bacchanals on behalf of Gaia, then screw any appeals for LEADERSHIP BY EXAMPLE AND FROM THE FRONT directed at me–I’m not your sucker and neither are the good folks like me. .

    Rip us off if you’ve got the muscle to make it happen, Traub, but don’t insult our dignity and intelligence in the process. O. K.?

    • video conferencing is insufficient and inefficient for international meetings

      • lowwot,

        Yr: “video-conferencing is insufficient and inefficient for international conferences. ”

        Always, lolwot, you can be counted on to defend the hive’s trough-centric good-deals And, so, lolwot, all these non-stop, highly “efficient” eco-confabs that are such a freak-show, carbon-wallow, creep-out, international spectacle and blight on our planet might have their vaunted “efficiency” (who are we kidding there, lolwot?) compromised through video-conferencing? Or so you say.

        lolwot, your vested-interest pontifications about “efficiency” in eco-confabs are a joke and beneath me to consider seriously unless you’ve got some real “inefficiencies” you’d like cite. And, remember, lolwot, any disadvantages of video-conferencing you might cite have to be of such a magnitude as to swamp video-conferencing’s carbon-reduction benefits and the inspirational example video-conferencing would provide to others.

        And, of course, lolwot, all this pre-supposes that your cherished, flim-flam eco-conference extravaganzas serve any real purpose, in the first place, other than to keep hordes of parasites, pests, and spoiled-brat unemployables with a sense of entitlement supplied with goof-off, taxpayer-rip-off, party-blow-out good times.

        So the moocher representatives of kleptocrat, president-for-life mass-murderers and professional beggar nations pitch their hand-out schtick via video conferencing. So what? And so the big-shots, who’ve already decided the end result of the conference, anyway, announce the latest conference’s latest “historic agreement” to the attendees on camera. Again, so what? What’s the big inefficiency there, lolwot?

        And, oh by the way, lolwot, those noxious carbon taxes, cap-and-trade hustles, and the myriad of other cons that our hive-scamsters are incessantly pushing?–well, lolwot, those impose “inefficiency” on my monster-truck, cheap-gas, utilities-intensive, detached family home lifestyle. So stick your C02-hypocrite, greenshirt B.S, lolwot. If you want carbon-austerity–you and your hive-bozo pals go first, lolwot!

      • David Springer

        Yeah you’re right. I’ve been in a thousand trans-pacific and trans-atlantic conference calls. Voice is all you need. Video just adds expense without adding to productivity. Travelling to do it face to face is by far the least efficient. What you need is daily communication for a brief time each day not jammiong it all into a few days once a year.

        But that’s just my experience at a $50B/yr international corporation where I worked while it went from $1B/yr to $50B/yr in the seven years I worked for it. So what do I know about getting things done through cooperation and coordination across vast distances.

      • lets see US Congress working via video conference first yeah?

        if they can’t do it, it speaks for itself.

      • InterestedParty

        lolwot | December 9, 2012 at 8:54 am |
        lets see US Congress working via video conference first yeah?

        if they can’t do it, it speaks for itself.
        ===================================================

        I work for a $150B+ company who does this many times every day.

        Cisco’s TelePresence is the latest, greatest asset for video conferencing. It is so good, one of my colleagues got up in the middle of a conference to get a cup of coffee from the back of the room, only to realize the coffee was in Europe and we were in the U.S.

        That ANY government entity can’t use the technology to improve their efficiency speaks only to the inability of government bodies to improve their efficiency.

        lolwot, your faith in governments to operate effectively, even face-to-face, is betrayed by the facts.

      • Do your business video-conference meetings involve 50 different locations?

        Do your business video-conference meetings include parties in time zones 12 hours apart?

        Do your business video-conference meetings include parties talking in many different languages?

        Do your business meetings involve parties looking for excuses to disagree with no superior able to make a final decision or enforce discipline?

        You might want to reconsider how easy it would be to host an international conference over video conferencing.

        If you want to prove this kind of thing can be done through video-conferencing then prove it with US congress first. At least they have roughly the same time zone and same language.

      • Video conferencing is bollocks if there are more than about four people involved. One-on-one voice is fine for some things, useless for others. One-to-many voice is a nightmare. Useless.

        Negotiations between *actual decision makers* are best done face to face. With the full set of visual cues available there is some possibility of evolution towards agreement. All telecommunication depersonalises and so sharply reduces the likelihood of evolution towards negotiated agreement.

        Negotiations between representatives of the actual decision makers are largely a waste of time so it doesn’t matter how they are carried out.

      • steven mosher

        lolwot.

        You have an interesting hypothesis. That video conferencing is insufficient and ineffecient for international MEETINGS.

        can you cite some research or evidence.

        look, the planet is at stake. As many people have pointed out people will not be convinced by authorites who lack moral standing.
        Jetting around the world to attend conferences doesnt work. The evidence is in. Perhaps with the planet at stake its time to try something different. But hey, maybe you dont take this issue seriously

      • Steven Mosher

        BBD

        “Video conferencing is bollocks if there are more than about four people involved. One-on-one voice is fine for some things, useless for others. One-to-many voice is a nightmare. Useless.”

        Funny. Long ago I started working on the core technology for video conferencing and selling systems way back in the late 90s.
        Sharevision. basically we bought Lung’s company. Super smart guy.
        http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~wdutton/comm533/DVC-WU.htm

        Over time of course the systems have improved. By 2000 we held our worldwide tues night forecast meetings via video conference. probably 20 to 40 people on the call. US, europe Asia. It was hardly Bollocks. It was how the business got done on a weekly basis. The meeting would cover everything from product updates to price negotiations, everything.
        Every thursday was the “commit date” so action items initiated on the tuesday call had to be executed by thursday. Every week, 52 weeks a year. Bottom line BBD. you dont know what the eff you are talking about.

        http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/study-video-conferencing-ups-productivity-of-virtual-teams-177419251.html

        More nonsense from you.

        “Negotiations between *actual decision makers* are best done face to face. With the full set of visual cues available there is some possibility of evolution towards agreement. All telecommunication depersonalises and so sharply reduces the likelihood of evolution towards negotiated agreement.

        Negotiations between representatives of the actual decision makers are largely a waste of time so it doesn’t matter how they are carried out.”

        . Rule number 1. Dont put decision makers in contact until the final deal is almost completely hammered out. Its called negotiating from limited authority. I negotiate for the decision maker. IN the end I bring him a document he can execute. Sometimes we leave one element on the table for decision makers to meet about. They have a symbolic meeting to hammer out the last detail. Do you think Obama goes to Doha? When I negotiate with Microsoft, do they send Bill gates?
        When negotiating arms sales to indonesia, did they send the King?
        No, we sit down with the representative and hammer on each other until both sides have an executable document to present to the decision maker. Our Ceo did not meet with the King. He didnt even meet the arms brokers. He met no one, but he was the decision maker. When negotiating with Jordan, did I meet with the King? no. I met with the prince. The prince and I represent our respective decision makers. We create an agreement that we know our leaders can agree with.
        That is the frickin job. Know your leader, represent his concerns. Bring him an executable document. If you cannot, replace yourself with somebody who can do the deal. If you put decision makers in the same room with no executable document and one walks out, you are basically screwed. Jeez.

      • Steven

        Funny. Long ago I started working on the core technology for video conferencing and selling systems way back in the late 90s.

        You are talking about information exchange within a business, not complex negotiation which in my experience doesn’t work at all well in video conference. You are entitled to your entirely unbiased opinion and I am entitled to mine ;-)

        More nonsense from you.

        [...]

        Its called negotiating from limited authority. I negotiate for the decision maker. IN the end I bring him a document he can execute.

        I wrote sloppily. The senior negotiators are making key decisions. These are the people who would be ill-served by video conferencing, in my biased opinion.

        I’m rather surprised that you are making a big deal of this, Steven. Why bother?

      • InterestedParty

        lolwot | December 9, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
        Do your business video-conference meetings involve 50 different locations?

        Do your business video-conference meetings include parties in time zones 12 hours apart?

        Do your business video-conference meetings include parties talking in many different languages?

        Do your business meetings involve parties looking for excuses to disagree with no superior able to make a final decision or enforce discipline?
        ================
        Answers:

        Yes.
        Yes, in fact often US, Europe, China on the same conference.
        Yes.
        Yes.

        Next questions?

      • The people in Congress, the President and staff … these people do need to meet face to face. Politics is the exercise of power and that works best that way. Science meetings involve the exchange of ideas and concepts. I realize that politics (internal, not national) do play a part in science, but this aspect (should) just be a side show. I think audio/video conferencing would be adequate for these folks. Just that they would then have to buy their own champagne and caviar. Works for me, too.

      • “video conferencing is insufficient and inefficient for international meetings”

        I hate going to conferences myself, so I wish you were wrong, but what you say is true. These meetings only really function properly when everyone is away from their normal place of work. Otherwise there are too many distractions.

        And the most important discussions often take place informally over cups of coffee when, ironically, there is no pressure to actually agree on anything.

        Having said all that, video conferencing is technically much better than it was and is being used increasingly by nearly everyone but, IMO, it won’t ever replace an actual meeting.

      • “Showing the power of cultural learning, the modeling of altruism in experimental situations … has consistently, and often to a substantial degree, emerged as the most effective way to instill altruistic giving in children. Several studies compare the effect and interaction of models that, on the one hand, practice generosity or selfishness and, on the other, preach (“exhort) either generosity or selfishness (e.eg.one ought to donate …”). Preaching alone has been shown to have little effect (or sometimes a negative effect) … children tend to ignore exhortation toward costly actions when those exhortations are inconsistent with the model’s deeds … In postexperimental recall tests of what models said (preached) and did (donated), subjects had the most difficulty in accurately remembering the words and deeds of “inconsistent” models.” Natalie & Joseph Henrich, “Why Humans Cooperate,” 2007, pp 28-29.

        In more common parlance, “by their deeds shall ye know them;” avoid hypocrites with a “Do as I say, not what I do” approach. No communication skills or vast amount of talk-fests can compensate for hypocrisy. Would-be leaders must start with honesty and integrity and eschew self-serving strategies.

      • lolwot & BBD,

        I hope you two recognize there are people here who have done exactly what you say can’t be done. Kind of makes you look foolish. Whether it be video conferencing, teleconference, email. whatever, the tools available to communicate exist. If people fail to accomplish anything using them, it is the fault of those people, not the tools.

        Neither of you are stupid. But keep putting forth arguments like this and at some point we wil start to question that conclusion.

    • Mike,

      to provide a “visionary” example for the rest of the world to follow. You know, LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY EXAMPLE, and all.

      Been there. Done That. Australia reckoned it would lead the world by example and all other nations would follow. That’s why our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, took 120 delegates, followers. minders, bureaucrats and media to Copenhagen – to show the rest of the world how its done. We implemented a carbon tax to lead the world by example. We knew – with no uncertainty – the world would follow Australia’s example.

      Australia showed the world by example at Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban and Doha.

      Worked well, didn’t it, eh?
      :)

    • Mike,

      Your occasional posts full of brutal eloquence are infinitely refreshing and often much needed. Thanks.

  7. “So-called outlier events – results at far ends of the spectrum – are often pruned. “

    Egad, those nasty outliers are the Sky Dragon Kings that Chef HydroWiggles has been warning us about !

    More seriously:

    “According to the International Energy Agency, U.S. emissions have dropped 7.7 percent since 2006 — “the largest reduction of all countries or regions.””

    This is something that needs to be watched carefully. Some of this reduction is due to a move to natural gas for heating, which produces less carbon.

    Some of this is also due to the recent recession where, the number of miles driven has reversed course and is no longer accumulating.
    http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/indicators/miles-driven.gif

    And some of this is due to an evolution in energy use away from fossil fuels. This is clear with Japan for example
    http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy52/TheDudePeakOil/JapanPetroleumConsumptionbyStream.png

    Yet we also need to realize that capitalism works on realizing profits from very slim or marginal returns.

    Everyone is trying to make money off of tight margins. This is seen in everything from grocery store chains to high-speed trading on Wall Street.

    The fear is that the same holds true with fossil fuel returns. There is a concept called EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested). At one time this number was high, and we could expect high returns on energy from a minimal investment in a crude oil rig. So it didn’t take much money and energy to get an outlandish return on energy output.

    Nowadays that is no longer true. The EROEI is going towards unity with oil sources such as the tar sands and oil shale. So it takes a lot of fossil fuel such as natural gas to extract the valuable oil out of the ground.

    Yet, to the marginal capitalist, this doesn’t matter. The argument goes like this:

    So what if it takes 90% of the energy of the energy to extract what will provide a 100% source of liquid fuel to the customer? If the 90% is cheap and easily accessible, such as the natural gas in the tar sands of Canada, then it becomes an adequate marginal return on investment. These oil companies can still make money off these tight returns. They don’t care how much excess they burn as long as they make money off of the margins.

    But this has huge implications on carbon emissions. There is still a huge overhead on burning fossil fuels that don’t have any productive value other than to get at or convert to the more valuable liquid hydrocarbon fuel that our society needs to keep running.

    That is the hidden positive-feedback compensation that will tend to drown out the conservation measures that we are working toward.

    In an ideal world, we have to save our valuable liquid fuel “seed corn” for developing alternative energy sources such as solar and wind. We need to do this both the to save our skin when it comes to diminishing fuel supply and to prevent an explosion of carbon emissions yet to come.

    The government is the secret weapon, because they are not beholden to marginal returns. Every other nation-state with nationalized oil companies knows this as they are protecting their seed corn by investing in alternative energy projects.

    Kudos to the Obama admin for doing this under the radar and trying to kill two birds with one stone. The two birds are the Sky Dragon King of AGW and the Black Swan of Peak Oil.

    • WHT
      Perhaps we could use coal power as our “seed corn” as it is cheap and will last for millenia?

      • I have no problem with forward thinking. On the other hand, expediency gets in the way.

        We have to use up our resources fast so that it will power our economy to allow us to find resources faster. That is the allegory of the red queen.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        You have a problem with any kind if thinking. Stop running on the spot and get faster technology.

    • “But this has huge implications on carbon emissions. There is still a huge overhead on burning fossil fuels that don’t have any productive value”
      The consequences of the falsity of this step in the reasoning are that there is a moderate to large upside to providing extra CO2 to the atmosphere. Of course, here we run into the next layer of falsity; the emissions have actually no effect on the atmosphere-oceans CO2 balance.

      All in all, your usual bucket load.

    • WHT

      You can’t imagine how relieved I am to read that President Obama is going to teach the energy corporations (like Exxon-Mobil) about EROI.

      What a hoot!

      Max

  8. What, then, can Obama do that is equal to the problem? He can invest. [H]e can tell the American people that they have the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the future, for themselves and for people everywhere. He can propose — as he hoped to do as part of the stimulus package of 2009 — that the U.S. build a “smart grid” to radically improve the efficiency of electricity distribution.

    The idea is great but ruined when he advocated “smart grid”. That’s not a solution to CO2 emissions. It will have a trivial effect on CO2 emissions.

    It’s sill;y, ideologically biased advocacy like this that continue to delay progress.

    Why don’t these groups put their ideological baggage aside, and advocate workable policies.

    India and China need electricity. They need electrification. They need, reliable electricity generators for billions of people and rapidly growing industrial demand (i.e. 24/365 baseload). Smart grids and renewable energy cannot supply that. Get real!

    And then there’s all of Africa to go through the development cycle this century – like UK, Germany, rest of Europe, USA, Japan, Korea have done, China, India, Indonesia and other countries are doing. Africa and other underdeveloped countries are going to do what China and India are doing now.

    So let’s get real. Stop the silly distractions – like carbon pricing, renewable energy, smart grids – and focus on what can really make a difference:

    1. replacing fossil fuel electricty with nuclear – for all countries
    2. developing low emissions alternatives to transport fuels

    • The “smart” grid is just another link in the chains of our slavery.

      • Smart grid purpose:

        1. Shift risk for wholesale electricity price volatility and high prices from electricity distributors and retailers to customers

        2. Reduce peak demand and spread the load to reduce the need for more transmission capacity to carry the peak load.

        Concerns with ‘smart grid’

        1. Less robust, more opportunities for cyber attack and bringing the network down. World Economic Forums’s “Global Risks 2012″ ranks ‘Critical systems failure’ and ‘Cyber attacks’ as amongst the high risks facing the world.

        2. Very high cost, and an ongoing high cost. Once we start down this route, we’ll always be demanding improvements.

        3. Smart grid is being pushed by renewable advocates to try to make renewables fit for purpose. Therefore, we are paying a high price for fundamentally wrong reasons. Trying to make unreliable renewables provide reliable power supply is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It’s worse than that. It’s trying to force a steel square peg into a round hole in a pane of glass.

      • The “smart” grid will also give the government even more information on us and allow them to monitor – and dictate and enforce – energy use.

  9. Jim Macdonald

    If you hear someone say that the situation is worse than expected, temperatures are rising faster than expected, seas are rising faster then expected etc,– hold onto your wallet !

  10. A couple of points:

    1) Hong Kong experiences wind and storm surge Every Year similar to Extra Tropical Storm Sandy. No loss of life. No disruption to infrastructure. Complete restoration of its hussle and bustle in hours. Why? They thought about it before hand and prepared. Nothing new under the sun. New York and New Jersey need to look elsewhere for answers to their own parochial issues. Sandy was a tragedy waiting to happen to a clueless populous and complicit political types.

    2) The Power of Negative Thinking; WSJ Today. The negative path to happiness. “the citizens of more economically insecure countries are happier than than citizens of wealthier countries.” “…thinking in sober detail about worst-case scenarios- a technique the Roman Seneca the Stoic called “the premeditation of evils”- can help to sap the future of anxiety-producing power. The future really is uncertain, after all, and things really do go wrong as well as right. “affordable loss principle” ask how great the loss would be if a venture failed. If the potential loss seems tolerable, take the next step. The best way to address an uncertain future is not to focus on the best-case scenario but on the worst.

    3) Mr. Rogers: ” scary mad wishes don’t make things come true.”

    A little Christmas present for the homecoming returnies of Doha.

  11. Hi Judith,
    I am not sure that I agree with you. I think you are very evidence based but the key issue is you don’t spin the story. I don’t get propaganda from you, I get your honest opinion.

    I first came across you posting at Climate Audit. At that time, you were an unapologetic warmist. I was , by then, a sceptic, having originally been a warmist. I respected you opinion because, initially, Steve McIntyre gave you space, so I took you seriously. Then, I listened to your voice. Every writer has a voice and a reader can listen and see if it rings true. Authors who admit mistakes, express an opinion but admit that they could be wrong. You came across as a Scientist. Not a propagandaist. So, whilst I disagreed with your position, at that time, you sounded like an honest scientist that I could respect. Even if I did not agree with you.

    Today, I don’t think you are a warmist, but I would be reluctant to apply a label to you. I suspect that you would be best described as a luke warmist with both sceptic and warmist leanings.

    The reason why you, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Willis, etc. have my trust is that you speak with voice that rings true.

    Regards

    /ikh

    • Did Dr. Curry pay you to comment this? ;)

      Andrew

    • I suspect that you [Judith] would be best described as a luke warmist with both sceptic and warmist leanings.

      Judith thinks that climate sensitivity is anywhere between 1-6 degrees to the 66% confidence level.

      So we can be only ~17% confident of her being a luke-warmist.

      Maybe ~17% confident that she’s a super-warmist?

      But we can be much more confident that she’s actually a moderate warmist in the same way as the IPCC could be described.

    • ikh, good post, parallels in my experience and assessment. Those not pushing a barrow will generally get closer to the truth; those with a barrow will be adding a load to the garbage heap.

  12. Captain Kangaroo

    Egad?

    Egad is a morphed form of egads.

    Egads used to mean “ye gods” and now is more closely linked to “OMG” or “oh god”; Some people think there is only one god, so egad has evolved to express that idea. At the heart of it is the notion that god is a trickster who screws with us.

    We use it to say that something severely messed up has just happened.

    Egad–my computer crashed and I lost all my work. Again. Urabn Dictionary

    It is a term used by space cadets a lot.

    EROEI for various sources.

    1.3 Biodiesel
    3.0 Bitumen tar sands
    80.0 Coal
    1.3 Ethanol corn
    5.0 Ethanol sugarcane
    100.0 Hydro
    35.0 Oil imports 1990
    18.0 Oil imports 2005
    12.0 Oil imports 2007
    8.0 Oil discoveries
    20.0 Oil production
    10.0 Natural gas 2005
    10.0 Nuclear (with diffusion enrichment)
    50.0 Nuclear (with centrifuge enrichment, with fast reactor or thorium reactor)
    30.0 Oil and gas 1970
    14.5 Oil and gas 2005
    6.8 Photovoltaic
    5.0 Shale oil
    1.6 Solar collector
    1.9 Solar flat plate
    18.0 Wind
    35.0 World oil production

    I think the webster is too dumb – or sufferning form Minnesota brain freeze – to have ever worked for private enterprise. Capitalism works by competition forcing innovation and productivity. Constant innovation or or get priced out of the market. If someone can sell a product cheaper and still make money they will. It is the tough world of market eonomics.

    In the real world biodiesel, corn ethanol and solar PV are too expensive to have a ready market. They survive by subsidies and mandates which ultimately increase energy costs and perversely increse profits for oil companies. For such a fundamental input to the production process rising energy prices translates into lower productivity and economic growth. Globally economic growth is the key to achieving human development goals this century. So real free marketeers – and moderately economically literate humanitarians – don’t like it at all.

    The way to progress to carbon displacement is to ramp up energy innovation. Provide cheaper energy in a carbon free form. I would suggest that the way for governments to help is to ramp up energy prizes

    Such the Virgin Carbon Capture prize – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Earth_Challenge – or the various X prizes.
    http://www.xprize.org/prize-development/energy-and-environment.

    A billion dollar prize would certainly ramp up the effort and be cheap in comparison to the nonsensical proposals we see otherwise.

    There are other means to mitigate – not least meeting the MDG and seeing that the spending is effective in transforming agriculture, conservation and governance.

    BTW

    ‘We develop the concept of “dragon-kings” corresponding to meaningful outliers, which are found to coexist with power laws in the distributions of event sizes under a broad range of conditions in a large variety of systems. These dragon-kings reveal the existence of mechanisms of self-organization that are not apparent otherwise from the distribution of their smaller siblings. We present a generic phase diagram to explain the generation of dragon-kings and document their presence in six different examples (distribution of city sizes, distribution of acoustic emissions associated with material failure, distribution of velocity increments in hydrodynamic turbulence, distribution of financial drawdowns, distribution of the energies of epileptic seizures in humans and in model animals, distribution of the earthquake energies). We emphasize the importance of understanding dragon-kings as being often associated with a neighborhood of what can be called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point. The presence of a phase transition is crucial to learn how to diagnose in advance the symptoms associated with a coming dragon-king.’ http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290

    The government is the secret weapon, because they are not beholden to marginal returns. Every other nation-state with nationalized oil companies knows this as they are protecting their seed corn by investing in alternative energy projects.

    Kudos to the Obama admin for doing this under the radar and trying to kill two birds with one stone. The two birds are the Sky Dragon King of AGW and the Black Swan of Peak Oil.

    Obama is nationalising your energy industry by stealth? Has the webster let the cat out of the bag or just gone mad? Australian industry is increasing coal exports by three times and gas by five this decade. Your loss is our gain. And we even have a carbon price. It costs me $150 in a full year. At the margins it has economic impacts but is not likely to be fatal – or ever likely to be effective.

    He even waxes lyrical but clumsy. Everyone knows the dragon is a lizard and not a bird. ‘The Dragon King is a deity in Chinese mythology commonly regarded as the divine ruler of the ocean. He has the ability to shapeshift into human form and lives in an underwater crystal palace. He has his own royal court and commands an army comprising various marine creatures. Apart from presiding over aquatic life, the Dragon King can also manipulate the weather and bring rainfall.

    The four Dragon Kings in Journey to the West are:
    Ao Guang (敖廣), Dragon King of the East Sea
    Ao Qin (敖欽), Dragon King of the South Sea
    Ao Run (敖閏), Dragon King of the West Sea
    Ao Shun (敖順), Dragon King of the North Sea’

    wikipedia

    ‘The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that is a surprise (to the observer), has a major effect, and after the fact is often inappropriately rationalized with the benefit of hindsight.’

    Peak oil is not a black swan – it is not a surprise, will not have a major effect as a result of economic substitution and is often inappropriately forecast to have apocalyptic impacts with the benefit of obsessional millennialism.’

    There is a not so secret conspiracy on centralised planning of economies in order for a small band of insiders to save us from ourselves. These people have forgotten history but we have not.

    ‘Hayek’s thesis in The Road to Serfdom is that one intervention inevitably leads to another. The unintended consequences of each market intervention are economic distortions, which generate further interventions to correct them. That interventionist dynamic leads society down the road to serfdom.

    In perhaps the best chapter of The Road to Serfdom, Hayek details “Why the Worst Get on Top” in totalitarian societies. The chapter begins with a quotation from Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Hayek then elaborates the Actonian insight.

    There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental by-products but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce. Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian dictator would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism. Who does not see this has not yet grasped the full width of the gulf which separates totalitarianism from a liberal regime, the utter difference between the whole moral atmosphere under collectivism and the essentially individualist Western civilization.

    Recall that that was written in 1944 at the height of the naive leftist faith in collectivist economic policy. Hayek dedicated his book to the “Socialists of All Parties,” never attributing malice or bad motives to them, only sheer intellectual error. He demonstrated, nevertheless, how attempts to do good can produce great harm. The thesis is the counterpart of Adam Smith’s famous dictum that self-interested behavior can be the source of great societal good. (And both men owe much to Montesquieu.)

    Hayek argued that, in the interventionist dynamic, liberty is lost piecemeal, one freedom at a time, always in the name of necessity and expediency. Hayek echoed the words of Lord Acton: “Liberty is not the means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.” Or, as Hayek later amplified Acton’s insight,

    That freedom can be preserved only if it is treated as a supreme principle which must not be sacrificed for particular advantages was fully understood by the leading liberal thinkers of the nineteenth century, one of whom [Benjamin Constant] even described liberalism as “the system of principles.” Such is the chief burden of their warnings concerning “what is seen and what is not seen in political economy” [Frederic Bastiat] and about the “pragmatism that contrary to the intentions of its representatives inexorably leads to socialism” [Carl Menger]. ‘
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-nd-gd.html

    Egad indeed.

    • Captain Kangaroo

      Just realised that dragon-kings are black swans.

      • Chief only now seems to note similarity between Taleb’s black swans and Sornette’s dragon kings?

      • The Skeptical Warmist

        Nope, Dragon Kings and Black Swans are different. See:

        http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290

        In short, Black Swans represent outliers within a dynamical regime, whereas Dragon Kings represent a change to a new dynamical regime. The difference is very important.

      • I would argue that. You really have to understand the personal dynamics between Taleb and Sornette. These guys are buddies but there is some gaming going on between them. Taleb is the guy with the attitude and the ability to tell stories, whereas Sornette has a serious mathematical bent. From “The Black Swan”

        “My friend Didier Sornette attempts to build predictive models, which I love, except that I cannot use them to make predictions—but please don’t tell him; … “

        My feeling is that Dragon-Kings are Sornette’s attempt at placing Black Swans in a more formal basis, but Sornette only covers part of the ground.

        I have Sornette’s earlier book called “Critical Phenomenon in Natural Sciences” in front of me and nowhere does he mention “Dragon Kings” (this preceded The Black Swan bbok). He does spend a lot of time discussing fat-tail statistics in the form of power-law distributions, which is where much of Taleb’s Black Swan model derives from.

        Like many physicists, Sornette likes to ascribe rare behavior to critical phenomena whenever he can. The possibility that it might uncover some new physical model is indeed an exciting prospect. Yet, much of fat-tail statistics amounts to ordinary aleatory or systemic uncertainty, often arising from placing the uncertainty in the denominator of the measure. This means that a measure such as velocity that has some uncertainty will turn into a time measure with even greater certainty. That is because they are reciprocal relations and the uncertainty is propagated as a fat tail. See ratio distributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_distribution) as an example of ordinary fat-tail statistics.

        The Black Swan in AGW uncertainty is being propagated as a fat-tail in the climate models. The fact that there is an uncertainty in the tail is nothing new, as that is the way that uncertainty propagation is done. In this terminology, the Dragon-King is the specific physical mechanism and model that could reveal the rare event in the tail.

        So the Black Swan is the scope of the uncertainty and the Dragon King is the manifestation of the power-law events.

        I have followed this stuff for a few years, ever since Sornette cowrote a paper authored by Laherrere where they tried to determine why certain oil field sizes were so much bigger than the majority of reservoirs. This paper used a stretched exponential as the exemplar fat-tail distribution, see
        http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9801293.pdf
        The Dragon-Kings of oil field dynamics are reservoirs such as Ghawar in Saudi Arabia and Cantarell in Mexico. The issue is one of understanding how these come about. It could simply be due to the propagation of uncertainty in the rates of growth of reservoirs. Given a population of seeds, there will certainly be reservoirs that will grow massive. For more information, I have written much of this up in my on-line book at the http://TheOilConundrum.com

        What Chief is revealing is that he has no credibility and is just making up stuff, as that is his schtick.

      • Taleb’s black swans are extreme events not predicable before hand but obvious after the fact. Dragon Kings are events not predictable before hand with extreme consequences. Hmmm?

        Taleb seems to be saying never trust your models while Sornette seems to be saying models are imperfect. Judith uses her Italian flag and Trenberth uses 0.9 +/-0.15Wm-2. I wonder who is out of touch?

      • Give it up Captain.

        In terms of crude oil fields:
        A Black Swan is the remote possibility of a trillion barrel reservoir
        A Dragon King is the manifestation of a trillion barrel reservoir

        In terms of earthquakes:
        A Black Swan is the remote possibility of a scale 10 quake
        A Dragon King is the occurrence of a scale 10 quake

        They are describing very similar events. It is virtually impossible to separate an outlier Black Swan from a Dragon King. For example, a power law of order 2 has no mean and so any extreme value is possible.
        By definition and when dealing with finite space and finite time for observations, an isolated Black Swan event and a Dragon King are indistinguishable.

      • Webster, as usual you miss the point. Trenberth “believes” his models so he is more likely to experience a “black swan” or “dragon king” than Judith who admits uncertainty. Methane caltrates with economical synfuel processing could be your Dragon King. What is a black swan or dragon king depends on your level of hubris.

        Taleb was likely poking fun at modelers who “believe” their models :)

      • “Taleb was likely poking fun at modelers who “believe” their models :)”

        Utterly clueless. Taleb has his own model and it includes Black Swan probabilities. He doesn’t poke fun at himself because his ego won’t allow it.

        Lots of people, myself included, have been motivated by the writings of Taleb and Sornette to look at Gaussian statistics from a fresh perspective.

        The essence of the idea is very basic. We all remember the outliers that we would get when taking making measurements in freshman physics lab classes. One of the common experiments was to do time-of-flight gravity experiments. Some of the measures were derived by taking ratios of the readings. These were often then plotted and the outliers were thrown away because they were outside the traditional Normal statistics.
        (see http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003759.htm)
        In actuality, these outliers may have been OK, just that the dividing a number by another number with a larger uncertainty exaggerated the error. Uncertainties don’t always propagate the way that classical statistics tells us.

        That is the most elementary example of this and it extends to every area of science. All parameters have uncertainty and if you don’t have error bars on it, you assume the maximum levels of uncertainty and then watch how the errors propagate.

        Taleb is poking fun at people that don’t do this. And I bet he would convulse in laughter over your antics Captain Bonefish !

      • The Skeptical Warmist

        Regarding the difference between dragon-kings and black swans. First, it is true that neither is predictable in advance, but they represent two very different dynamical situations which I think Sornette aptly illustrates,but you can really only recognize after the fact by a change in the dynamical situation– a “regime change”. More importantly– and this is key– black swans can be used to predict the potential occurrence of a dragon king.

        Here’s a simple illustration. Let’s say your son or daughter is normally a good student, and brings home excellent grades. Your normally see A’s and a few B’s now and then, but never any C’s and certainly never any D’s or F’s. One day, unpredictably, they bring home their first C ever. You are a bit shocked and they are upset. You talk to them about it and they explain that it was a combination of things- they had a bad cold on the day of the test, plus they had the big soccer tournament that kept them from studying, plus they were really struggling with the concepts covered in this new test. Also, it was a high C, where they only missed a B by one point. The two of you agree that next time, if they are struggling with a subject they’ll get extra help and skip the soccer tournament if they need to. This C grade, the only one they ever got, was a black swan. A highly improbable event under the regime of your child being a good student.

        Now, let’s say a year goes by and the A’s and occasional B’s continue on when suddenly another C grade happens, followed rapidly by a second and then a third, and then a D and an F! You sit down with you child and they explain they had a bad week and that “the teacher is pretty bad” or “it’s no big deal anyway”. Plus they tell you they are thinking of quitting soccer. You could foolishly write these off as black swans only, or you could see them as signs of a “regime change” within you child and take some more drastic steps to see what the cause of these dragon-king events really is. Come to find out, they begun hanging out with a new set of friends, etc.

        You can see then, that there is a very real difference between dragon-king events and black swans, and you can furthermore see how this distinction can be applied to dynamical events in the natural world such as a series of record low years of sea ice, or “once in a century” storms that start hitting every couple of years etc.

      • Webster, “Utterly clueless. Taleb has his own model and it includes Black Swan probabilities.” Yes, Taleb allows for uncertainty and his uncertainty defines what is his “black swan” events would be. Now compare what Taleb and Trenberth would consider as “reasonable” uncertainty.

        Events can be to the upside or downside. Compare Taleb and Trenberth again. The narrower the uncertainty range the greater the “belief” in the model.

        You modeled the rate of heat diffusion into the oceans. You came up with a value “consistent” with Hansen. When I mentioned that the actual average SST is closer to 21.1C than 17 C, you were a bit surprised and seriously doubted that possibility. How does a 5.1C range of error impact your results? How much “faith” do you have in your conclusions?

        Recently Stephens published an new Earth Energy Budget. BEST has a rough approximation of global land absolute temperature. If you back calculate, what average SST range would you get?

      • Gates, that is true if that is how you wish to interpret the difference. The 1995 to 2000 “shift” could be a regime change. The temperature rise from circa 1600AD could be a transition from a lower semi-stable state to a higher semi-stable state. If it is, the apparent sensitivity to CO2 forcing would decrease :) Instead of averages above 3C the averages would be more consistently below 3C. If you bet your entire life’s work on it being above 3C from this point in time, that could be a Dragon King.

        Just for grins the other day if figured out the standard deviation of the ocean bottom water (Tdo) and surface water temperature (Tsurf) above 45N based on the Binjanti and Van de Wal reconstruction. The Tdo is ~0.82 and the Tsurf is ~4.2. I even made this plot of 5k year standard deviation of the two (previously detrended for comparison).

        https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-joaHMi2s-WI/UMDbWz5271I/AAAAAAAAF5E/I4Gg9M5cu3c/s925/bintanji%25205%2520ka%2520sd.png

        The standard deviation is greatest when there is plenty of ice area to feedback and less as that feedback decreases or approaches a semi-stable setpoint (one of the strange attractors). Pretty obvious, variance reduces with temperature as it approaches the higher setpoint. An indication of a higher semi-stable set poin, IMHOt. I “except” a different regime so that would not be a Dragon King to me, it could be for you though. Black swans and dragon kings are in the eye of the beholder.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        “What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes. First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme ‘impact’. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.” Taleb

        ‘The phrase “black swan” derives from a Latin expression; its oldest known occurrence is the poet Juvenal’s characterization of something being “rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno” (“a rare bird in the lands, very much like a black swan”)’ Black swans were not known of at the time of course.

        A dragon-king is an extreme event that lies outside of power law expectations – fat tailed ot not – and can’t be anticipated. So it is in this sense a black swan as well. It is however associated with dynamical complexity – it occurs as ‘noisy bifurcation’ in regions where complex systems are shifting to a new region of the phase space topology. It has this specific physics meaning beyond the black swan metaphor.

        The webster has a mental block about complexity theory and tries to shoehorn everything into same frame. Sorry I joked about it.

        As usual the webster is a long winded but misguided and pompour idiot.

      • The Skeptical Warmist

        captndallas wisely said:

        ” Black swans and dragon kings are in the eye of the beholder.”
        _____
        Interesting. Judith said Hurricane Sandy could not be a black swan because it had been forecast days in advance. Something about this bothered me as I thought about absolute definitions of things. So if a storm like Sandy hit prior to the satellite forecasting era (which is has, many times) it would be black-swan event?

        At any rate, I do find it useful to think about a distinction between black swans and dragon-kings to be one of “regime change”, as it can be understood both logically and mathematically and I do think that Sornette’s viewpoint is useful in this regard. Additionally, as Sorenette and others have pointed out, a series of fluctuations, taken as a group or clustering of black swan events, none of which were predictable in advance, but which, taken as a group, can be used to forecast or spot a regime change, or dragon-king event is also useful. This can be applied to sea ice, severe or extreme weather, and your child’s school performance.

      • Gates said, “At any rate, I do find it useful to think about a distinction between black swans and dragon-kings to be one of “regime change”, as it can be understood both logically and mathematically and I do think that Sornette’s viewpoint is useful in this regard.”

        I agree, there just needs to be some standardization. Climate science is frustrating because of the semantics and seemingly arbitrary boundary conditions.

      • Remember that Sornette invented the term Dragon King to try to best his colleague Taleb in the battle of the fat-tail pundits.

        And I came up with the term Sky Dragon King to describe climate crackpots such as Chief Hoppy, who are quite rare but do exist. Fancy the fact that just like the first observed Black Swan, most of the Sky Dragon Kings come from Australia.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        Everyone agrees but the brain frozen Minnesotan. Dragon-kings are equivalent to noisy bifurcation.

        http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1376

      • The Skeptical Warmist

        WHT said:
        “Remember that Sornette invented the term Dragon King to try to best his colleague Taleb in the battle of the fat-tail pundits.”

        _____
        Interesting…well then, maybe by “chance” he actually discovered something unique, as clearly there is a difference and it can be seen both logically and mathematically.

        But the expression “battle of the fat-tail pundits” only leads me to images of two rather angry beavers fighting in a pond, like two of these guys:

        http://photos.travellerspoint.com/211584/large_real_Beaver_tail.jpg

      • The Skeptical Warmist

        Captain K, are you reversing your earlier statement? When you said:

        “Just realised that dragon-kings are black swans.”

        Since black swans are not necessarily always associated with noisy bifurcation, whereas dragon-kings always are.

      • Oh yeah, Chiefy only acts like he understands this stuff and continues to prank people with the Chief Hydrologist moniker.

        Here is perhaps an example of the difference between Black Swans and Dragn Kings. Consider that sizes of oil reservoirs follow essentially a power law distribution for volumes. The odds of any size follows the odds function so a new reservoir that is 10 times the size of Ghawar in Saudi Arabia would be 10 times as rare. That would be a Black Swan event as we don’t expect to find any more fields that size .

        Now consider the sizes of bodies of water. This also follows fairly accurately a power law where sizes are ranked by area. The ranking follows the same odds function, unless one includes the connected body of water called the ocean. The ocean is so big in comparison that it doesn’t come close to fitting on the power law curve. Is this ocean the result of a “noisy bifurcation” known as a “Dragon King”? Or is it just the result of where water settles based on the aggregate volume of water covering the earth? Of course, it is the latter.

        Now let’s go back to oil reservoirs. There is a junk oil shale deposit covering parts Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah called the Green River Formation. This is estimated at containing 3 trillion barrels of oil, dwarfing Ghawar by over 10 times in estimated volume of oil. But is this a Dragon King or just an mutant reservoir of oil-impregnated shale that shouldn’t be counted as a crude oil deposit? It could also be a Black Swan if you counted crude oil as as tarry gooey junk with the consistency of a parking lot asphalt which is highly dispersed over a large volume.

        That’s the problem with counting things. You develop statistics based on patterns of observation, and so don’t count pineapples when you verify that you purchased a dozen eggs.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        Why? Dragon-kings can be black swans but black swans are not neccessarily dragon-kings. But I am sorry I mentioned it.

        Just the weirdly verbose and disjointed narratives of the webster is enough to ensure that. I am sure he makes sense to himself if no one else.

      • Captain Kangaroo said on | December 9, 2012 at 2:14 pm

        “I am not an ideologue of any kind except in your fervid imagination.”
        _______

        Yes, you are. You have ideology coming out of your pores. You are a market worshipper.

      • So based on the way that this argument is going, a dragon-king is essentially predicting that mangrove trees can’t grow in Northern Minnesota, but then having someone say that a white pine is just a “noisy bifurcation” of a mangrove tree.

        Which is probably true WRT evolutionary behavior but it has no practical significance to ordinary statistical analysis, which is what fat-tails are all about.

        Like I said, Sornette was trying to fit into the Taleb fat-tail pantheon by coining a new phrase. It really hasn’t caught on anywhere but in Chief’s imagination and perhaps in the economic areas that both Taleb and Sornette like to dabble in.

        The reason it hasn’t caught on is that physicists would rather talk specific physics rather than ontological classification, while statisticians would rather work with fat-tail statistics where appropriate. The dragon-king terminology is caught in a descriptive no-man’s land.

      • The Skeptical Warmist

        Okay, before we put a huge fork in the topic of dragon-kings and black swans and call it done, I’d like to make one last comment about the usefulness of the distinction, regardless of any personal squabble between two fat-tails.

        Imagine a series of years in which sea ice drops 30, 40, or 50% below normal, but then recovers and stays recovered for a decade or more (really recovers, not a Steve Goddard type recovery). The black swan low sea ice years were certainly outliers for those years, and not indicative of a regime change, but perhaps just natural variability at the extreme outlier mode. Now, imagine a series of years in which sea ice dropped by the same amounts, but never actually made a recovery and then continued on down, fluctuating up and down, but more down than up over the years to an ice free summer condition. Their was a regime change in the sea ice and some year that saw a huge drop over a previous long-term average could be seen as a dragon-king event, indicating not just an extreme outlier of an old regime, but a new normal of a new regime. This is the usefulness of a distinction between dragon kings and black swans– something which Sornette does allude to, either intentionally or not.

      • Perhaps 1998 was thought to be a black swan, but since nearly every year since then has been about as warm, it may be a dragon king.

      • I like the way Jim D thinks. The “change in regime” is due to the new levels of CO2 we are faced with. CO2 is the “noisy bifurcation” caused by man digging up and burning gigatons of ancient buried hydrocarbons over a short time scale. Quite a dragon-king we have created.

      • Here is an absurd example of a dragon king. My PC is working perfectly for months on end, with stable characteristics. Then one day I exhibit a noisy bifurcation and take a sledge hammer to the case. Presto, regime change … and a catastrophic one at that, in the sense of Rene Thom. I seriously doubt that the PC will recover for a decade or three.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        The pests are noisy around here. One wonders what the webster good ol’ boy homespun metaphors of computer rage mean. I’d opt for nothing cause the guy is a moron.

        If you would prefer to read some actual science – http://eprints.port.ac.uk/3527/

      • I can’t wait to see Captain Oz start weeping after he apologizes for his incessantly infantile prank comments on this site.

        We all know that Aussie larrinkins are the primary pests that are ruining this site, and all the world’s eyeballs are on you critters after that prank stunt that the Australian radio DJ’s pulled several days ago.

        Good gawd, was that sad to see the two DJs bawling on TV this morning over that incident.

        Sockpuppet Chief Hydrologist / Captain Kangaroo / Robert Ellison , you really should be ashamed of yourself. And that goes for the rest of the Oz pests such as Myrrhh, StephTheDenier, Girma, Doug Cotton, etc, etc.

        This is with due respect to R.Gates, Michael, and any other Australian commenters who keep straight and narrow on the science.

    • The problem with the chief sockpuppet is he doesn’t show his work.
      F-

    • Captn Kangaroo
      Charles Hall shows that society needs fuel an EROEI of at least 3 to cover transportation and distribution. So corn ethanol, biodiesel are too low, and tar sands are marginal.

    • Captain Kangaroo

      http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/08/week-in-review-12812/#comment-275014

      The problem with the principle dickwad is that he is an illiterate moron.

    • CK – This makes nuclear the obvious choice for the harvesting of tar sands. Portable, compact, dense, and hot. Perfect.

    • Captain, “I think the webster is too dumb – or suffering from Minnesota brain freeze – to have ever worked in private enterprise.” And with comments like “The government is the secret weapon,” I don’t think he can have worked inside the core of government. Unless the secret weapon he is thinking of is the Doomsday Bomb.

      • “Faustino | December 11, 2012 at 10:41 pm | Reply “

        You being an Australian, aren’t you frankly embarrassed to be associated with your fellow pranksters and hoaxters?

      • Webby, I’m British first (Irish/Scottish/Northumbrian), Geordie second and Australian third. I hold the pranksters in very low regard, it’s a part of the media which has no value to me.

        As for your extensive arguments here and erstwhile, speaking as one who has advised government leaders, I am commenting only on what seems to me to be a totally unwarranted faith in government in this particular remark.

        My greatest prank was leading the capture of the Tower of London as a rag stunt in 1964, my only regret being that some fellow-students did not treat the aged Beefeaters with respect.

  13. Here’s a computation related to Sandy. It’s my attempt to create a Hurricane Power Dissipation Index for storms north of Chesapeake Bay:

    https://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/home/noreast-pdi

    • AJ, Your skills with R do not impress me much. Alll that whiz-bang stuff you are doing is hiding the salient information, which is the following question:
      Has the frequency of high wind speeds during intense storms increased (on average) over the years?

      Why don’t you go back and redo your work by just looking at the cube of the wind speed.
      As a hint, do the variance analysis on this R plot that I managed to create from that NOAA data source that you used:
      http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3047/windspeedcubedatlantic.gif

      Notice that the cube of the wind speed has extreme values that do not appear to occur before about 1940. Is this because observers could not measure those high wind speeds before 1940?
      Or is this related to the increase in storm intensity that climate scientists have observed since the earth’s temperature has started to warm?

      Get back to me.

      • So AJ left a huge floater. He has no response to the data I plotted.

        And the Larrikin helplessly whines in the background.

      • Sorry for the delay Web. My computations were looking only at the cube of the windspeed for landfalling storms north of Chesapeake Bay, including Atlantic Canada. From what I can tell, there does not appear to have been an increase in the core intensity of the storms at landfall over the length of the record.

        As for my R skills, it’s not my day job. If you see any bugs let me know. The results look error free to me, given my arbitrary decisions and not accounting for the size of the wind field (unavailable) or the forward speed of the storm. No doubt the code could be optimized.

        I don’t intend to extend this “analysis” any further as I’ve already answered my own question to my satisfaction. I noticed recently that we were getting a lot of storms up here in Nova Scotia over the last decade. I was wondering if this was unusual. From what I can tell, the answer is no.

      • AK. I am sure your analysis is chock full of bugs.
        There is no succesive level of refinement in your approach that would otherwise indicate where biases and errors would get introduced.

      • WebHubTelescope shows how to make someone look like a fool.

      • Vague Genie… Your comment is too vague :)

      • ^.^

      • Captain Kangaroo

        So whining is actually referencing someone who knows what they are talking about and finds exactly the reverse of some moron who posts an unexplained graph on a blog? Go figure.

      • No, it is clear from the larger data set that extreme values of wind speed have increased. The data also shows that the floor of the logged wind speed has dropped from 50 to below this value. That is an artificial and systemic bias that needs to be removed, otherwise the trend will be negative.

        That’s what you need to do first, look at the bigger picture.

      • replied to your last comment, under wrong thread.

      • Vague,

        All WEB shows is how to be an arrogant, rude ass.

      • timg56, nonsense. He shows far more.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        ‘The study of decreased wind speeds came from a team led by Sara Pryor, professor and chair of the atmospheric science program at Indiana University. It examined wind speed data from hundreds of locations across the U.S. The team attempted to correct for any change in instrument position (such as what would happen if an airport places its anemometer atop a new control tower) and calculated for each site the average annual wind speed. Pryor and her colleagues found that in most of the U.S. wind speeds appear to be waning, in many locations by more than 1 percent a year.’

        No what you need is some actual analytical skill. And to be less of a vulgar and offensive protagonist.

      • VG,

        You may be right.

      • timg56… In my limited interactions with Web, I find his manner somewhat Sheldon-esque, but I certainly don’t dismiss what he says. I’m just a hack with some data, so all input from capable individuals is welcome.

        In this case, I did some rough calculations allowing for +/- 10kts at the beginning of the period and +/- 2kts at the end, with the uncertainty linearly decreasing. Although the trend in PDI did increase, it was still no where near significant. Maybe I should try decreasing the uncertainty in steps? Anyway, at the end of the day, my work should not be seen as anything more than the crude computations of an amateur.

      • “I find his manner somewhat Sheldon-esque”

        I don’t watch the show unless forced to by others, but I assume you are referring to the sitcom character.

        The irony of course is that we can probably learn more from that sitcom than from the characters on this blog, which is the educational equivalent of The Wiggles, lead by Chief Wiggles himself.

      • AJ,

        WEB was one of the posters I paid attention to when I first started reading this website. Somewhere along the way he became an insulting jackass. While i try not to call names, some folks appear intent on defining themselves to the point of begging to be labeled. WEB decided to tatoo his on his forehead.

        From what I saw, you presented something, asked a couple of questions and while WEB did point out errors, it was in an arrogant, insulting manner. He’s gone so far in that direction that, as a former resident of Minnesota, with friends and family still there, I have to wonder if he is an import from another state. Minnesotans are about the nicest people you could ever meet.

      • timg56… I’ve met a number of Minnesotans down south on vacation over the years. I think that those in the northern states and Canada tend to take tropical vacations in the late winter. I can vouch that all the ones I met were very nice people.

    • Web, gotcha. Given that the error bars of landfalling wind speeds are larger the further back in time one goes, the uncertainties will skew the slope negative once the wind speeds are cubed. As the error bars become larger, the positive errors will increasingly outweigh the negative. Oh well, back to the drawing board. As of now, the answer to my question regarding northeast storms is “can’t tell”. Thanks for the feedback.

      I don’t think the dataset is appropriate to answer your question regarding the frequency of high wind speed, particularly over the open ocean, as the observations become sparser in the the pre-aircraft reconnaissance era (1944). So I think your graph demonstrates the under reporting of storms. The general notes in the HURDAT2 documentation talks about this:

      http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/hurdat/hurdat2_format.pdf

  14. CK, +1 on centralised planning and its expedient consequences.

  15. David L. Hagen

    Re:

    Naomi Oreskes, with subtitle “Checking 20 years of proections by the [IPCC] finds that the group has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of climate change

    Whatever happened to validation against reality (aka “data”)?
    I don’t know what planet Oreskes is looking at. It does not appear to be earth over the last two decades.
    Contrast Christopher Lord Monckton summarizing the evidence and status:

    • There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.

    • It is at least ten times more cost-effective to see how much global warming happens and then adapt in a focused way to what little harm it may cause than to spend a single red cent futilely attempting to mitigate it today.

    • An independent scientific enquiry should establish whether the U.N.’s climate conferences are still heading in the right direction.

    Lucia Liljegren at The Blackboard under Data Comparisons has been systematically examining the probability of the models relative to the actual data trends. e.g.,
    Trends Relative to Models: (Ending September 2012)
    Note that all models predicted temperature trends higher than the actual temperature trends since 2000. That is the OPPOSITE of Oreskes pronouncement. Similarly:
    Arima11 Test: Reject AR4 Multi-Model Mean since 1980, 1995, 2001,2001,2003.

    “We would reject the multi-model mean trend as too warm relative to the observed trend if we based our judgement on trends computed starting in 2001, 2002. For these cases, the observed trend falls below the lower ±95% confidence interval for the multi-model mean.
    We would fail to reject the multi-model mean as too warm if we based our judgement on trends computed starting in 1999 or 1985. In those cases, the upper 95% confidence itnerval for the observation lies above the multi-model mean.”

  16. “Finally, there’s leverage. China and India may not do something sensible but painful, like adopting carbon pricing, because the United States does so, but they will adopt new technologies if the U.S. can prove that they work without harming economic growth. ”
    __________

    Denier/skeptic talk coming from Americans must be music to China’s ear’s. American’s who want China to fossil fuel its way past the U.S. as a world power and pollute our atmosphere in the process should keep telling the Chinese that burning coal and oil is all good. Tell India too.

    • Captain Kangaroo

      You just don’t get anything do you? By all means tell China and India all you like not to burn coal.

      Australian industry is increasing coal exports by three times and gas by five this decade. Your loss is our gain. And we even have a carbon price. It costs me $150 in a full year. At the margins it has economic impacts but is not likely to be fatal – or ever likely to be effective. God I feel pure and moral.

      Do I in fact give a rat’s arse about Chinese and Indian economies growing? Nope – apart from the humanitarianand capitalist in me approving.

      • Oh I get it all right! You are anti-American. You want China to be the number one power, not the U.S., or you just don’t give a damn either way, And you couldn’t care less about the pollution.

        Humanitarian capitalism? Don’t make me laugh ! China practices state-directed capitalism with the objective of capturing as much of the world market as possible, China doesn’t give a damn about you and your sappy ideology.

        Captain Chump should be your name.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        Well I am in fact in favour of economies growing in China, India, Africa, the US and Europe. I would advise not following the US and European path of exponentially spiralling government debt and artificially low interest rates fueling asset bubbles leading to recession and double digit unemployment.

        I am opposed to redneck dimwits like you pulling the American exceptionalism card whenever it suits and otherwise undermining competitive industry. You are a hive-bozo like you’re dimwit fellow travellor webnutcolonoscope. You have a problem with innovation and have a limits to growth fetish. You would destroy American industry and impose barriers to free trade. You are in other words an inconsequential zealot.

        No I’m not anti American but you and your global hive-bozo fellow travellors are.

      • Captain Kangaroo said on December 9, 2012 at 12:20 am
        No I’m not anti American but you and your global hive-bozo fellow travellors are.
        ______

        Cap, you say you aren’t anti-America, but you don’t care if China surpasses the U.S. as the leading world power.
        It doesn’t make any difference to you either way. Well, it sure as hell makes a difference to Americans, and I certainly wouldn’t regard you as a friend of America, or want to depend on people like you as our allies.

        Apparently you are a free-market purist, a laizze faire (government hands off) ideologue, who believes things work out the best for the most people when the market is unregulated and free from government direction. Fortunately, no developed nation in the world embraces your ideology. Have you ever wondered why?

        BTW, I’m a successful capitalist, and I have little use for purist ideology of any kind. I think it’s for saps.

      • Max_OK

        Whether or not you want China to eventually surpass the USA as the #1 economic power is meaningless.

        If it’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen (and from over here it looks like that is gonna be the case).

        Your country has gotten itself so tangled up in “big gumment” bureaucratic red tape and regulations, high corporate taxes, etc. that it is no longer the best place to invest (as it was 20 years ago).

        Sure, there are the politically “in” biggies, like GE, that pay no taxes at all, but the average corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world.

        And the regulatory scene (not only by the bloated EPA) is a lawyers’ paradise (not a coincidence, BTW).

        I’d love to see your country regain the economic leadership it once had (because I think the underlying US values have been a guiding light for a lot of the free world) – but it won’t happen unless you cut back the over-bloated federal government and make it the industry friendly place it once was.

        Your fate is in your hands, Max_OK.

        Max_not from OK

      • David Springer

        If my head was in New York and my feet in California my arsehole would be in Oklahoma.

      • Max_OK, are you really suggesting that the Chinese simply don’t care about destroying the planet?

      • David Springer said on December 9, 2012 at 8:12 am
        “If my head was in New York and my feet in California my arsehole would be in Oklahoma.”
        _____

        Finally, you say something I can at least partially agree with, but Oklahoma would be a great place if about 75 percent of it’s residents moved to Texas.

        BTW, you must have short legs, a long upper body and/or neck, and butt that’s close to the ground.

      • Max,

        You just can’t help yourself, can you?

        “Oklahoma would be a great place if about 75 percent of it’s residents moved to Texas. ”

        Your love of your fellow man just shines through.

    • Max_OK

      If you’d ever spent any time in China or working with Chinese, you’d know that no matter what we tell them they are going to do exactly what they think is best for themselves. They will not slow down their economic development because of a “rich white man’s guilt-driven obsession with CO2″.

      Why should they?

      Max

      • manacker said on Dec 9, 2012 at 6:44 am

        “Max_OK

        Whether or not you want China to eventually surpass the USA as the #1 economic power is meaningless.

        If it’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen (and from over here it looks like that is gonna be the case).

        Your country has gotten itself so tangled up in “big gumment” ,,,,,
        _________________

        The U.S needs to fight fire with fire by copying China’s state-directed capitalism, a form of capitalism that’s anathema to anti-government ideologues, including most members of the GOP ( an acronym meaning Goofy Old Poots). Fortunately, the GOP is dependent on a shrinking demographic which eventually will disappear altogether.

        With Republicans and their antiquated philosophy out of the way, the U.S. may have a chance to hold it’s own against China. Germany has a positive balance of trade with China. We are as good as the Germans.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        One would hope that you are a disapearring demographic. I am not an ideologue of any kind except in your fervid imagination. If you had studied Hayek at all you would understand both the role and proper limits of government.

        What bizarre ideas you have. You say you’re an entrepeneur? Just what do you sell?

      • Max_OK

        Naw.

        You’ve got it wrong.

        The USA was once the economic world leader, NOT because it had a Chinese “state capitalism” system based on low-cost labor, but because it was “industry friendly” (low taxes, high productivity, not over-regulated, easy permit procedures, etc.).

        A lot of this advantage is gone today.

        A “Chinese system” would not work in the USA.

        Max

    • Max-OK,

      If a country with 3 times as many people (China) as another (USA) becomes more than 1/3 as productive per capita then it will surpass the other. Just common sense. Which you apparently lack.

      • Bill, looks like you have already given up on the U.S. and underestimate American ingenuity and know how. If you are an American, your lack of patriotism is appalling.

  17. From the TDC article:

    The conservative bias stems from several sources, scientists say. Part can be attributed to science’s aversion to drama and dramatic conclusions

    and

    The pattern, said Oreskes in an interview, is under- rather than over-projection. “These data simply do not support the allegations by skeptics that scientists have been alarmists,” she said.

    Yes, I’ve noticed such “aversion to drama and dramatic conclusions” as well as “conservative bias” and understatement in the pronouncements of IPCC Lead Author (recently appointed British Columbia Green Party Deputy Leader and aspiring member of the provincial legislature), Andrew Weaver.

    In February, 2007 Weaver had declared that AR4:

    “revealed climate change to be a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles“.

    How much more evidence of “aversion to drama” and presence of “conservative bias” does one need, eh?! But if you do need a few more pixels in the picture of Weaver’s non-alarmist, conservative claims, you can find some here.

    Not to mention how much more non-alarmist “conservative bias” can one find in the IPCC’s reports than in Michael Mann’s iconic hockey-stick – and its various iterations and reincarnations?!

    But that aside, I find it quite interesting that this TDC article makes absolutely no mention of the InterAcademy Council’s 2010 findings regarding the IPCC. Amongst many other areas for improvement, the IAC had noted in Chapter 3 – IPCC’s Evaluation of Evidence and Treatment of Uncertainty:

    The quantitative scales used by Working Group I raise four additional issues:

    1. It is unclear what the use of separate confidence and likelihood scales accomplishes.[...]

    2. It is well-documented in the literature that people interpret the terms
    ‘very unlikely,’ ‘likely’ etc. in Table 3.3 in different ways [...]

    3. The use of the likelihood scale conveys less information than a probability distribution. It should not replace ways of communicating uncertainty that convey more information when they are available.[...]

    4. The likelihood scale used by Working Group I includes more categories than the likelihood scale presented in the IPCC guidance [...] introducing inconsistencies in the way likelihood is presented in the Fourth Assessment Report. Moreover, the use of overlapping categories can lead to logical inconsistencies.[...]

    Oh, well … perhaps the authors of this TDC article – along with those quoted – have very conveniently adopted redefinitions of “non-alarmist” and “conservative bias”.

    • Periodically one of the captive agencies responsible for advancing the Warmist de-industrialization cause issues an authoritative statement which consists of 100% false conclusions from 100% false data. One is astounded at the chutzpah.

      This is one of those. It shows touching faith in the power of the Big Lie strategy, though. Worryingly, the riposte to Big Lie strategists usually involves prolonged recourse to the force of arms.

    • hro001

      The “conservative bias” also peaked through when former IPCC chief, Sir Robert Watson, warned the crowd at the AGU meeting that greenhouse warming by year 2100 could be as much as 7C.

      Never mind that, even at the upper limit of IPCC’s “climate sensitivity”, this would require more CO2 than is contained in all the planet’s remaining fossil fuels.

      If that’s “conservative bias”, I’d hate to see what outright fear mongering looks like.

      Max

      • “Never mind that, even at the upper limit of IPCC’s “climate sensitivity”, this would require more CO2 than is contained in all the planet’s remaining fossil fuels.”

        Surely it wouldn’t. At 5C per doubling of CO2 for example 7C can be realized with less than a tripling of CO2, and I believe there’s enough fossil fuels for a quadrupling of CO2 easily.

      • lolwot

        You are obviously losing touch with reality when you write:

        At 5C per doubling of CO2 for example 7C can be realized with less than a tripling of CO2, and I believe there’s enough fossil fuels for a quadrupling of CO2 easily.

        Let me get you back down to Planet Earth.

        ” 5C per doubling of CO2″ is higher than the upper end of the IPCC range of 3.2°C±0.7°C (or 2.5°C to 4.0°C) [AR4 WG1 Ch.8, p.633], so forget about 5C.

        - At the “mean” IPCC CS value of 3.2°C it would take 1784 ppmv of CO2
        C0 CO2 today = 392 ppmv
        C1 CO2 in 2100 = 1784 ppmv
        C1/C0 = 4.551
        ln(C1/C0) = 1.5154
        ln(2) = 0.6931
        dT(2xCO2) = 3.2°C

        dT (to 2100):
        = (3.2)*(1.5154) / (0.6931) = 7.0°C

        - At the top end of the IPCC CS range of 4.0°C it would take 1319 ppmv of CO2

        Now, just in case you pull the old “switcheroo” and say “the 7°C warming includes all the industrial warming to date going back to pre-industrial times” ( a goofy notion in itself).

        The record goes back to 1850, and it tells us there was 0.7°C total warming since then (from all causes); let’s assume it was all from CO2 so that means the CO2 warming “from today” would only be 6.3°C.

        Same exercise

        - At the “mean” IPCC CS value of 3.2°C it would take 1534 ppmv of CO2

        - At the top end of the IPCC CS range of 4.0°C it would take 1168 ppmv of CO2

        How realistic are these levels?

        WEC 2010 has estimated the optimistically inferred total fossil fuel reserves of our planet. Based on this estimate, 85% of all the fossil fuels THAT WERE EVER ON OUR PLANET are still in place, and we have used 15% to date. Other estimates (Hubbert, etc.) put the remaining reserves much lower, but let’s use this “high end” estimate, which would mean we still have 300+ years of fossil fuels at today’s consumption rate

        CO2 has increased from 280 ppmv to 392 ppmv since we started really burning fossil fuels (according to IPCC). This is an increase of 112 ppmv over the entire time period.

        So using the WEC estimate, all the remaining fossil fuels on the planet could get us to:

        392 + (0.85)*(112) / (0/15) = 1027 ppmv

        So, no matter how you slice it lolwot, the 7°C warming projection to year 2100 is physically impossible, because there isn’t enough CO2 in all the fossil fuels on this planet to reach that level

        Your numbers are goofy – go back and do your arithmetic before you make silly claims.

        Max

      • typo in formula for remaining CO2:

        correction:

        392 + (0.85)*(112) / (0/15) (0.15)

      • Has anyone ever taken the possible ranges of temp. increase per decade (from climate models) and converted them to a range of years it may take for the planet to warm 3C?

        Rather than say the temp. could increase 2 to 7 C in the next 90 years, you could instead say it may take between X and Y years for the temp. to increase 3C. This seems like a better way to do it (or always list both) as it allows people to see that in order for it to happen in 50 years the temp. increase per decade would have to be fairly large and that if it was only 0.1 C per decade then it could be 300 years. Much harder to scare people that way and much clearer as far as it happening quickly by comparing to the data.

      • Bill, it would certainly help if people could see the upward curve of temperature. We see the linear change assumption much too often. Just because current rates are 0.15-0.2 degrees per decade (decade-average on decade-average difference) doesn’t mean 1.5-2 C in a century. Actually that would be a severe underestimate.

      • Bill

        Your “when will warming reach 3C?” proposal makes excellent sense logically (and scientifically).

        But the CAGW supporters would reject it for two reasons:

        - It ties them down to a shorter-term prediction (or projection), which can be more quickly falsified
        - It takes away the “fear factor” of a very high figure.

        “7C by 2100″ sounds real scary and can’t be tested, since none of us will be around in 2100.

        (But as I demonstrated to lolwot in comment #275149, it is physically impossible from CO2 warming.)

        Another ruse that is used to make the prediction sound more scary is to back-date the period of warming to “pre-industrial time” (somewhere in the late 18th / early 19th century) – since we’ve had close to 1C warming since then, it makes the warming figure appear higher than it really is, thereby adding to the fear factor.

        So you see that it’s not about making a prediction (or projection) that can be falsified in real time, but rather one that is vague but scary.

        It’s not about science – it’s about fear mongering.

        Max

      • JimD,

        Yes, I undertand that the modeled response should be non-linear, but you can approximate the curve with short stretches of linear fits.

        It should be accelerating and it isn’t. In order to get to a large increase in 100 years or less, we would have to see some ten year stretch where it went to 0.3 C for that stretch and then increase to 0.4 at some point.
        I’ll be very worried, should that ever occur. Your saying it will, isn’t quite the same thing now, is it?

      • Bill, even without forcing, natural decadal variations are up to about 0.1 degrees per decade, canceling over long periods. It is only when the AGW trends gets to be 0.3 degrees per decade that you will see it consistently every decade. This is already occurring for land which leads the global trend.

      • Bill

        Don’t let Jim D bamboozle you with his vision of a temperature curve that will accelerate with a big “kink”.

        He knows that this is BS for a simple reason.

        The CO2 temperature response relation is logarithmic.

        This means that 2 ppmv added CO2 today (at level 392 ppmv) will have a higher temperature impact than the same 2 ppmv added in 10 years, when the level might be 25 ppmv or so higher.

        The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2, however, has been exponential as population has increased at an exponential rate of 1.7% per year. If this exponential rate were to continue over the rest of this century, we would see around 580 ppmv by 2100. (IPCC figures 580 to 610 ppmv for its two lowest “business as usual” cases. Since population growth has already started to slow down, and is expected to slow down drastically to around one-fourth of the recent past rate, it is logical to assume that the exponential rate of CO2 growth will also slow down.

        But, even if we assume a constant exponential growth rate, the logarithmic temperature relationship means we would have a straight-line curve of temperature increase not an “upward curve of temperature” as Jim D is claiming.

        IPCC has estimated 0.2C per decade warming for the first two decades.

        Since the end of 2000 we’ve seen no warming (slight cooling, actually) instead.

        For the lowest two cases IPCC projects warming of 1.8C to 2.4C by 2100 (say an average of 2.1C).

        There are 88 years left, and we’ve had very slight cooling so far, so this means warming has to resume immediately at a rate of 0.24C per decade to reach the 2.1C warming by 2100.

        It is by no means very likely that the warming will reach this level over the rest of this century – let alone reach ridiculous levels like the 7C warming predicted by Robert Watson, the ex chief of IPCC at the AGU meeting last week.

        Max

      • manacker, it goes towards a straight line only when manmade CO2 far exceeds the original 280 ppm (see V. Pratt’s function). Since we are not there yet it will curve upwards. CO2 concentration is not an exponential, but 280 plus an exponential. Big difference.

      • Jim D

        You say “CO2 concentration is not an exponential, but 280 plus an exponential”

        This is theory.

        The actual record shows that over the past several decades the exponential rate has remained around 0.45% to 0.5% per year increase, based on the total concentration.

        Whether the rate remains at the same exponential rate over this century, when population growth rates are expected to reduce to around one-fourth the past rate, is doubtful, but let’s assume it stays at 0.5% per year compounded.

        So, with a temperature response that is logarithmic, this would mean a time/temperature curve that is linear (i.e. not showing an upward “kink” as you suggest).

        Of course, this is all guess-work, but I am just testing your logic against the actual observation.

        Max

      • Jim D

        As Bill suggests “the proof of the pudding is in the tasting”.

        We have not seen global warming at anywhere near the rate of 0.3C per decade.

        After almost three decades of warming at around 0.16C per decade it leveled off the end of 2000 and has been flat (or slightly cooling) since then.

        Only time will tell whether or not at restarts warming at the 0.16C per decade rate, or even at a faster rate.

        I don’t know. You don’t know. The IPCC models don’t know.

        We’ll just have to wait and see.

        Max

      • manacker, yes, 280 plus an exponential fits Keeling and is what Vaughan basically used for his millikelvin fit, while an exponential alone cannot do either of these. Only the skeptics can spin a record warm decade into a nothing-unusual-is-happening scenario. Quite amazing. Step back and look at yourselves.

      • Jim and Max,

        It’s easy to check which constants lead to the best fit to the Mauna Loa record when the form is chosen as constant+exponential in time. The answer that gives an excellent fit is

        256.3+22.465*1.01633^(year-1900)

        Thus Jim’s 280 is a little high but hugely better than Max’s 0.

      • Pekka and Jim D

        Over the past 25 years atmospheric CO2 has increased at a fairly constant long-term exponential rate of 0.5% per year. There is no evidence of a recent acceleration of this rate.

        Human population 25 years ago (1987) was 5.0 billion. It is 7.0 billion today, and expected by the UN to reach 10.5 billion by 2100.

        This represents a slowdown of the exponential growth rate from 1.35% per year to 0.46% per year or to one-third the rate.

        Even if we assume an increase in per capita fossil fuel consumption of 1.5 times by 2100, we end up with less that 0.5% per year CO2 growth rate, due to the projected dramatic slowdown of population growth rate.

        It is therefore reasonable IMO to assume that the 0.5% per year CO2 growth rate will be an upper limit for future increase,

        Using the 0.5% annual rate we arrive at ~600 ppmv CO2 by 2100 e.g. (IPCC model “scenarios and storylines” B1 and A1T).

        With all the environmental and economic pressures on fossil fuels, this estimate may be on the high side, but any estimate above this level is unrealistic IMO.

        What do you think?

        Max

      • Max,

        The formula that I gave results in 830 ppm for year 2100. I don’t take such extrapolations very seriously but what I can say is that you cannot use your observation “CO2 has increased at a fairly constant long-term exponential rate of 0.5% per year” at all. Your claim that there’s no observable acceleration is simply wrong, contradicted by the data that follows extremely well my simple formula. There has been on continuing upwards trend in the rate of increase of CO2 concentration.

        At present the changes in CO2 releases are split. The rich world has not increased it’s emissions while the large countries that aim towards similar standard of living increase their releases strongly. Part of that reflects transfer of industrial production of the goods consumed in the rich countries to the growing economies. Any more realistic projection must make assumptions on the continuation of the changes in world economy. Population growth is only one of the factors, the outcome will for a long time depend more on economic growth and changes in the sectors that produce most of the CO2.

        The availability of fossil fuels is one important factor. High quality resources are not sufficient for being the source of very high future concentrations, but I don’t believe that economics alone (and EROI is part of economics) will prevent taking large lower quality resources in use. Thus the resources don’t put absolute limits close to 1000 ppm, significantly higher levels are possible under some plausible assumptions.

      • No need to do any exponential model fitting when it comes to matching the measured CO2 profile.

        The actual result comes from a convolution of the historical carbon emission estimates (as tabulated by the CO2 analysis center at ORNL) with the sequestering adjustment time response of atmospheric CO2.

        When one does this, the Mauna Loa measurements match the physical model exactly, assuming a baseline of 290 PPM.
        http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2011/09/fat-tail-impulse-response-of-co2.html

        When I first did this model a couple of years ago, it sparked my interest into studying climate science more seriously. I thought that if such simple models can reproduce such seemingly complex global patterns, then we could use other first-order models to predict other climate measures.

        I am kind of a first-order physics zealot, if you haven’t noticed yet :)

    • The irony in University of California, San Diego, history and science professor Naomi Oreskes and Princeton University geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer, authoring a paper about bias is a meter pegger.

  18. “And then we’ll be able to move from conversation to action.”

    But only if we have got the science right. How are we to reconcile the views of the IPCC with the knowledge that global average temperatures actually fell between 1940 and 1970 and remained constant between 2000 and the present, when we know that carbon dioxide concentration increased markedly during both of these periods. We can’t ignore these discrepancies as scientists. We have to know why. It seems that the CO2 molecule is behaving inconsistently. Yes, it is when seen through classical thermodynamic eyes, but not when tested with quantum thermodynamics. There is the solution staring us in the face. See my website at: http://members.iinet.net.au/~alexandergbiggs and see “An Alternative view of climate change”

    • “see “An Alternative view of climate change””

      It looks like another one of those prank “An Australian view of climate change” theories.

      You Aussies are all competing to overtake “Lord” Monckton as chief laughingstock in crackpot land.

      • Webby

        The Aussie take on AGW is no more absurd than the “7C by 2100″ warming prediction of former IPCC head, Sir Robert Watson, at AGU.

        What a hoot!

        Max

      • It is a prank is it? So exactly where is it wrong?
        Monckton knows there is something wrong, but is not a scientist so can’t pin point his disagreements.
        Thanks for reading my paper and replying.

    • Captain Kangaroo

      ‘TOC essentially draws a line in the sand and a virtual stake in the ground. Everything I have written about and all the original analyses I have worked out on the blog has not fundamentally changed as I aggregated the information. As far as I can tell, no one else has picked up on the direction that I have taken, and nothing has come out of the research literature that comes close to unifying the set of topics as well as this does.

      A couple of commenters have said I should publish the research work through peer-reviewed channels. That won’t happen because the project covers too much territory and compiling a massive tome such as this represented the best option I could think of. I invite all with an interest in the natural world to take a whack at digesting it.

      This is a list of the novel areas of research, listed in what I consider a ranked order of originality…’ webnutcolonosope – the brain frozen Minnesotan who makes rednecks look good.

      The topics are legion but are unified by absurd power laws for everything and overweening and cloying ambition served by a negligible intellectual capacity.

      http://129.121.186.213/exemplars/overweening

      • Chief,
        One can at least classify the stuff I produce as sincere, since I poured a lot of thought and effort into it over the years.

        OTOH, I have had enough of you Aussie larrikin pranksters who clearly only want to mock authority with your juvenile antics. The fact that not everyone has caught on to your schtick yet is simply a matter of climbing the learning curve.

        You Chief, Biggs, Davies and all your Aussie buddies will likely continue to pile on me, but then again what other choice do you have? Personally, I would recommend that you guys just give it up.

      • Webster, sincerity doesn’t equal useful. I sincerely thought I would be able to deal with a few of the stupid needed things on my significant other’s todo list. However, since I have the opportunity to fish for fun and profit, I may not. I will sincerely regret not being available to install her closet organizer though.

        Since the majority of the discussion on the skeptic side is, “what is the upper limit with legitimate probabilities?”, your sincere efforts are not very valuable in the opinion of many skeptics.

        So since CO2 doesn’t provide a perfect seal, how heavy is the lid on the pot?

    • Contrary to WHT’s assessment of this article as yet another crank Aussie theory, I can relate to what is being said but acknowledge that there is much more work to do in fleshing out Alex’s theory.

      There is certainly something going on with the CO2 molecule over 150 years or so, which classical physics seems unable to explain. Molecular biology has effectively applied QM and there seems scope for QM to be used in the study of CO2 and other GH gases.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        Webnutcoloscope champions such things as the atmosphere warming the oceans, two compartment carbon models and random climate shifts. The guy is total wack job, has no credible scince and drops by making totally inconsequential comment about Australians commonly. He can go frack himself.

      • Thanks Peter Davies for replying and you are right, much more work needs to be done, including a mathematical model and computer programming. But I am a 90 year old retired research scientist and don’t have the resources to do much more. I would welcome someone with a good knowledge of quantum theory to take it further. When a molecule accepts a photon of IR and changes state, heats and therefore being less dense, rises in the atmosphere. The heating is simply increased Brownian motion, whereas the photon induces increased internal vibration that soaks up energy, but within limits that are ignored in classical theory.

      • What the heck is wrong with you Aussies?
        Don’t you realize the prank is over when people figure out the joke?

        Larrikin pranksters are all over the news, no thanks to the now infamous radio DJs.

      • i actually thought that queen prank call was pretty funny. if some nurse kills herself maybe the hospital shouldn’t employ emotionally unstable people to man the phones in a hospital.

      • “i actually thought that queen prank call was pretty funny. if some nurse kills herself maybe the hospital shouldn’t employ emotionally unstable people to man the phones in a hospital.”

        Like the Aussie Larrikin tradition of mocking authority, dealing with shame is part of many other cultures. If that was a Japanese hospital that occurred in and the nurse happened to commit hara-kiri, people would not have batted an eye.

        The nurse was not supposed to respond to inquiries on patients and probably felt bad about her role. It’s a sad episode.

      • OT but the media coverage of the sad episode in the UK seems to ignore the culpability of the hospital management in allowing enquiries about a VIP patient such as the Duchess Of Cambridge to go through to the ward in the first place. The prank call should have gone through to security and be dealt with there.

      • Peter Davies, So be it.. The hospital shouldn’t have let the Australian pranksters get through, much like the Aussie climate clowns that endlessly pepper this site should be shut down.

        The fly in that ointment is that science should be open, so what we need to do is stand up to these belligerent wackos until they go away.

      • WHT you’re right that there are too many cranks who contribute here but this is a small price to pay for freedom of speech and while Judith’s light moderation has sometimes been called into question, I find it easier to just roll my mouse wheel rather than hit my head on the proverbial brick wall.

        People like Miles Mathis have called into question many basic tenets of science, to the extent that nothing should ever be considered to be settled. To this point I think that orthodox climate science tends to be too accepting of classical physics and the assumptions that underpin it.

        You may disagree with what I have said but I don’t expect to be told that I am another stupid Aussie who should know better than to challenge the orthodoxy, especially when the orthodoxy seem unable or unwilling to provide clear evidence to support their AGW position.

  19. How can we credit backward-looking public schoolteachers (“Climatists”) using computer climate models (GCMs) with the ability to divine the future of the Earth’s climate 30-50 years hence? Thinking as they do what have they ever done in the past that would give us confidence in their honesty, integrity, trustworthiness and intelligence or their abilities to create computer models that accurately predict anything?

    What we have seen in the past only inspires distrust—e.g., incompetence in data gathering, deliberate manipulation and data gone missing. Schoolteachers are steadfast in refusals to allow their performances in the dropout factories to be objectively measured. As Climatists who live off tax dollars they also refuse to let anyone else see the computer climate programs we paid for. It seems Climatists have simply fabricated their GCMs out of whole cloth because their GCMs have no predictive ability whatsoever that much is certain—and, are simply hiding the evidence.

    • Wagathon | December 9, 2012 at 1:04 am said: ”and, are simply hiding the evidence”

      Mate, they have no evidence to hide. They are lying about an imaginary GLOBAL warming in 88years. Same as you are lying about GLOBAL warmings / coolings ”for every single year”, in the past.

      Why should you lie about 7000 phony GLOBAL warmings in distant past; but they shouldn’t cash in, on one phony global warming of their own?!

      • …so, I’m a hoax, you’re a hoax, everything is a hoax, right? …e,g., you do not for example belive polar ice extended over the land 18,000 years ago to as far as Boston, is that it?

  20. Judith, really lookin’ forward ter havin’ a three step crucial
    conversation , high stakes, strong emotions, different opinions )
    Say, usn’t they ter call that ‘civil -ize-d dee-bate? Tried ter
    encourage me students to observe some protocols, but yer
    know … out there on the literal…lol….it ain’t easy…

    Me-self, personally, I don’t mind a bit of head on clash, especially
    with challenges of evidence and some lacings of humour, re fergit guilt,
    like KIM pushed, but hafta say, Judith, I jest can’t stand the *sneaky,*
    the * behind closed doors,* the*gatekeeping* the*doggone rustle
    of silk* and *whisperings in the (doggone) corridors of power*
    manipulation by denizens of closed society … trust us, we will create
    U – to – pi- a on earth, but, we hafta ex -o-nent-iall-y increase taxes
    ter run it.
    Uh oh!

  21. I’ve looked at stuff on your website and it’s rubbish, you don’t even get basic chemistry and physics right. “WHEN ONE PART OF THE ATMOSPHERE GETS WARMER, OTHER PART INSTANTLY MUST GET COLDER. THAT’S WHAT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS SAY – THAT’S WHAT MY FORMULA SAYS: {EH=AE=ECI} THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT AS HUMAN BODY !!! IF UNDER THE ARMPIT GETS WARMER BY 0,5 degrees = THE WHOLE BODY IS WARMER BY THAT MUCH” .
    Blogs have a lot of stuff like yours. There’s a veritable cottage industry on How Einstein Got It Wrong but not so much on Quantum Mechanics (which may be because it’s bloody difficult, bloody weird and makes your brain ache). Dumbos probably give up when they realise that a Hamiltonian is not someone from a town called Hamilton but a math thingy (Check it out). It may also occur to them, and possibly yourself, that since our IT is based on Quantum Mechanics and works (my being able to make this comment via this media and you being able to receive it may hint that it’s not too far off the mark).

    • Whose website were you looking at Tom?

      • “Peter Davies | December 9, 2012 at 3:31 am | Reply

        Whose website were you looking at Tom?”

        Just another crackpot Aussie website run by one Stefan The Denier.

        You Aussies are running circles around everyone with inane and insane theories on how climate physics works.

        From Chief Hydro to Girma to Myrrhh to Doug Cotton and several others it looks like your country has a monopoly on the whacko juice.

      • WHT speaks quite a lot about Aussies as being a significant source of crackpot climate theories and in truth there are a good number of them. The trick is so winnow the wheat from the chaff and I, for one, find that there are a few well thought out theories that deserve an objective reading.

        Many of these ideas are admittedly half baked and need further work but I still find them to be interesting. I also note that America is a fertile source of crackpot ideas as well but would prefer not to refer to nationality when looking at what they have put forward. WHT may well be American but his nationality is irrelevant when discussing his ideas; many of which are soundly based.

        Irrespective of nationality however, the use of bad language and ad hominen attacks does the poster no credit whatsoever. Pekka, Vaughan Pratt, Fred Moolton (back when he was contributing) are a number of contributors who have maintained an excellent standard of politeness and respect for divergent viewpoints which WHT would do well to emulate.

      • Peter Davies, said

        ” The trick is so winnow the wheat from the chaff and I, for one, find that there are a few well thought out theories that deserve an objective reading.”

        Wow. Are you being serious? Exactly which alternative “theory” are you talking about?

      • WebTheCrackpot | December 9, 2012 at 7:22 pm said: ”Just another crackpot Aussie website run by one Stefan The Denier. You Aussies are running circles around everyone with inane and insane theories on how climate physics works”

        Web, it’s been 13months, since the first time I asked you: ”if you have answers to those questions – you should stop lying” You are still avoiding the questions that gave you the biggest nightmare:

        Q: do you know that: oxygen + nitrogen are 998999ppm in the troposphere, CO2 only 260-400ppm? Q: do you know that O+N expand /shrink INSTANTLY in change of temperature? Q: do you know that: where they expand upwards, on the edge of the troposphere is minus-90⁰C? Q: why O&N expand more, when warmed by 5⁰C, than when warmed by 2⁰C? A: when warmed by 5⁰C, they need to go further up, to release more heat / intercept more, extra coldness, to equalize. Q: if O&N are cooled after 10 minutes to previous temperature, why they don’t stay expanded another 5 minutes extra? A: not to intercept too much extra coldness, to prevent too much cooling. A2: they stay expanded precisely as long as they are warmer – not one second more or less – that’s how they regulate to be same warmth units overall in the troposphere, every hour of every year and millenia!

        Q: do you know that: if troposphere warms up by 2⁰C extra – troposphere expands up into the stratosphere by 1km, how much extra coldness is there to intercept? A: intercepts extra appropriate coldness to counteract the extra heat in 3,5 seconds -> that extra coldness falls to the ground in minutes Q: if O+N are warmed extra for 30 minutes, why they don’t shrink after 15 minutes, or after one day? A: if O&N after cooled to previous temperature; stayed expanded for a whole day extra -> they would have redirected enough extra coldness, to freeze all the tropical rivers / lakes.

        Q: can CO2 of 260-400ppm prevent oxygen + nitrogen (998999ppm) of expanding, when they warm up? A: O&N when warmed extra – they expand through the walls of a hi-tensile hand-grenade. Q: do you believe in the laws of physics, or in IPCC and the Warmist / Fake Skeptic cults? The laws of physics say: part of the troposphere can get colder than normal – only when other part gets warmer than normal. B] if the WHOLE troposphere gets colder > air shrinks > releases LESS heat /intercepts less coldness on the edge of the troposphere > retains more heat and equalizes in a jiffy. C] both hemispheres cannot get warmer simultaneously for more than few minutes – if they doo -> troposphere expands extra >releases extra heat / intercepts extra coldness and equalizes in a jiffy. Q: do the O+N wait to warm up by 2-3⁰C, before start expanding, or expand instantly extra when they warm up by 0,000001⁰C? All those things can be experimented / replicated now; no need to wait 100y and see that: all they come up with, are lies

        Face your nightmare, WebTheCrackpot!!!! you’ll sleep better

      • Peter Davies said:

        “Pekka, Vaughan Pratt, Fred Moolton (back when he was contributing) are a number of contributors who have maintained an excellent standard of politeness and respect for divergent viewpoints “

        Well, Fred is not here anymore so that doesn’t count.

        But Vaughan is way too savvy for you, I see. This is what Professor Pratt said at one time:

        “I love Monty Python skits because I’m a logician who gets his kicks from their abuse of logic. With their departure I’m reduced to blogs like Climate Etc. where I can find bizarre arguments galore. Your contribution is gratefully acknowledged.”

        The difference between Vaughan and myself is that he chuckles to himself about your antics, while I would rather LAUGH OUT LOUD!

    • Let’s see now…hmmm…Saturday night? So, like, maybe, Tom’s been hittin’ the “sauce” a little heavy-like. But then, again, maybe not. Who knows?

      Whatever Tom–your last is my kinda comment. Good stuff! Keep ‘em comin’ ol’ buddy.

    • Tom Taylor | December 9, 2012 at 2:57 am objected: ”THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT AS HUMAN BODY !!! IF UNDER THE ARMPIT GETS WARMER BY 0,5 degrees = THE WHOLE BODY IS WARMER BY THAT MUCH”

      Tom, if you lack the intelligence, to realize that: .warmer troposphere instantly enlarges in volume b] where enlarges into that space is bloody cold c] that space cannot accumulate extra warmth / to prevent cooling tomorrow – because by tomorrow, the planet will be million miles away…=== but you are mentioning Quantum Mechanics == you must be suffering from inferiority complex / feeling inadequate.

      You are saying: ”Blogs have a lot of stuff like yours”

      Well Tom, I’m looking for any blog that has the plain simple facts; would you point one or two of those – I’ll appreciate a lot Tom. .

  22. I saw this in the news a few days ago:

    World Bank: Arab World hit hard by climate change
    By Michael Casey, AP Environmental Writer

    DOHA, Qatar (AP) –The Middle East and North Africa will be especially hard hit by climate change in the coming decades, the World Bank said in a report Wednesday, saying the region will see less rainfall, more recording-breaking temperatures and rising sea levels.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j1y_aiAggG_elilJI3lzaLJUZt6Q?docId=32018aa0abce4c319d5d1cad0ae68b59
    _____

    Apparently the journalists doesn’t know warming means more CO2, and CO2 is plant food for the dates and coconuts that are staples of that region. Just like people, the more plants eat, the bigger they become. Imagine dates the size of tennis balls and coconuts the size of beach balls.

    OK, it might get so warm that palm trees would loose their appetite for more plant food, and just want more water. In that case, people could eat the extra plant food, bypassing the middle man, so to speak. What they don’t eat, they could freeze.

    WARNING: Do not eat frozen plant food. Don’t even put it in your mouth to see what it tastes like. Do and you will be sorry. I know.

    • Captain Kangaroo

      What a ridiculous twit you are. If you are going to try satire you need to at least base it on some modicum of reality. It helps if it has some wit, charm and style and not just the obvious and tedious grind from the alternate tofu chomping reality in which you obviously dwell.

      If we were scoring pointless and worthless commentary – you and webby would tie. Well there is blah blah and numbnut – but they deserve a whole different scoring system for pomposity and immaturity respectively.

      On the other hand – if you have any science that suggests that regional forecasting is passable or that CO2 doesn’t affect stomatal size and density – by all means. Or anything at all sciency? Otherwise you should take your stupid commentary somewhere it is likely to be appreciated.

      • Cap, are your miffed because you just had to try eating dry ice despite my warning.

        Why does an anti-American like yourself hang out at an American climate blog? Since you want to suck up to the Chinese, why don’t you look for an English-speaking Chinese site?

        BTW, I don’t eat tofu.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        No max – I am sure you eat tofu. The brain dead zombie comments are a dead giveaway.

        You are the anti-American – an enemy of democracy an freedom. The enlightenment virtues on which America was founded.

        But we just want to sell coal and gas to the Chinese and Indians and we want to be friends with everyone. Stability and properity are good for people. Mind you I quite like the food and people are just people.

        Why are you such a ridiculous xenophobe? You are an absolute weirdo – an inconsequential zealot. F-U – I will keep talking to real Americans.

    • Max_OK

      All those future doomsday predictions you parrot leave me cold (if you’ll pardon the expression), because they are all hot air (‘scuse me again).

      Max_not from OK

  23. One of the best authors to read about fixing the grid is Peter Huber:
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/our_gridlocked_grid_JEVU4LzZg9M4VRdbBZgEWN

    • Canman,

      That’s an excellent article. The scientists who blog here could benefit from reading it.
      http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/our_gridlocked_grid_JEVU4LzZg9M4VRdbBZgEWN

    • Canman,

      This is an excellent report that may be of interest:
      http://www.eei.org/magazine/EEI%20Electric%20Perspectives%20Article%20Listing/2010-09-01-BASELOAD.pdf

      The case for baseload
      by Charles e. Bayless

      An engineer’s perspective on why not just any generation source will do when it comes to the system’s capacity, stability, and control.

      The electric system is more than just the delivery of energy—it is the provision of reliability. First, the system must have capacity, that is, the capability to furnish energy instantaneously when needed. The system also must have frequency control, retain stability, remain running under varied conditions, and have access to voltage control. Each of those essential services for reliability must come from a component on the system. Those components are not free, and they don’t just happen. They are the result of careful planning, engineering, good operating procedures, and infrastructure investment specifically targeting these items.

      • Thanks. That was interesting. It looks like “just in time” delivery is gas’s main potential snag.

    • Canman,

      Thank you for your comment. What part of the report are you quoting when you said:

      It looks like “just in time” delivery is gas’s main potential snag.

      That is no my perspective. I think “just in time” delivery is a strength of gas.

      I think the ideal electricity generation mix if we want reliable power supply, low CO2 emissions and least cost is:
      – nuclear for baseload (baseload comprises about 75% of electricity demand)
      - hydro for peak and as much intermediate load as is economically viable
      - gas for the remainder of peak and intermediate load (in most cases that will be most of it)

      Nuclear can supply some of the intermediate load and will be able to supply most of it – as the least cost option – when small modular power plants become the norm and low cost (say around 2030)

      I feel gas is one of the best ‘just in time’ generators.
      - it can be kept running in spinning reserve ready to take up the load within seconds
      - the plants can be started and stopped withing about 10 minutes (like an aircraft engine)
      - Now plants can be ordered and delivered within a year or so
      - new gas units can be installed within a couple of years.

      The major risk with gas is the volatility of gas prices. The cost of electricity from gas generators is dominated by the price of gas. If the gas price doubles, the cost of electricity nearly doubles. However, in the case of nuclear, the cost of fuels is trivial cost, It is about 3% to 5% of the cost of electricity. So once the plant is built, it will run for 60 odd years, produce power at about 80% to 90% capacity factor, and the price of electricity will hardly vary even if the price of uranium doubles or quadruples.

      • I have absolutely nothing against gas power generation. The “just in time” that I quoted from under the subheading “Reliability of Fuel Supply” is the first time I had ever seen anything that looked like it might be a potential vulnerability.

  24. Instead of 10 lead authors per chapter, 14 or 15 scientists will have a say, making consensus-building harder.

    Is it just me, or does something seem strange about that statement?

    • Me too. What’s the difference between 10 scientists who accept the orthodox view and 15 who accept the orthodox view. You still get the orthodox view.

      The Monkton incident at Doha shows how the orthodoxy is strongly repelling and oppressing anything that threatens their beliefs.

  25. BBC declared : “Climate Change Summit in Doha was dismal failure!
    If science summit backed by thousands of scientists and hundreds of the world most influential politicians, can be brought to a ruin by a single sentence, however eloquently put, it is time for the above mentioned to re-examine their stance.
    Intolerance leads to discontent and revolt.

    • Failure to do a bunch of stupid stuff is success.

    • Interestingly, one of the endlessly repeated memes at UK-based denier contrarian sites like Bishop Hill is how the leftie liars at the BBC are misrepresenting and over-stating the risks of climate change because it chimes with their ideological stance. Either BH and others are mistaken, or someone at the Beeb didn’t get the memo ;-)

      • Don’t talk nonsense, I heard it myself, it was said by presenter, and Roger Harrabin replied it’s worse than that.

      • Vukcevic

        So, the *presenter* was the person who didn’t get the memo! Now we know.

        Luckily, Greenshirt Harrabin was on hand to apply the necessary ideological correction to the message ;-)

        Phew! Close one, that. But evidence of sloppiness. The greenist cabal at the Beeb needs to tighten things up a bit if you ask me.

      • BBD You are way out of date, Richard Black had enough of such practices.
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CPD.htm

      • Richard Black had enough of such practices.

        Why did RB resign? Did he denounce the greenists at the Beeb? Sorry if I’ve missed the juicy bit here.

      • BBD
        It’s time you caught up with reality.
        Global warming has stopped
        Richard Black left BBC
        Andy Revkin is sorry, very sorry

        Black is pursuing his ocean sailing hobby

      • So what, Vukcevic. The pseudo-sceptics of the world made a great fuss about Black moving on but nobody has shown me any evidence that this was an acrimonious parting.

        People move jobs *all the time* and it means nothing. There has been much *insinuation* by fake sceptics and zero evidence of anything else.

        I asked you for evidence that Black spoke out against the BBC – specifically about misrepresentation of climate science and or policy. You provided me with *nothing*.

        Same old same old…

    • Steven Mosher

      So,

      Going on 18 years the folks in charge of saving the planet have jetted around in search of a global mitigation treaty that has accomplished Zilch.

      heck they could have held video conferences and achieved the same end with much less expense.

      And leaving these people in charge of the planet’s future is supposed to be a wise thing to do? It’s time for a change in goals, change in leadership, change in approach.

      • It’s time for a change in goals, change in leadership, change in approach.

        IT IS TIME FOR UNtopia!

      • Hi Steven
        Humor is the best cure for the climate induced depression
        All together now :’ this IPCC graph can show, the temperatures higher and higher go’
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IPCC-GT1995-2011.htm

      • BHO, oil rigs, ’0′ know, we are already here for X generation.
        What a world…

      • Cap’n

        IT IS TIME FOR UNtopia!

        Oh it’s coming, children. World socialist government at last! Enabled by the corruption of science and and powered by tofu.

        Tomorrow belongs to us!

        ;-)

      • WisconsinitesForGlobalWarming

        Steven Mosher says: “It’s time for a change in goals, change in leadership, change in approach.”

        +1

      • It’s time for a change in goals, change in leadership, change in approach.

        Well unfortunately we are stuck with the leaders we have (until election time in some places, and it his highly unlikely the next lot will be any different) which leaves changing our goals and our approach. So what alternatives do you suggest?

  26. Alexej Buergin

    The US does not need a smart grid, it needs a robust grid that does not fail when there is even just a little storm. The current grid is very ugly, too.
    How to do it can be seen on the Palm Jumeirah in Dubai.

  27. Based on statement by stalwarts such as Trenberth, Oreskes, etc., Glenn Scherer concludes, “it’s worse than we thought!”

    It sho’nuff is.

    [It was bordering on the absurd when IPCC dished it up in AR4 - now it's downright ludicrous.]

    The insane part is that Scherer’s conclusion is supposedly reached after “checking 20 years of projections by the foremost global climate science panel against reality”.

    Huh?

    This “foremost panel” projected warming of 0.2C per decade.

    Reality has been no warming for the past 1.5 decades.

    What is Scherer smoking?

    (It’s worse than we thought.)

    Max

  28. My comment to the taxpayer-funded Doha delegates:

    “Git yo’ cottonpickin’ hands outa mah pocket!”

    (Looks like that’s how it ended up, too.)

    Oh well, sometimes even the most absurd story has a happy ending.

  29. OK.

    The USIEA tells us

    U.S. emissions have dropped 7.7 percent since 2006 — “the largest reduction of all countries or regions.”

    Sure have.

    The USIEA apparently missed out on the fact that the USA has been in a recession for at least 4 years.

    [Recession => less industrial output => less fossil fuels burned => lower emissions]

    It then adds

    And in the coming years … the Obama administration … will drive the numbers further downwards

    Let’s hope for the US economy that this will not be the case.

    Max

    • “the recession.”

      Electricity consumption levels are at ‘pre-recession’ levels. Coal’s ‘market share’ has gone from 49% to 36%.

      Oil consumption is down roughly 1 million barrels per day since 2005..about 5%. A combination of more ethanol and fewer vehicle miles Vehicle miles have dropped about 2.5% since the peak in 2007.

  30. David Springer

    “Naomi Oreskes, with subtitle “Checking 20 years of proections erections by the [IPCC] finds that the group has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of climate change”

    Fixed that typo for ya with a word that makes the most sense.

    The IPCC boys have been thinking with the wrong head and ended up screwing everything in sight.

  31. Newest Yale Forum Video: A ‘Play-by-Play’ on Sandy with Kerry Emanuel

    “Sinclair’s catchy video captures Ohio State University professor Jason Box on the subject of Sandy’s relationship to our warming planet. Climate change, Box says, “shifted the odds in its favor” and made its impact more severe as a result of the warmer sea temperatures along the eastern seaboard … and the resulting higher sea levels resulting from those higher temperatures.

    Weather Underground founder Jeff Masters and video from “Morning Joe” provide additional material in the video, with “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough pointing to a discussion he had recently had with a man who handles insurance rate tables. “This is going to just keep coming,” Scarborough quotes him as saying in reference to sky-high storm-related expenses.”
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/play-by-play-sandy-emanuel.html

    • The “shifted the odds in its favor” argument sounds reasonable enough, except for the little fact that there in no hurricane trend along the northeast coast. If I go back to 1870, I find a negative trend.

      • Forget the facts, AJ.

        They’ve got a computer model that tells them the facts are wrong.

        That’s how climate “science” works these days.

        And, hey, the big insurance companies are loving it. Gives them a good excuse for upping their rates, while the pols get a justification for a new tax and source of money to spread around and the industrialists are licking their chops to cash in on some of the gravy.

        A “win-win” situation

        (Except for the dupe – the general public.)

        Max

      • “except for the little fact that there in no hurricane trend along the northeast coast.”

        They aren’t saying it makes the storm more likely, they are saying the impact is larger as a result. High SSTs being a positive contributing factor to the storm intensity.

      • “They aren’t saying it makes the storm more likely, they are saying the impact is larger as a result. High SSTs being a positive contributing factor to the storm intensity.”

        How do you measure the impact? Mr. Emanuel, I believe, would agree that you cube the wind speed. When I do this, there is no trend along the northeast coast:

        https://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/home/noreast-pdi

        As for high SST’s, I don’t disagree that it is a contributing factor. There appears to be a correlation between my graph and the AMO.

      • lolwot

        There is no evidence that the intensity (or incidence) of Atlantic storms has increased.

        Max

      • lotlow: “They aren’t saying it makes the storm more likely, they are saying the impact is larger as a result. High SSTs being a positive contributing factor to the storm intensity.”

        So high SST’s made Sandy more intense than what?

  32. “they will adopt new technologies if the U.S. can prove that they work without harming economic growth.”

    China is already the ‘world leader’ in wind and hydropower.(As of 2012)
    They are the ‘world leader’ in rate of new nuclear construction.
    By 2015 they will have 20GW of solar installed and will be the ‘world leader’ in solar.

    There isn’t a single technology they are not investing in. They need at least 50GW of new capacity every year for the forseeable future just to keep up with demand growth.

    In the US we don’t have much demand growth. The 1st threshold in the decision making process for what new energy infrastructure we need to build is ‘do we need to build anything at all’. For most of the US, that answer is ‘no’ unless we force the premature retirement of perfectly good existing infrastructure. The equivalent of throwing a rock thru a window.(Throwing a rock thru a window might create economic activity, but it doesn’t create econic wealth)

    Hence…China and India will be the ‘laboratory’ for new technologies. They have to build something anyway. To be economically efficient the US and Europe would replacing existing infrastructure meets the end of it’s useful life.

    • A lot of the demand growth in Europe and the US may have been hidden by transferring manufacturing that meets that demand to countries like China.

      It’s interesting to wonder how much of China’s growth has been fueled by Western demand.

      The move to shale gas in the US could ultimately end up increasing CO2 emissions, because while locally it is a switch from coal to shale gas, globally the coal the US was going to burn simply gets transferred to eg China, meaning globally it isn’t a replacement but an addition.

      • lolwot

        Win a little. lose a little.

        No matter how you slice it, from the CO2 emission standpoint, shale gas generates less CO2 than coal. (It also produces less real air pollution.)

        China is going to burn the same amount of coal regardless of whether or not the USA switches to shale gas. (Where China’s coal comes from is immaterial.)

        Your logic is goofy.

        Max

      • Some demand growth has been hidden. Conservation has been more effective then anyone wants to admit(I hate it when enviro-whacko’s are right). Things like aluminum siding went out of style and recycling high energy content materials like beverage containers came into style.

        US Consumption of energy intensive materials like cement,steel and aluminum has been fairly flat or declining since the late 1970′s.

        You can go out and buy yourself a 50″ flat panel TV today that takes less juice then a 12″ CRT TV of 30 years ago.

        A cell phone has more computing power then a desktop PC of 20 years ago and takes a tiny fraction of the juice. Young people don’t want a desktop PC anymore…they want a cell phone or a tablet.

        The worst central air conditioner you can buy today is more efficient then the best air conditioner of 20 years ago. The best central air conditioner sold today uses 1/2 the juice of the worst.

        The only real growth we had in the last 30 or 40 years was in air conditioning. From about 50% of households in the 1970′s to about 90% now. Any consumption increase do to that last 10% of the population that doesn’t have air-conditioning getting air conditioning will easily be offset by efficiency improvements.

        We have a little over 1,000 GW of net summer capacity now in the US. The latest US EIA projection is that we will have 1,200GW in 2040. That’s a net build rate of about 6 GW/year. US EIA projections have always been ‘on the high side’ because no one wants blackouts if they project low.

        So absent retirements solar,wind,nuclear,geothermal,gas,coal,wave etc have all of a 6 GW pie in the US to split up.

        The Chinese are building 50GW+/year and the Indian’s are building about 20GW+/year.

        Chinese money investment ratio in ‘clean vs coal’ was 2 to 1 in 2012.

      • Who is Richard Windsor?

        Harry, what you say is all true, but even the air conditioning increase has a silver lining, as much of the additional air conditioning is because of increased use of heat pump heating, which offers AC as a side benefit. The heat pumps are hugely more efficient at heating than resistance heating.

      • Steven Mosher

        ‘A lot of the demand growth in Europe and the US may have been hidden by transferring manufacturing that meets that demand to countries like China.”

        yes. Now ask yourself what green idiots missed the obvious. It was obvious to anyone in business that if your country was going to impose carbon taxes on energy production and that China was not going to, where do you move your production? You move it to China. One because its cheap now, and two because its going to continue to be cheap. You cant have a mitigation plan without china. And you cant have a mitigation plan with China that works unless you have enforcement and the mechanism to carry out sanctions.

        It is highly improbable that any such global deal can be struck. Trusting the future of the planet to pieces of paper is a fools errand. Folks better start thinking about adaptation for the next 30 years. That means local adaptation

      • Steve Mosher

        ‘China is cheap now and will continue to be cheap’.

        That was certainly conventional wisdom in the 2000-2005 time frame when the Chinese were exporting coal at $22/ton. It’s not so certain now. The current Beijing electricity rate for residential customers is about 7 cents/KWh, in Shanghai it’s about 10 cents/Kwh. I live outside Seattle and I pay 8 cents/Kwh.

        Chinese average electricity prices were approaching US prices in 2005.
        http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/E3_CEF_presentation.pdf

        Since then the price of coal on Asian Markets has increased substantially.

        The average coal miner in Wyoming will produce 30 tons per hour. The average in China will produce 600 tons per year. Think about that…a guy in Wyoming will produce more coal in 1/2 of a work week then the average Chinese miner will produce in an entire year.

        What happens when wages rise in China?

        The size of China’s working age population peaks in 2015. The last I checked ‘less workers’ = ‘higher wages’.

        There are multiple reasons why China is investing in ‘alternative energies’.

  33. There is an interesting development on Baffin Island. Our Federal Government has announced that they have given the go-ahead for an open pit iron ore mine at Mary’s River. Construction might start as early as July 2013. From the point of view of this blog, the interest should be in the ice conditions in the Arctic over the next decades. See
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/ottawa-clears-baffin-island-iron-ore-mine/article5915530/

    Transportation is going to have to be by sea. This means there must be some sort of fleet of ice breakers and cargo vessels capable of rountinely going to Baffin Island all througn the year. One wonders what ice conditions have been projected for this project, and whether the projection of ice conditons affects precisely what is to be built.

    • “At 18 million tonnes in annual production and with a direct sea route to transport the commodity, Mary River would be capable of supplying all of Europe’s needs, potentially displacing dominant iron ore producers like BHP Billiton and Vale SA.”

      “Berge Stahl has a capacity of 364,767 metric tons

      Because of its massive size, Berge Stahl could only tie up, fully loaded, at two ports in the world, hauling ore from the Terminal Marítimo de Ponta da Madeira in Brazil to the Europoort near Rotterdam in the Netherlands”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Berge_Stahl

      So 60 shipment with this size class ship
      Regarding Aussie port:
      “Just five years ago the prospect of handling so many vessels, including the megacarriers, would have alarmed the hearts of many. Back then, the port had the capacity to export 74 million tonnes of iron ore annually. It had half the berth capacity, a little over a third of its stockpile capacity, and mine and rail infrastructure and output were equally limited.

      Fast forward to 2007 and it’s a different story. Close to US$5 billion has now been committed to expansions to port, rail, power and mine assets since 2003. Rio Tinto’s Pilbara iron ore network is world class and competitively placed to capitalise on the continued strong demand for iron ore products internationally.

      Following the completion of the second stage upgrade later this year, the Dampier ports alone will have the capacity to export 140 million tonnes of iron ore.”
      http://www.riotinto.com/annualreview2006/5720_when_the_ships_come_in.asp

      So if you store the iron ore cheaply, it’s conceivable shipping 10 million tonnes could done in limited season each year. Though doesn’t seem very economical.

    • Jim

      Let’s hope the project economics have included a contingency investment if the Arctic sea ice decline reverses itself over the next couple of decades.

      Max

    • Steven Mosher

      write them and tell them your opinion about CAGW and sea ice.
      I’m sure they will listen to you.

  34. Conservative bias to IPCC projections (?)
    The proper word is not under-estimated
    The proper word is miss-estimated

  35. “The next report shows every sign of being even more conservative than the previous ones,” said Trenberth. Instead of 10 lead authors per chapter, 14 or 15 scientists will have a say, making consensus-building harder.

    By basic definition, a consensus scientist is not a scientist. A real scientist must remain skeptic.
    They already know who is in the consensus group of ten. It is really good news that they will have a hard time getting four or five more consensus non-scientists.

  36. I always turn to insurance agents when I have a science question. Your examples lack any proof whatsoever. I don’t want to hear about some scientists emotions.

    • The Skeptical Warmist

      The probability of a La Nina is starting to be higher for that period, but the greatest probability still rests with staying in an ENSO neutral mode for some time.

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

      • Hi again Gates
        Earlier today I got this email from my friend in Peru

        Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2012, 17:05
        …….
        the cold Humboldt current runs always from south to north. Then, when the phenomenon called “El Niño” is present there appears a warm counter current running from north to south which was named after Christmas ‘Jesus child by northern Peruvian fishermen.
        In recent weeks a cold current is coming from the north.

        What is your take on this?

  37. Considerate Thinker

    I see that Max who thinks he is o.k. is certainly NOT o.k. when you resort to racial comments. But it’s nice to see you done like a dinner by a fellow Aussie.

    Us Aussies are a sensitive lot, but we stick with our mates!! Especially when they are sticking it to you and WHT. Nice application of the rough end of a pineapple Captain Kangaroo!!

  38. Alexej Buergin

    Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah and the good people in Katar have taken a decision on how to save the world, but nobody here in this blog about the climate seems interested.
    Or maybe I just missed it (the blog is not well structured, after all; it might be easier to follow it the first contribution to a topic had a number).

  39. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Today’s headline story on the foremost computer science weblob SlashDot speaks to directly to climate-change issues:

    UN Summit Strikes Climate Deal
    Promising “Damage Aid”
    To Poor Nations

    UN climate talks in Doha have closed with a historic shift in principle agreed to by nearly 200 nations extending the Kyoto Protocol through 2020 and establishing for the first time that rich nations should move towards compensating poor nations for losses due to climate change.

    Until now rich nations have agreed to help developing countries to get clean energy and adapt to climate change, but they have stopped short of accepting responsibility for damage caused by climate change elsewhere.

    It is a breakthrough,’ says Martin Khor of the South Center — an association of 52 developing nations. ‘The term Loss and Damage is in the text — this is a huge step in principle. Next comes the fight for cash.’

    US negotiators made certain that neither the word ‘compensation,’ nor any other term connoting legal liability, was used, to avoid opening the floodgates to litigation – instead, the money will be judged as aid.

    Ronny Jumea, from the Seychelles, told rich nations earlier that discussion of compensation would not have been needed if they had cut emissions earlier. ‘We’re past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We’re now right into the era of loss and damage. What’s next after that? Destruction?’

    What’s striking is a side-by-side comparison of the reasoned discourse at Slashdot with the imbecilic demagoguery of Chris Monckton/WUWT, as represented by WUWT‘s week-long lead story:

    Monckton on his smashing
    the U.N. wall of silence
    on lack of warming,
    and censure

    I have been a bad boy. At the U.N. climate conference in Doha, I addressed a plenary session of national negotiating delegates though only accredited as an observer.

    One just couldn’t resist. There they all were, earnestly outbidding each other to demand that the West should keep them in pampered luxury for the rest of their indolent lives, and all on the pretext of preventing global warming that has now become embarrassingly notorious for its long absence.

    An eco-freako journalist, quivering with unrighteous indignation, wrote that I had been “evicted”. Well, not really. All they did was to say a cheery toodle-pip at the end of that day’s session. They couldn’t have been nicer about it.

    As has become sadly commonplace nowadays in WUWT lead stories, we readily discern in Monckton’s “I am a smashing bad-boy” essay all of Tricia Roberts-Millers Characteristics of demagoguery.

    Is anything more futile than climate-change skepticism that is so timid as to always cherry-pick the weakest science… “chicken” skepticism that never dares to confront the strongest science?

    Sad to say, Monckton/WUWT (and even the once-thoughtful Willis Eschenbach) are nowadays advocating an even more timid and futile brand of climate-change skepticism … a brand of skepticism that combinines cherry-picking denial of the scientific dimension of climate-change … with short-sighted denial of the moral dimension of climate-change … with unilateral demagogic Monckton-style abuse in place of two-way reasoned public discourse.

    As the Slashdot story makes clear, many technical-minded folks have arrived at a clear appreciation of the nature of Monckton/WUWT demagoguery. And slowly, even folks inside the bubble-of-denialism are awakening to denialism’s futility, and are deprogramming their minds of its demagoguery.

    The accelerating public rejection of timid, short-sighted, self-serving, amoral, demagogic denialism is good, eh?     \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • WUWT is basically climate birthers

      Monckton taking the case to Doha in much the same style as him and Trump took the case of Obama’s birth certificate to the media. The rejection of their ideas by the mainstream simply becomes evidence to their conspiracy theorist supporters who remain oblivious to how ridiculous they look to the outside world.

      • The Skeptical Warmist

        lolwot said:

        “WUWT is basically climate birthers…”
        ____
        This is something we all don’t know?

    • Fan
      Before you get too excited I suggest you read the original BBC report rather than the slashdot version (foremost computer science weblob? what does that mean)

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20653018

      Bear in mind also that it is written by arch greenie Roger Harrabin and the full extent of the agreement falls far short of what you believe. Also bear in mind that this agreement will be a more complicated version of the machinations of the EU. Very many of the EU’s 27 nations agree a variety of things with not the slightest intention of actually enforcing them.

      The UK govt is already under huge pressure to scale back on the £10 billion a year they provide as Foreign Aid. The idea that the British electorate will endorse a possible doubling of that is living in cuckoo land. (as have western nations for two decades in believing they have this sort of money to throw around. In case you haven’t noticed the UK and the US are stony broke.)

      By the way, perhaps we can edge towards a more equitable version of resonsibilities? Britain has provided the rule of law, The English Language, democracy, Literature, music, a huge number of inventions, culture, and tangible benefits such as roads, railways and buildings to a large part of the countries of the world . I reckon that is worth a lot more than the alleged damage we are supposed to have done, especially when leading complainants such as The Maldives are architects of their own destruction by actively encouraging tourism that is totally reliant on plane travel. Or doesn’t that count?
      tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        ClimateReason, the acerbic Slashdotters refuted your post’s quasi-reasoning in a four-line post:

        Dear Seychelles

        We are sincerely sorry that your small island nation has been covered over by the Indian Ocean,.

        Attached is a coupon for 10% off any Boeing or Raytheon product. Simply print the coupon and present it at your local dealership to redeem.

        Best wishes,
        The United States of America

        Skepticism that ducks these tough issues is no kind of skepticism at all, eh?   \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Fan

        I suggest you actually read the slashdot comments where you will find many sceptical comments.

        None of which has any bearing on what I posted, which you have simply ignored. Perhaps you would like to comment on that, which suggests the ‘agreement’ is much more intangible than you believe, and poses the question as to who is going to pay the UK for the benefits we have made to human civilisation (by no means the only one of course but how about looking at the credit side of the account as well as the debit side?)

        tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        “By the way, perhaps we can edge towards a more equitable version of resonsibilities? Britain has provided the rule of law, The English Language, democracy, Literature, music, a huge number of inventions, culture, and tangible benefits such as roads, railways and buildings to a large part of the countries of the world . I reckon that is worth a lot more than the alleged damage we are supposed to have done, especially when leading complainants such as The Maldives are architects of their own destruction by actively encouraging tourism that is totally reliant on plane travel. Or doesn’t that count?”

        dont forget Mr. Bean and Benny Hill.

        Opps, those are negatives.

        Seriously it might make sense to sum up all the C02 put out by England and put a price on it. You guys are pikers compared to us and seem to be leading with your chin in the fight.

        jus sayin.

      • Mosh

        I’ll raise you Fawlty towers and the Beatles for mr bean and benny hill….

        Most of the co2 we put into the atmosphere in our industrial heyday has long been removed so we must be well in credit. It’s you Americans the ‘victims’ need to be going after

        Tonyb

      • The Skeptical Warmist

        “…dont forget Mr. Bean and Benny Hill.”

        Add to that the Beatles, and those are pretty much the best things the UK ever gave the world…and that’s more than most!

        (just kidding Tony)

      • Not to forget the great half-American
        September 3, 1939
        This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war to establish the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man.

      • Steven Mosher

        Tony,

        well we saved you all from Nazi’s and Marxist’s and we gave the world
        Oprah. So you are in debt to us, like forever. Especially with Oprah.
        Wait..forgive us, Three’s Company and the Dukes of Hazard and we will call it even.

      • Tony,

        Raise – Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

      • Mosh

        Hmm. Oprah. Would Shakespeare counter her?
        Dukes of Hazard? Perhaps Dickens might just reach their heights of literacy?

        I hereby declare an embargo on anyone using anything emanating from Britain until Fan acknowledges that we are in credit and owe nothing at all for so called Co2 damage.

        So that lets out the English language AND computers and Met office info amongst many other things. So, no more of your anecdotal computer data Mosh I’m afraid

        tonyb

      • fan,

        allow me to introduce you to Google Maps. Type in Seychelles and you may be surprised. They are right where they’ve always been and still above water.

    • Fanny

      As the delegate from the Seychelles said:

      ‘We’re past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We’re now right into the era of loss and damage. What’s next after that? Destruction Extortion?’

      Or is it just a “handout”? (Looks like that’s how they’re framing it.)

      Max

    • Max – this is just more lip service. No real agreement was reached. From the article linked to by Slashdot:

      “But the conference also cleared the way for the Kyoto protocol to be replaced by a new treaty binding all rich and poor nations together by 2015 to tackle climate change.

      The final text “encourages” rich nations to mobilise at least $10bn (£6bn) a year up to 2020, when the new global climate agreement is due to kick in.”

    • For an ignoramus such as yourself to castigate others for ‘cherry-picking’ is further evidence of the cAGW lobbies further decent into moral perversity.

    • fan,

      Believing that accomplishment of any kind was achieved at COP18 is denial of a different sort – reality.

      Use all the smily faces and emoticons you want. Won’t change the fact that Doha was just another exercise in gum flapping failure.

  40. I had to read this comment of Mann’s several times:

    “There’s no problem in soliciting wide views that fairly represent … a peer group community,” he said. “My worry is that they are stacking the deck, giving greater weight to contrarian views than is warranted by peer-reviewed literature.”

    This is classic cultspeak. Here is the translation: “There is no truth but my version of the truth, and you need to keep paying me lots and lots of dollars as I am obviously so very important.”

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Michael Mann’s statement simply echoes what Naomi Oreskes previously expressed plainly in her on-line video essay Why are climate scientists so conservative?.

      Recommendation  Naomi Oreskes’ well-reasoned analyses are recommended to the (steadily increasing) avalanche of climate-change denialists who have decided to “deprogram” themselves of denialist demagoguery this holiday season!   \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Why are climate scientists such thieves?.

        This is the youtube video ‘I’m A Climate Scientist’

        Why are they wearing lab coats?

        Climate scientist have neither the need nor the history of wearing such robes. However, lab coats are associated with successful hard sciences like physics, chemistry and bio-medicals. These ‘climate scientists’ are stealing the reputations of others to persuade people that the ‘facts’ they spout are true. Sympathetic magic, pure and simple.

      • With all that BS flying around, I’d be wearing a lab coat too.

      • I always wear a lab coat when programming. It really improves my code and gravitas at the same time.

  41. Reading some of the comments made by warmists on this and other blogs, one may be forgiven for thinking that on the warmist side, quite amazingly and uniquely, there are no extremists and nut jobs whose views are so over the top that they are ignored by the reasonable majority.
    Simply going by the law of averages, such people must exist surely, if not within the scientific community itself then certainly in blogland?
    So who are these people, and where are they?

    • Their you go…

      gotta go

    • They’re in office.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      It is a pleasure to answer your question “phatboy”!

      In their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1988), well-respected physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler argued that Fermi’s “Where Is Everybody?” Paradox is resolved by climate-change.

      Barrow and Tipler’s Extreme CAGW Hypothesis  Emerging galactic civilizations invariably are destroyed by climate-change instability (either heat-death or cold-death) before they advance to a technological level that supports star-travel.

      In the 23 years since Barrow and Tipler published their ultra-CAGW theory, it has been utterly ignored by mainstream climate-change science.

      ———–
      Conclusion  Mainstream climate-change science ignores extreme CAGW theories far more effectively than mainstream climate-change skepticism ignores extreme CAGW denialism.

      The same conclusion in other words  Naomi Oreskes is absolutely right!     \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}
      ———–

      What is your next question, phatboy?     \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • True, the pro-AGW commenters here are pretty much in agreement with each other on the basic science and projections, despite a wide variety in their backgrounds. For extremists you need to look at Greenpeace activists, who I don’t think are represented here. I have not seen an extremist view in the peer-reviewed science either, and I am sure those papers are just as hard to publish as the ones that deny much warming.

      • The peer literature is full of papers about mass extinctions and a host of other catastrophes. It is an entire genre of so-called climate research. But perhaps you do not consider these extreme.

      • Don’t you find that just a bit odd?
        Extremists, by their nature, like to have their views disseminated as widely as possible, and blogland is their natural stomping grounds.

      • DW, I think extinctions are a possibility with the scale and speed of temperature changes and acidification that are projected. I don’t know the definition of mass extinction, plus I don’t know much about ecology, so I don’t have an opinion on that. Just like sea-level rises of over 10 meters, these are long-term projections, not by 2100. If there are papers about potential climates in, say, the 25th century, those might look extremist to you, but probably have some scientific foundation.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Phatboy, if you are saying that ideologues, demagogues, corporate shills, and just plain nutjobs tend toward extremism, and therefore embrace (in your phrase) “blogland as their natural stomping grounds” … well … most folks agree with you!

        Whereas conservative scientists prefer the quieter-yet-cumulative forum that the scientific literature provides, eh?     \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

        – — – — – —
        Thank you for your several though-provoking remarks, phatboy!     \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}
        – — – — – –

      • Fan, just glad to be of service.

      • phatboy, if there is an extremist view in that direction it would be that there is a conspiracy in the IPCC to hide the real danger of climate change to pander to governments that don’t want to spend much. I haven’t heard that one, but we know some significant number scientists do think the IPCC conclusions are too soft for whatever reason. Interesting to think about.

      • Jim D, On the other hand, do you imagine that extremists consider their own views to be extreme?

      • I think we have to define extremists. These would be the no-CO2 effect people that deny basic physics. I don’t know their thought process, but I think they view science as just another political argument where basic truths don’t exist, and opinion and its salesmanship are everything.

      • Here is just one example of the vast literature on the supposed mass extinction risk. The risk assessment is for 2050, not hundreds of years from now, with up to 37% of the region’s species committed to extinction. Pretty extreme and this paper has been cited in over 1200 other scientific papers. (Your tax dollars at work.)

        Abstract: “Climate change over the past 30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has been implicated in one species-level extinction. Using projections of species’ distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’. When the average of the three methods and two dispersal scenarios is taken, minimal climate-warming scenarios produce lower projections of species committed to extinction (18%) than mid-range (24%) and maximum-change (35%) scenarios. These estimates show the importance of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.”
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/abs/nature02121.html

        For thousands more like it see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change+extinctions&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C49

      • Jim D, I am curious who you mean by “the no-CO2 effect people that deny basic physics”?

        There is nothing in basic physics that says that increasing CO2 must have a discernible effect on climate. Whether it actually does have an effect or not is precisely the basic scientific debate. Or are you referring to those who question the GH effect itself? Some of them are physicists who while they may be extremists argue from basic physics, so do not deny it. So who are you referring to?

      • DW, I mean those that think CO2 in an ideal clear atmosphere still has no greenhouse effect. There are those that strongly believe positive and negative feedbacks cancel I don’t put them in this category, even though that belief is not strongly founded in science either and is more of a faith in something they think science can eventually prove.

      • DW, interesting. I have no reason to doubt their methods as Nature is a reputable journal with probably a tough peer review process. If people have better methods, or reasons to doubt these, they need to put those forwards. This is how science works.

      • David,

        There is nothing in basic physics that says that increasing CO2 must have a discernible effect on climate. Whether it actually does have an effect or not is precisely the basic scientific debate.

        You must include people whose status as scientist is highly questionable to find scientific debate on this. Please present a few best examples of serious scientific debate on this. I bet you cannot find anything that’s not produced by some partisan organizations.

      • Pekka, you write “. Please present a few best examples of serious scientific debate on this”

        What David said was “There is nothing in basic physics that says that increasing CO2 must have a discernible effect on climate.” In other words, it is not up to the skeptics to show that the hypothesis of CAGW is wrong; it is up to the warmists to show that it is correct. To show that a hypothesis is correct, you need solid empirical data to show that as CO2 is added to the atmosphere is causes global tempertaures to rise at an exorbitant rate. I cannot prove that no-one has done this, but I have failed to find evidence that it has happened. That is the issue. It is not that we skeptics cannot prove that CAGW is wrong; we cannot. It is that the warmists have not proved that CAGW is correct.

      • Jim Cripwell,

        There’s not any question on the mainstream view on this issue. The only question that I see remaining is whether there are any serious scientists who disagree with mainstream on this issue. Lindzen doesn’t, Spencer doesn’t, I don’t think any serious scientist does.

        I think that David errs when he claims that there’s a scientific debate on this. There’s certainly a blogosphere debate, but there may be a blogosphere debate on almost anything. There’s also some debate among politicians but that’s not a scientific debate either.

      • Pekka, you write “There’s not any question on the mainstream view on this issue. ”

        So what. If is is a legitimate question, then why is there no answer to it. Are you claiming that there is solid empirical evidence that proves that as you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it causes global temperatursws to rise at an exorbitant rate? And if such empirical data does not exist, why should anyone believe in CAGW?

      • Pekka, it is called the attribution problem which to my knowledge has not been solved. If it has please point me to the paper that solves it.

        If you want to invoke mass ad hominems make it a paper by someone who has never received government funding.

      • Jim Cripwell,

        You are not one of the serious scientists whom I believe to agree on the existence of sufficient scientific evidence for a discernible effect.

        There may be some disagreement on the strength of the evidence that direct observations of warming provide, but that is no the same thing for any serious scientist. They understand the power of less direct evidence as well.

      • David,

        My above answer to Jim Cripwell applies to you as well.

        You claim that there’s scientific debate on the existence of discernible warming. Where have you seen that?

      • DW, the attribution problem is addressed in the IPCC reports with error bars. Skeptics are certain that the truth is outside the error bars, but have not shown an energy balance that satisfies that. At the other extreme, Lindzen attributes everything to GHGs and ignores aerosols to come up with a low sensitivity, but his attribution is 100% A for the GW. Some skeptics (Monckton) have followed him into that wilderness, but a lot of skeptics hold on to 50% (most).

      • I used a less-than and greater-than symbol so it didn’t come out. I meant a lot of skeptics hod on to less than 50% while the IPCC AR4 timidly only say greater than 50% (most).

      • Pekka, you write “You are not one of the serious scientists whom I believe to agree on the existence of sufficient scientific evidence for a discernible effect.
        There may be some disagreement on the strength of the evidence that direct observations of warming provide, but that is no the same thing for any serious scientist. They understand the power of less direct evidence as well.”

        Thank you for the compliment. It is obvious that you have no answer to the question I posed. If that puts me in the category of not being a “serious scientist”, then I am proud that you consider me so. The question I have asked is the only one that any proper scientist would take any notice of.

        As I have remarked before, it is perfectly legitimate to do all sorts of theoretical estimations, and conclude that CAGW is real. But the only test that matters is when the empirical data shows conclusively that when you add CO2 to the atrmosphere, it causes global temperatures to rise. That is the acid test that was the basis for the scientific method as started by Galileo and Newton, and has been practiced by proper scientists ever since. Nullius in verba.

        If the empirical data does not show that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global temperatures to rise, then eventually it is entirely possible that the empirical data will show that global temperagtures are falling. No country is going to commit economic suicide by not using the required amount of cheap fossil fuels to power their economies, so we have plenty of time for the Eddy minimum to do it’s work, and cause global temperatures to fall.

      • Jim Cripwell, without CO2 earth would descend into a snowball earth situation. This is primarily the result of an albedo and water vapor feedback when CO2 is extracted (see Lacis et al., control-knob paper which explains this with a simple physical model). The CO2 is needed to support the amount of water vapor we have. Water vapor alone cannot support such high temperatures as now.

      • Jim D | December 9, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
        I think we have to define extremists. These would be the no-CO2 effect people that deny basic physics. I don’t know their thought process, but I think they view science as just another political argument where basic truths don’t exist, and opinion and its salesmanship are everything.

        Here’s an introduction to real traditional physics teaching so you can grasp the thought process:

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/06/agu-highlights/#comment-275083

      • Jim D | December 9, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
        I think we have to define extremists. These would be the no-CO2 effect people that deny basic physics. I don’t know their thought process, but I think they view science as just another political argument where basic truths don’t exist, and opinion and its salesmanship are everything.

        Here’s an introduction to real traditional physics teaching so you can grasp the thought process:

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/06/agu-highlights/#comment-275083

        It is AGWs and CAGWs who are in denial of basic physics..

      • Jim D is absolutely correct in referencing the Lacis paper.

        255K is the expected temperature of the earth with the current albedo and no GHG forcing. This is well below the freezing point of water, and would be a natural minimum energy configuration considering that even more sunlight would be reflected and that the corresponding water vapor pressure would be much lower at that temperature.
        http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martins/climate_water/slides/vapor_p.gif
        Lower water vapor pressure means less GHG forcing and quite obviously the climate would evolve to the lowest energy state.

        The effects of CO2 are to raise the cryosphere above this minimum energy state, primarily by adding a strong GHG forcing function. It is actually quite a beautiful model of how nature works.

        Let’s watch and see if Jim Cripple can muster an attack on the Lacis paper.

      • I would classify Myrrh as an extremist for denial of standard physics processes such as solar absorption.

      • “Myrrh | December 9, 2012 at 7:39 pm |

        Here’s an introduction to real traditional physics teaching so you can grasp the thought process:

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/06/agu-highlights/#comment-275083

        It is AGWs and CAGWs who are in denial of basic physics..”

        Myrrh is another one of those nutty Aussie Larrikins who is repeatedly trying to prank everyone with his own far-out theory of how the climate works.

        These people aren’t insane, but just like Girma, StefanTheDenier, Doug Cotton, Chief Hydro, Peter Lang, and several other Aussies, Myrrh and his ilk just seem to get such a kick out of mocking authority with their endless stream of foo. The science is settled that we can safely ignore what they have to say..

      • Jim D &WebTheCrackpot December 9, 2012 at 7:58 pm said: ”I would classify Myrrh as an extremist for denial of standard physics processes such as solar absorption”

        Standard physics don’t ignore that is oxygen & nitrogen in the atmosphere! Much more of it, than CO2!!! Standard physics know that: ”wind (O&N) are cooling the surface!!! b] CO2 doesn’t come to the ground, to collect the produced heat!! ”vertical winds that speed up / slow down, as necessary, are made from O&N, Hot CO2 goes up (Jim D as Flannery’s left testicle; is not allowed outside, to see that: all the smog from the bushfires, goes UP, because is warm! , also, that’s why the Caveman invented the chimney === time for
        Jim D & WebTheCrackpot to catch up, what was known even to the cavemen! because theirs / conmen’s physics is all back to front

        #2: CO2 does absorb solar radiation and warms up. SOLAR RADIATION COMES FROM THE OTHER SIDE of the CO2 cloud = more absorbed by CO2 &H2O high up, where cooling is much more efficient = less comes to the ground!

        Jim D & Crackpot, apologies to Myrrh!!!

      • “stefanthedenier | December 9, 2012 at 9:43 pm | “

        So another one of those Aussie pranksters has to chime in.

        Stefan should realize that he lacks the subtlety of his fellow Larrikins, such as Girma, who takes a low-key “who me?” attitude to his creative abuse of science.

      • WebTheCrackpot | December 9, 2012 at 7:47 pm lied: ”255K is the expected temperature of the earth with the current albedo and no GHG forcing. This is well below the freezing point of water, and would be a natural minimum energy configuration considering that even more sunlight would be reflected and that the corresponding water vapor pressure would be much lower at that temperature”

        Hello, Web The Sorcerer; whoever sold you that crystal ball, shouldn’t shoved it in, because you can’t read it correctly now…

        #2 lie: ”Lower water vapor pressure means less GHG forcing and quite obviously the climate would evolve to the lowest energy state”

        TRUTH: more water vapor = better climate, more cloudy days = cooler days / warmer nights – more ice renewed on the polar caps and on glaciers = bad for ”RED”Sorcerers like you and Jim D.

        The only way to increase water vapor is: to recuperate the money fleeced from the taxpayer, by the Warmist mafia – by those money; to build plenty new dams in dry countries; to decrease of dry heat production / increase of water vapor production. Warmist Sorcerers in the quarry, to pay back the spoils, Ask Vaughn Pratt: if he will accept you and JimD, in his jail cell?!

      • Web

        Where Lacis gets on a slippery slope is when he states that 100% of the “natural greenhouse warming” of our planet (estimated from theory to be ~33C) was caused by the few hundred ppmv of atmospheric CO2.

        Most estimates put it at 15 to 22%, with the rest primarily from H2O. But, then again, this is all theoretical – there are no empirical numbers on the natural CO2 GH effect.

        But Lacis’ “CO2 control knob” hypothesis is beginning to look weak: Since the end of 1997 global temperature has not risen, while CO2 emissions have remained unabated (over 30% of ALL the human CO2 emissions have occurred after 1997) and concentrations have reached record levels.

        Is the “knob” broken?

        Max

      • global temperature has risen past 1997. so has ocean heat content. and sea level.

      • Jim D

        You cite the IPCC “most since ~1950″ claim, stating that this only implies 50+%

        There was an earlier thread on this, but let’s take a look at it.

        IPCC tells us that “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations”.

        Let’s assume “most” means somewhere between 51% and 80%.

        IPCC tells us that (since start of industrialization) the greenhouse radiative forcing was (Wm-2):
        1.66 (CO2)
        1.33 (all other GHGs)
        2.99 total GHGs

        So CO2 was 1.66/2.99 = 56% of total GH forcing.

        But let’s assume that since 1950 CO2 forcing was 75% of total GH forcing.

        Temperature (HadCRUT3 linear)
        1950: -0.28°C
        2005: +0.34°C
        dT: 0.62C

        CO2 concentration was
        1950: 311 ppmv (extrapolated from Mauna Loa 1959)
        2005: 379 ppmv (Mauna Loa, when IPCC AR4 was written)
        C1/C0 = 1.2187
        ln(C1/C0) = 0.1977
        ln(2) = 0.6931

        Case 1: “Most” means 51%
        2xCO2 temperature response

        = 0.51*0.75*0.62*0.6931/0.1977 = 0.8°C

        Case 2: “Most” means 80%
        2xCO2 temperature response

        = 0.8*0.75*0.62*0.6931/0.1977 = 1.3°C

        So we have an observed 2xCO2 temperature response of between 0.8°C and 1.3°C.

        This begins to sound like Schlesingers climate sensitivity of between 1.5°C and 2.0°C makes sense.

        Max

      • Berényi Péter

        WebHubTelescope | December 9, 2012 at 7:47 pm |

        “255K is the expected temperature of the earth with the current albedo and no GHG forcing.”

        Come on. This temperature is absolutely independent of any GHG forcing. It only depends on SW albedo. Effective temperature of Earth (as seen from space, restricted to thermal IR) is in fact 255K, but its average surface temperature would only match this theoretical value, if it were made of some non-existent exotic material of very high heat conductivity, while in reality heat conductivity of rocks is low. Hydrosphere & atmosphere is a bit better in storing & transporting heat, but it depends on turbulent flows, which leads directly to intractable mathematical problems.

        On the other hand, saying things like “with the current albedo and no GHG forcing” is easy, but it makes about as much sense as “if my aunt had a certain appendage (s)he would be my uncle”. If you removed all the water from both surface and atmosphere to make sure you’ve got rid of the most prominent GHG at least, there is no way to keep albedo at its current value.

        Okay, you do not mean effective radiative temperature of the globe, but its average surface temperature, right? Even then this 255K is flawed beyond hope. Lunar albedo is 12% and there is no GHG whatsoever on the Moon. Applying the same algorithm there you’ve got your 255K for an airless Earth of 29.5% albedo, one gets 269K. However, temperature of lunar regolith at a depth of 1 m is a fairly constant 238K, even less in polar regions. That’s how meaningful your 255K is.

  42. Mike Schlesinger has flip flopped on climate sensitivity and now says it will likely be low. Trenberth disagrees of course.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/studies-differ-on-climate-warming-severity-researchers-trade-jabs/2012/12/06/54c822d8-3e2f-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_blog.html

    But sensitivity is an abstraction not a prediction so all parties have that wrong.

    • And unexplained is how government funding alone changes the social discourse. At the root is what has not been decided yet–i.e., how much more population with vested interests and entitlements shall be added to political class that the working class must work for in exchange for being told by the political class what to think and do.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        ‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision…

        The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.’ ‘http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

        Trenberth and Fasullo are engaged in public deception. They know – or should – the underlying mathematical reality of climate models. It is pick a solution based on ‘a posteriori solution behavior’ – but no model family or susequent knowledge of the limits of chaotic varibility. A unique solution from any of these models – within the limits of feasible inputs – is just a big lie.

      • What if understanding climate change is more difficult than figuring out time travel. Do you think Western schoolteachers are going to stumble across the hidden secrets with some wow perameters?

      • Captain Kangaroo

        Time travel is childs play – we constantly do it.

        http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation-Worked-Examples/index.htm

      • You mean just like a child easily understands gravity… apparently.

    • It does sound as though Trenberth has a point. A simple model (!) with no hydrological cycle and fixed ocean structure… And the result is an outlier… Let’s not get too carried away:

      Trenberth and Fasullo expressed major concerns about the Schlesinger paper and its much lower estimate.

      “[Schlesinger’s] numbers have no sound or physical basis,” Trenberth said. “The problem is the paper uses a very simple model, one that has no hydrological cycle, and one where the ocean structure is fixed.”

      Fasullo added: “Crude models such as the ones used in the [Schlesinger] study …. should not be used as a surrogate for GCMs as they are by their very nature simplistic and small changes in their basic assumptions can yield widely varying results.”

    • David

      Schlesinger’s analysis makes sense to me. He uses the past record (since 1850) to establish a likely range for 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.

      I’ve done the same for the observed CO2 temperature response and came up with 0.8 to 1.5C for 2xCO2 (without any “pipeline” considerations).

      He does this in a much more thorough manner and gets a range of 1.5 to 2.0C, including all lags to reach equilibrium.

      It looks to me like the days of a high climate sensitivity are over. Trenberth is trying to keep it alive, of course, but the current “pause” is going to give these efforts a real problem IMO if it continues for a couple more years.

      Max

      • One of the consequences of assuming mid-20thC cooling was caused mostly by natural variation is people will claim low sensitivity.

  43. Willis Eschenbach

    A fan of *MORE* discourse | December 9, 2012 at 11:05 am

    Sad to say, Monckton/WUWT (and even the once-thoughtful Willis Eschenbach) are nowadays advocating an even more timid and futile brand of climate-change skepticism … a brand of skepticism that combinines cherry-picking denial of the scientific dimension of climate-change … with short-sighted denial of the moral dimension of climate-change … with unilateral demagogic Monckton-style abuse in place of two-way reasoned public discourse.

    Sad to say, fan, you are up to your usual antics, accusing myself and others of not doing what you think we should do (while not saying just what it is you do think we should do), making a variety of puerile ad-hominem attacks, saying that our morals are not up to the standards of the mighty “fan”, the regular bilgewater and slime that you spew on a fairly constant basis.

    The part I love is how, in the midst of a farrago of nasty inuendoes, slimy insinuations, and personal attacks which doesn’t contain a scrap of science, not a shred, you have the balls to claim that WE are the ones who are not scientific enough … as the Romans used to say, “Medice, cura te ipsum”.

    Finally, in your case you can forget the idea of having a “two-way reasoned public discourse”. As your rabid, slavering, far-too-person attack above shows, that’s a long ways above both your pay grade and your demonstrated abilities. Anyone could hold a one-way reasonable discourse with you, but two way, where you’d have to hold up your end?

    Sorry, fan, but your bridge ain’t rated for that kind of weight.

    w.

    PS—I’d be happy to discuss the science with you, fan … if you ever should decide to do that, I mean. I don’t want to push you to do something you are not ready for …

    • Willis, he is not worth a second of your time. Ignore the vile propagandist.

    • “The belief system of these scientists is undergoing crisis. For decades, they have predicted catastrophic, accelerated warming-but someone forgot to tell the Earth… It is not clear whether Trenberth realizes that, if true, his assertions would absolutely destroy climate science, not save it; for the measured temperature data is the very best and most direct data that we have (albeit almost impossibly intractable to analyze); and if he throws out all of that data, then all that remains is a hopelessly anemic and ragtag collection of rotting tree stumps and melting ice tubes, without any hope at all of calibrating these souvenirs against real-world temperature measurements.” ~John P. Costella

  44. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Willis Eschenbach posts  “puerile … bilgewater … slime … spew … farrago … nasty … slimy … rabid … slavering …  …”

    Chris Monckton posts  “indolent … dubious … yadayadathons … shrieking … wearisome … beefy … truncheon-toting … flatulent … eco-freako … sneering … partying …”

    James Hansen and colleagues carefully eschew all abusive demagogic rhetoric.

    Needless to say, Climate Etc readers are invited to verify the above rhetorical usages for themselves.

    The world wonders, eh?     \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    Conclusion  Is it any wonder that more-and-more folks are deprogramming their minds of denialist demagoguery?

    Happy Holidays to everyone at Climate Etc!     \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • As long as I am not paying for your opinion you can believe you are going to heaven for all I care. That is what science is all about–that is, sciencre that is not corrupted by the Left’s corruption of the language. F-U but Happy Holidays to everyone? You are a good example of a very sick society. Good work.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        It’s not complicated, Wagathon!

        Thoughtful skeptics, and thoughtful scientists, and responsible citizens alike prefer a race-to-the-top, where the most rational skepticism confronts the strongest and longest-established science.

        Whereas ideologues, demagogues, shills, nutjobs and sensation-seekers all prefer a race-to-the-bottom, wherein demagogic rhetoric abusively attacks the weakest cherry-picked science.

        That’s the pure common-sense that makes discourse-driven republican democracies work, eh Wagathon?

        And of course, the above is the common-sense reason why larger-and-larger numbers of thoughtful folks are choosing to deprogram their minds of abusive denialist rhetoric!

        Which is GOOD, eh? \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • In brief, from the age of enlightenment we have emerged into the philosophy of post-modernism which sets aside evidence as the authority and asserts that the `truth’ is what you believe – if you believe it, then it is your `truth’. Importantly all opinions are to be given equal authority irrespective of the where the evidence may lie. These ideas have progressed to what is now called `Post Normal Science’. This holds that science is subservient to the story that must be told. The role of science is no longer about discovering new `truth’ but supporting the `story’ which is perceived to be the truth. This gives rise to the notion of “noble-cause science”, which allows scientists to ignore contrary evidence, or worse, manipulate the evidence, if the cause is noble. We have seen evidence of this in the climate change debate. (Doug Edmeades)

    • Fan

      You’ve figured it out.

      Hansen’s bag is not to bad-mouth others (well, he did say that oil company executives were criminals that should be tried in court and that coal companies are running Nazi-like “death trains”, but let’s forget about that).

      Hansen’s bag is fear mongering, not bad-mouthing.

      To do this he uses scientific-sounding language to support his hysterical vision of a planet doomed to irreversible “tipping points” leading to “deleterious” climate changes, sea level rise that could be “measured in meters in this century”, extinction of species and possibly even a runaway Venus effect by the next 100 ppmv of atmospheric CO2.

      Max

  45. Jay Nestle Dip.Phil.

    As warmism drives the collapse of the present world monetary-financial system, the survival of civilized existence for generations to come, will depend upon the courage and wisdom shown by Climate Etc. as the government of our United States exacerbates the onrushing collapse. The report that Kyoto has been checked, is a fairytale. And therefore, we have to go back to Heroditus to realize we , not the MSM elites have the power to determine the economic policy for the future of this planet. This is a conscious understanding internationally among these elites.

    Get rid of them, both! The conception must be sensuously actualized by overthrowing the teaching of Godless materialism in the guise of climate modeling to the nation’s students . We must turn to the United Kingdom Independence Party, or better still the Venetian republic where thermometers were perfected , and the scientific wisdom of thermodynamics under God was inherited from Byzantium Where the only ‘consensus is ‘ is Orthodoxy and the iron path that leads to a quiet sun, the pathway toward rule by the principles of truth and justice, not ‘popular opinion’ led by cartoon figures like Michael Mann.

    • Until the mainstream can admit that George Bush was as close to Thomas Jefferson as Al Gore is to Castro, Chavez and Mao there will be a maginot with the productive being taxed to wage war against itself.

      • Jay Nestle Dip.Phil.

        The mainstream is so maginot minded that they can’t even admit the connection between iron suns like Aldebaran and the effort to use the environment to distract us from the alien civilization beneath the South Pole .

        Why haven’t the e-mails linking the Navy biofuels program and the secret weapons of the Green Reich been released by Admiral Byrd’s estate :

      • Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture
        by Michael Crichton

        http://s8int.com/crichton.html

      • That UFO is too funny, Jay. Keep em coming!!!

  46. Flash: AR5 is beginning to leak. http://abcnews.go.com/International/science-hone-climate-change-warnings/story?id=17906408#.UMTcCoM0WSo

    It is funny that they first report that the forecasts are getting much better then close with their failure.

    • It’s worse than we thought say leading climate scientists

      Climate research funding is at less that 25% level required say leading climate researchers

      Deniers should be shot down like dogs

  47. Oh good Lord. It doesn’t matter how many profiteering mad scientists say global warming is dangerously accelerating. It isn’t. Period. Get over it. The fact that there has been no global warming for 16 years is just that a fact.
    ~Monckton of Arabia

  48. The Skeptical Warmist

    Related to the IPCC “conservative” bias in future warming projections. How about this bit from a supposed “scientific” paper:

    “This makes it more likely that mitigation of human emissions will be able to hold the global temperature increase since pre-industrial time below 2°C, as agreed by the Confer- ence of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun [54]. We find with our SCM that our Fair Plan to reduce LLGHG emissions from 2015 to 2065, with more aggressive mitigation at first for industrialized countries than de- veloping countries, will hold the global temperature in- crease below 2°C [55].”

    The full paper is here:

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=24283

    So, what better way to promote a more “aggressive mitigation” plan first for industrialized countries than developing ones? What I don’t like most about this kind of “research” is that it seems to come to a conclusion that is tied to statement for support of a “plan” previously put forth by the researchers themselves. Might there be a wee bit of intentional or unintentional confirmation bias here?

    • The Skeptical Warmist | December 9, 2012 at 3:31 pm said: ”“This makes it more likely that mitigation of human emissions will be able to hold the global temperature increase since pre-industrial time below 2°C, as agreed by the Confer

      ”as agreed by the Confer”
      ”will be able to hold the global temperature increase”

      WHO IS LISTENING AND APPROVING OF THAT CRIMINAL CON?

      ”as agreed by the Confer” WOW, WOW
      ”will be able to hold the global temperature increase” WOW, WOW, WOW

  49. “The next report shows every sign of being even more conservative than the previous ones,” said Trenberth. Instead of 10 lead authors per chapter, 14 or 15 scientists will have a say, making consensus-building harder.

    Or is Trenberth really lamenting that Ben Santer is no longer in a position to do what he did before.

    Let’s move on to the next chapter: bring on the cold weather as we move towards the acid test of Livingston & Penn by about somewhere between 2015 and 2020.

    • Robert is off, leading the way in his chosen field, regardless of the time or weather. He will always find his man too. It’s just the kind of guy he is…

  50. “Those who are self proclaimed arbiters of the ‘truth’ about climate change seem to regard me (at best) as a dupe”

    Dupes don’t use dog-whistle nonsense terms like “alarmist” or “CAGW.”

    It appears the conservative bias extends to scientists’ understating the degree to which you’ve abandoned the evidence in favor of tribalism, rationalization, and denial.

    • Steven Mosher

      conservative dog whistle.

      science is conservative. Please dont suggest anti science alternatives.

      • Here is one. Why not question ‘scientific sustainability’? Law of diminishing returns, how much already? Think now.

    • Robert

      Unfortunately your membership of climate etc has lapsed during your absence. If you’d just like to forward me the membership fee and the admin charge I will make sure that Judith gets it. Welcome back
      Tonyb

    • Robert,

      Thanks for confirming that you are a dupe. You frequently use terms like those you just mentioned – especially ‘denier’. So, by your own definition, you are a dupe.

  51. Robert, a silent dog whistle? Oh, nice to have you back too.

  52. There ya go agen, climatereason, … money, money, money… )
    Beth

    • Beth

      money?
      Speaking of which you have allowed the thought for the day franchise to lapse again. I know max is very keen to consider taking on this prestigious contract so you would oblige by bringing your payments up to date without delay.

      Tonyb

  53. Things that *are* worse than we thought:

    A: The shamelessness of climate scientists who are so invested in being right, that there is simply no real world date that will ever get them to admit they made a mistake. 16 years of no warming during a period when 1/3 of all co2 emissions have occurred, and it doesn’t slow them down. If that one fact doesn’t convincingly argue for less atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 driven warming, I don’t know what would.

    B: The negligence of the MSM.

    C: The gullibility, naiveté, and all around cluelessness of the average citizen warmist.

    Anyone care to add?

  54. Say, pokkerguy, how about the casuisty of politicians and our
    non-elected leaders at the UN, the silk shirted coteries of the
    whispery (though well heated) corridors of power.

  55. Sorrry I inadvertantly misspelt yer name pokerguy.
    Beth

    • Absolutely right on, Lady Beth, and you can spell my name any way you like :-) And maybe we could add the irony of academics like Oreskes advocating what really amounts to a kind of book-burningish anti-intellectualism. Open-mindedness is now the wrong approach we have been informed. Came right out and said it, did N.O. Shocking. Truly.

      They used to burn heretics at the stake. Why not deniers?

  56. Max takin’ over me franchise,Tony? No way! I will send
    the money post haste, lol. Jest off ter the clinic re me arm
    but there will be a Thought fer Today, tomorrow.
    Beth

  57. Berényi Péter

    The very idea of “projection” (as opposed to prediction) is an innovative one, absolutely alien to the scientific tradition. Therefore no projection can be “conservative”.

    I do understand future emissions of whatever substance can’t possibly be predicted based on natural science, because it depends on economic/political factors. But it does not mean scientists are authorized to set up “scenarios” and project stuff along them. For such propositions are unfalsifiable in principle (if none of those scenarios happen to unfold exactly as specified, which is more than likely).

    What is more, science does have a method to handle such situations. Simply predict a functional transformation that maps any CO₂ emission function to a probability distribution over trajectories of climate variables. That’s where the job of scientist is done.

    As Dessler correctly notes, “The burden of communication falls on policymakers, not scientists”.

  58. Gee thanx, Tom )

  59. Some bloggers here are suggesting that the “doomsday” predictions will begin to wane as reality sets in.

    I don’t think that will be the case.

    For a real doomsayer, there are always thousands of rationalizations why the doomsday prediction has not come (or is not coming) true, but the disaster predictions actually tend to get more shrill as time goes on..

    IOW “reality does NOT set in”.

    We are already seeing evidence of this (e.g. Oreskes, Watson, etc.).

    We’ll have to wait and see how IPCC handles this in their AR5 report.

    Will there be an open acknowledgement of all the many uncertainties, especially in light of the recent warming “pause”?

    Or will it be “things are worse than we thought”?

    Max

  60. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Judith Curry posts  “Those who are self-proclaimed arbiters of the ‘truth’ about climate change seem to regard me (at best) as a dupe (e.g. the infamous Scientific American article and survey).”

    Judith’s post raises a fascinating sequence of unanswered questions:

    (1)  Who precisely are the “arbiters of the truth”?

    (2)  What precisely are the words of their claim?

    (3)  How precisely was the “dupe” criticism asserted?

    (4)  What Scientific American material is referred to?

    There are fundamental logical issues too. For example, history shows us plainly that oftimes special interests work to sabotage scientific dialog.

    Judith, how precisely are the bad-faith activities of counter-discourse agents best opposed, within a scientific community that remains committed to collegial amity and open discourse?

    The world wonders! \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Scientific American concludes  The whole thing [climate-change discourse] has become a political potboiler, and what might be the normal insider debates over the minutiae of data, methodology and conclusions have gotten shrill.

      It is perhaps unreasonable to expect everyone to stop sniping at one another, but given the high stakes, it is crucial to focus on the science itself and not the noise.

      Judith, doesn’t the above-quoted conclusion of the Scientific American article accord near-perfectly with persistent themes here on Climate Etc?

      And I for one agree with both! \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Fan

        I don’t think you’ll find anyone who disagrees with that specific quotation from SA.

        It’s sort of like your Mommy saying, “children, be nice with each other.”

        But the same SA article by Lemmonick suggested that our hostess had “turned on her colleagues” and pondered whether she was a “dupe” or a “peacemaker”.

        Another quotation:

        What scientists worry is that such exposure means Curry has the power to do damage to a consensus on climate change that has been building for the past 20 years.

        Well, hey, if there are holes in the “consensus on climate change that has been building for the past 20 years”, then it needs to be challenged (and “damaged”) by someone who has the smarts and courage to do just that.

        Hats off to our hostess.

        Max

  61. “Who precisely are the arbiters of truth?” You are certainly one of them, Joy, at leas in your own mind. I’ve never seen the smallest particle of humility in your posts.

  62. “If the drama arises primarily from social, political or economic impacts… then it is crucial that the associated risk be understood fully, and not discounted.” (Oreskes & Oppenheimer)

    Now it all makes sense: the effect comes before the cause and the fix comes before the drama arises.

  63. Re: Stratospheric uncertainty.
    @ http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/09/stratospheric-uncertainty/
    Judith Curry’s comment:

    So, how will more realistic assessment of data set uncertainty influence the IPCC AR5 conclusions and confidence levels regarding the attribution of warming since the mid 20th century?

    A more important question is: Does it matter? By which I mean, if we make robust decisions, we can deal with the GHG issue, and others as well. So why don’t we put our effort into robust decision analysis?

    What would a robust policy response give us?
    1. ‘No regrets’
    2. economically beneficial (for all the world)
    3. improved health (reduced toxic pollution) everywhere
    4. greater energy security (for all the world)
    5. Fresh water supply
    6. Improved education for everyone (and improved communications for all)
    7. reduced black carbon
    8. reduced GHG emissions

    If we agreed on points like this, we really don’t need to spend so much time and effort focusing on temperatures and trends. The answer is pretty simple. It’s give the world more electricity. To do that we need to make cheaper and cleaner electricity. That is technically achievable. It is only blocked by ideological beliefs. So, if we do the robust analysis the conclusion will be clear. Most people reading this will know by now what it is, even if they will not say so!

    The question then becomes: how do we re-educate those who hold ideological beliefs that are preventing progress?

  64. Alexej Buergin

    The original Kyoto treaty needed 55 countries with at least 55% of total CO2 emissions to be in force. Doha-Kyoto (or Kyoto 2) has 37 countries with 12%. I see real progress here.
    Kytot 3 in 2020 will be ratified by Switzerland only, so that is the country that will save the world.

  65. Alexej

    Switzerland is already “saving the world”, with the absolute highest “carbon efficiency” (GDP generated per ton of CO2 emitted).
    http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5011/5500972088_54742f12be_b.jpg

    But it is on the verge of losing its position as “savior of the planet”.

    It currently generates most of its electrical power from either hydroelectric or nuclear, with essentially zero from fossil fuels.

    But after Fukushima, a misguided federal council (executive) yielded to pressure from green politicians and lobby groups and decided to back out of nuclear (some undefined day in the future), without having any real alternate (except happy-sounding pipe dreams of “renewable” and “sustainable” sources). Reality is beginning to sink in, and it is now likely that Switzerland will need to install fossil fuel fired plants if it really wants to back out of nuclear (or purchase power from it’s nuclear neighbor, France).

    Sic transit gloria.

    Max

  66. The Skeptical Warmist

    And then we have this research confirming not too conservative IPCC projections on temperature:

    http://phys.org/news/2012-12-pair-global.html

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1763.html

  67. Willis Eschenbach

    Pekka, you say:

    Pekka Pirilä | December 10, 2012 at 5:05 am |

    Jim and Max,

    It’s easy to check which constants lead to the best fit to the Mauna Loa record when the form is chosen as constant+exponential in time. The answer that gives an excellent fit is

    256.3+22.465*1.01633^(year-1900)

    and

    Pekka Pirilä | December 10, 2012 at 7:39 am |

    Max,

    The formula that I gave results in 830 ppm for year 2100. I don’t take such extrapolations very seriously but what I can say is that you cannot use your observation “CO2 has increased at a fairly constant long-term exponential rate of 0.5% per year” at all. Your claim that there’s no observable acceleration is simply wrong, contradicted by the data that follows extremely well my simple formula. There has been on continuing upwards trend in the rate of increase of CO2 concentration.

    You are correct, but I’m not sure that means what you think it means. For example, I can get an equally good fit using

    CO2 level = 0.011802615 year^2 – 45.42642718 year + 44011.21654

    In neither case, however, can we assume that that is the actual form of the underlying relationship. Those are just two of an infinitely large number of possible linear, power, logarithmic, polynomial, or exponential formulas relating the year and the CO2 levels, many of which give fits as good as yours or mine. There is no reason to believe either one represents some underlying actual relationship.

    Nor can we blithely extend either your formula or mine into the future, because CO2 emissions are dependent on a host of technological and economic factors that will undoubtedly change in the coming years. Look at just the recent effect on CO2 emissions of the availability of huge quantities of shale gas as one of many examples …

    In addition, if we do extend these two equally possible formulas into the future, your formula gives an atmospheric concentration of 830 ppmv in 2100, whereas mine gives 665 ppmv in 2100. There is absolutely no way of determining whether your or my formula is closer to reality. Any formulaic extrapolation of that type about where the atmospheric CO2 levels will be in a century is … well, this is a family blog, I won’t give my actual opinion.

    In other words, the fact that (as you say) “the data … follows extremely well my simple formula” doesn’t mean anything at all, since the data also follows equally well my simple formula, and a host of other simple formulas in addition …

    All the best,

    w.

    • Willis,

      I wrote that I don’t take such fits very seriously and that my main point was that the argument of Max based on simple exponential without a constant part lacked valid basis. For that purpose it was sufficient to provide a much better fit.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Thanks, Pekka. I agree that you provided a caveat to your extension.

        However, you seem to have missed my point. The goodness of the fit is meaningless as to whether a given formula is correct. I have provided an alternative with a fit as good as yours … and none of the fits establish whether my formula, your formula, or Max’s formula is correct.

        What I’m saying is that

        1. A spurious formula (such as mine) may have a very good fit, and

        2. The fit of the formula that actually relates the two quantities may not be as good as the spurious fit.

        In other words, you cannot say that Max’s formula “lacked valid basis” simply because your formula (or mine) gives a better fit to the data. If that were the criteria, science would be simple … but it is not.

        w.

      • Willis,

        I cannot tell, what will happen in future, but I can tell that his argument was without merit.

      • Willis ,
        Your ‘model’ is a heuristic fit. What you need to do is learn how to use a real physics model to estimate CO2 retention.

        I have a link elsewhere on this thread

      • Willis Eschenbach

        WebHubTelescope | December 10, 2012 at 4:53 pm

        Willis ,
        Your ‘model’ is a heuristic fit. What you need to do is learn how to use a real physics model to estimate CO2 retention.

        I have a link elsewhere on this thread

        My model is a heuristic fit? Oh my gosh, that’s astonishing news, why didn’t anybody warn me?

        Seriously, Webbie, my point was that not only was my formula a heuristic fit, so was Pekka’s, and so was Max’s. Pekka was trying to say Max’s heuristic fit was wrong because Pekka’s heuristic fit was better (higher correlation). I pointed out that my heuristic fit was also better than Max’s, and in fact was as good as Pekka’s fit.

        Both my heuristic formula and Pekka’s heuristic formula are excellent fits to the data (R^2 ≈ 0.99 in both cases). Since my fit and Pekka’s fit cannot both be right, that clearly demonstrates that in this situation, the goodness of a heuristic fit is basicially meaningless for deciding whether the heuristic fit is valid.

        I’ll do what I can to help you to keep up with the story .

        w.

      • Here is some spoon-feeding for you to digest:
        http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2011/09/fat-tail-impulse-response-of-co2.html

        I don’t even look at trendology anymore. Unless it is based on some first-order physics models, it doesn’t interest me.

      • Willis @ December 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm

        I’ve found that with economic models, it is the input assumptions and relationships that are critical. If the fundamental economic relationships are not properly modelled, then it’s GIGO. I’m not a modeller, though I’ve been involved in and have directed economic modelling, but far too often I picked up flaws which the modellers missed, because I could see when things didn’t make sense, and they couldn’t. I could also often see the implications of the results when modellers couldn’t, because being something of a generalist I could see connections which others, more specialised, couldn’t. So GCMs which are not based on a deep understanding of the underlying science and relationships
        are, as many here have pointed out, of little or no value.

    • Willis

      Your formula for fitting the past growth of CO2 concentration is certainly as good as Pekka’s (or as the straight exponential increase, which fits OK for the past 25 years.

      The problem with all these formulas is trying to use them for the future.

      To me it seems reasonable to assume (ASS-U-ME) that the future growth of human CO2 will somehow be tied to the growth rate of the human population that is generating this CO2
      .
      From 1970 to today human population grew from 3.7 to 7 billion (an exponential rate of 1.5%/year).

      Almost all sources I have seen project that the very high rates of 20thC population growth will slow down considerably over this century (the slowdown has already started).

      Wiki cites a UN forecast and another is here:
      http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history3.aspx

      These forecasts project a 2100 population between 10 and 10.5 million. This would represent an exponential growth rate from today of 0.41% to 0.46% per year or less than one-third of the past rate.

      Now I know that per capita CO2 generation has increased. Based on the CDIAC figures this has increased by around 20% over the past 40 years.

      I believe that, while the number of motor vehicles is increasing, there are economic as well as environmental pressures at work to move away from fossil fuels, so I think it’s fair to assume (ASS-U-ME) that there will be an increase in the pc use of fossil fuels and CO2 generation over the next 88 years, but that the future rate of increase.will probably be a bit lower than it was in the past.

      Taking all of these factors into account, I end up with an atmospheric CO2 level of around 600 ppmv by 2100, close to IPCC “scenarios + storylines B1 and A1T”

      This ends up being close to the past exponential growth rate in atmospheric CO2 of ~0.5% per year.

      I’m not necessarily “defending” these projections as “better than Pekka’s” (or your formula, for that matter). I just think it is another logical approach that takes into account the anticipated sharp slowdown in human population growth.

      What it tells me, though, is that atmospheric CO2 could very likely increase at a constant exponential rate, which means that temperature (which is logarithmic to CO2 according to GH theory) would increase at a linear rate.

      Take it for what it’s worth. It’s my own “crystal ball”.

      Max

      .

      • “The problem with all these formulas is trying to use them for the future.”

        In 2005 the expectation was that the global price of coal would remain at or below $40/tonne forever. $100/tonne is the ‘new normal’. Countries that depend on ‘cheap coal imports’ will be rethinking their policy’s regardless of any ‘global treaty’.

    • “Look at just the recent effect on CO2 emissions of the availability of huge quantities of shale gas as one of many examples”

      So now we are emitting CO2 from coal as well as shale gas. Surely that only supports the idea that CO2 rise is going to continue accelerating.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        lolwot | December 10, 2012 at 6:11 pm

        “Look at just the recent effect on CO2 emissions of the availability of huge quantities of shale gas as one of many examples”

        So now we are emitting CO2 from coal as well as shale gas. Surely that only supports the idea that CO2 rise is going to continue accelerating.

        No, I meant we are replacing coal-fired electricity with the cheaper, cleaner, and (by coincidence) lower CO2 emitting natural gas. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

        w.

  68. Captain Kangaroo

    The great, big, fat, climate lie? The warming predicted in 1990 is not remotely accurate. It neglected the great churning of the oceans and atmophere producing most of the variability we have seen in recent climate. It won’t work because the world is still not warming for a decade or three more – depsite the lunatic antics of the space cadets.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

    But it is not a matter of ignoring risk but of framing pragmatic and workable solutions – something in very short supply.

    • Rory Rubalkhali

      Never have I seen so many bad hats

      • Captain Kangaroo

        You haven’t been paying attention. Oh yeah – you’re a space cadet. Don’t let NASA or reality intrude on you’re groupthink revery.

    • The Skeptical Warmist

      Well, I certainly hope to live long enough to find out who the bigger fool was…Hansen or Monckton.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        They are both incorrect. While I do not doubt the simple radiative physics the system is not one of simple cause and effect.

        ‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full

        Although most recent warming is seen in the satellite data to be cloud changes – there is still a primary risk in driving small changes in forcing that may destabilise climate in unpredictable and potenially catastropic ways. But the immediate reality is that the oceans and atmosphere are not warming for a decade or three at least. There is some risk – probabilistically – that the world may not warm at all this century.

        I am not impressed by any of them. Or the dull as a doorknob denizens here who are indeed even more simplistically misguided. If the basics of complexity theory and the fundamentals of the shifting patterns of ocean and armosphere are not understood – then the fulminations of webby for instance is just so much empty posturing. Sound – fury – frothing at the mouth signifying less than nothing.

        One wonders when and if this can change. In a non-warming world the world of actual people will move on. They will be impressed only by the intransigence of the thermometer unknowing and bovine in the quiet before the storm bursts upon us.

        Some denizens complain about science and they complain about poetry. So before the little minds can quibble, preen and pose. Well f_ck you too.

      • Poor little Chief Larrikin having the spotlight shown on his non-stop pranking.

    • Captain Kangaroo

      I think rather the spotlight is on your moronic non contributions. You hav nothing relevant to say about anything very much. Simply some repetitive nonsense about – well who really cares – in the guise of science as a ‘contact sport’. You are a moronic irrelevance.

  69. Thought for Today:

    ‘When all else fails,* pray fer a miracle.’

    *The models don’t conform ter reality.
    *Global temps don’t rise in 16 years.
    *Prols abandon the media massage of
    mainstream media and turn ter science
    blogs instead.
    * Doha a failure, nations refuse ter commit
    ter the chimera of unprecedented global
    warming caused by man’s industrialization.

  70. lolwot

    Beside the EU and Australia, who has committed to a schedule for reducing CO2 emissions?

    Has the #1 emitter (China) agreed?

    How about the #2 emitter (USA)?

    How about runners-up India, Russia and Brazil?

    Or the next big emitter, Japan?

    The EU plus Australia represent around 15% of world total today, but are growing at a much slower rate than China and India, for example

    The problem is that even if the EU and Australia shut down their economies completely today, it would have an imperceptible impact on global temperature in 2100.

    So it looks to me like “mitigation” has died.

    So let’s forget all this non-value-added carbon pricing and taxing stuff and move on to “adaptation” on a local or regional basis (to whatever climate Nature throws at us, if and when it becomes apparent that these measures are needed).

    Max

    • Sure I agree. If China and India, etc cannot be persuaded to actually reduce emissions fairly quickly (ie now) then EU and Australia might as well emit all they want too.

    • What would be Robust Policy for AGW?

      Bad policies:
      • Penalty schemes
      • Targets and penalties
      • Taxes, penalties and restrictive trade policies
      • Carbon pricing
      • Renewable energy
      • Aid/bribes

      Good policies:
      • Reward schemes
      • No Regrets
      • Free trade
      • Globalisation
      • Wealth creation for whole world
      • Adaptation
      • Remove impediments on low cost nuclear
      • Developed countries develop low-cost, low-emissions alternatives to fossil fuels. Produce them commercially and compete to produce them for the world – competition to bring costs down and improve the technologies

      • Adaptation is the main component – it will provide results and improved conditions immediately, whereas mitigation may have an effect in 50 years and beyond.

      Hong Kong has Sandy wind storms every year. It isn’t brought to a halt like New York. The solution isn’t carbon taxes. The solution is to improve infrastructure. CO2 tax will do nothing to fix the infrastructure problems.

      Smart grids will not reduce CO2 emissions. They will be more vulnerable not less vulnerable. Instead, what is needed is to improve the reliability of the grid.

      Developing countries need free trade and infrastructure strengthening (I.e. improved governance) not aid. Giving underdeveloped countries aid and bribes is equivalent to give an unemployed person the dole rather than skills development and a job. We give out aid while restricting trade. We have it bass ackwards.

  71. JAC: as always a very relevant introduction here.

    But the question is, when will Trenberth & co show they can do econometrics, i.e. multi-variate least squares regressions (LSR)?

    Hegerl said she would in AR$ 2007 chap. 9 but never did and has never shown she can do LSR.

    Models whose parameters are derived from LSR are mostly useless. I have twice published papars showing that LSR does not confirm the models’ parameters (see them at ACE2011 and TWSJ 2012, via http://www.tim.curtin.com).

  72. My attempt to post reply to Dr. Svalgaard and Dr.Pratt failed couple of times
    now available at my web page
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Reply.htm

  73. Judith, here’s my reply to Bill Hooke on LotRW, unavoidably delayed:

    Bill, it seems to me that most conversations don’t have high stakes, they are fairly low level social communications. In extending “high stakes” to all conversations, you remove any significance from the word “crucial,” which I assume alludes to conversations which have higher stakes because of their potential impact on us and others. That said, I hope that I approach all conversations with good volition and regard for other parties.

    We are exhorted to “Start with heart.” Fair enough, volition is critical, but how do we ensure good volition? It can certainly be done, but it’s not easy, it requires a level of self-knowledge, self-awareness and detachment which most of us lack. There’s actually a bigger issue, of how we can eradicate tendencies to selfish and harmful behaviour, to live in a way which is good for us and good for others. That done, we’ll carry an intrinsically good heart into all interactions, whatever the context.

    Most of the conversations I’ve had in the last few days were in an acute cardiology ward of a major hospital after a heart attack. High stakes indeed, but I was able to stay relaxed, not focussed on my own issues but helping others – both staff and patients – to be as happy and at ease as the environment allowed. I had some great conversations.

    As for truth, it won’t just emerge, it’s something we need to actively seek, be open to and accept. When “crucial” conversations fail, it’s often because the participants don’t have this strong commitment to truth and understanding.

    • Faustino, bad news about your heart attack, best wishes for a speedy recovery

    • Best wishes for your recovery, Faustino. Take it easy!

    • Faustino

      Hand in there and get well soon.

      We need you back here.

      Max

    • Faustino,

      Sorry to hear about your heart problem but glad to hear you are in good hands, quick action and little damage.

      I really appreciate your comments. Please keep them coming.

    • Look at the good side. At least you have a heart. A few here certainly seem to be missing one.

      I’ll refrain from commenting on any other missing organs.

    • All the best for a full recovery and I agree with you that attitude is most important. Some attitudes displayed on this blog seem to require radical surgery if there is to be hope of any cure being found. Your presence has had a net positive impact on the lives of the people you came into contact with at the hospital and that’s how it should be everywhere one goes.

  74. Faustino,
    A speedy recovery and many good conversations in 2013.
    Your comments on Climate Etc are always a valuable contribution
    ter the ‘ahem’ .. %/#=*# debate %/#=!*# :-)

    • Thanks, Beth (and Judy & Johanna). Could have been worse. I live ten minutes drive from the Royal Brisbane Hospital, where my son is the acute cardiology registrar. He’s currently living with me, and when I told him of my symptoms, it was in the car and off. I haven’t suffered too much heart damage and now have a stent in a hitherto blocked artery, a bit of a surprise as I generally have a healthy lifestyle; but I am 70. I was last an in-patient in London in the ’60s, much improvement since then!

  75. where the hell has woodfortrees gone

  76. It is still obvious that the 13-month running average in Roy Spencer’s November plot has been declining since 1998. This is totally as would be expected due to a roughly sinusoidal superimposed 60 year natural cycle, for which there is now compelling evidence. See for example, the linked references to such in my current paper about planetary surface temperatures, which is on the PROM* system at PSI for a month or so.

    When you remove the effect of the 60 year cycle (with, for example, a trend for a 60 year running average) you get down to analysing the underlying long term trend which has periodicity of about 1,000 years, maybe a bit longer. This was the cause of fairly regular warming periods observed for at least the last 7,000 years, the most recent being the Roman and the Medieval W.P. which have both now been confirmed to have been worldwide and at similar temperatures to the present.

    There is however still a slight incline in this long term natural cycle. About 100 years ago the mean rate of increase was around 0.06 C/decade, whereas in recent times it has declined, but only to about 0.05 C/decade. If it is also roughly sinusoidal we should see a maximum in about 200 years, probably less than 0.8 degree above the current trend. But of course, after that there would be 500 to 600 years of long term cooling, even though the superimposed 60 year cycle will continue to cause some alarm each time it rises for 30 years, as happened from around 1970.

    Again, there is now compelling evidence that these natural cycles are the only “forcing” for our climate. There are links to evidence in my paper, and even to some evidence that the cycles are in some way controlled by planetary orbits, which makes sense because such orbits are the only “timing mechanisms” of such long duration in our solar system.

    The reasons why carbon dioxide has no effect are explained in a radically new way in my paper. Nowhere else have I seen the hypothesis which brings together evidence from different sources into what I consider a cogent argument for a completely different explanation of planetary surface temperatures, not to be found elsewhere to the best of my knowledge. Yes, parts of the explanation are elsewhere, but it has not hitherto been coordinated to give an explanation based on correct physics.

    For example, I contend that there is no other valid explanation for the surface temperature on the planet Venus. That surface receives less than 10% of the amount of Solar radiation which we receive on Earth’s surface. It’s not correct to assume that the CO2 atmosphere caused a massive GHE, because the surface could not have been heated in the first place to over 700K with so little energy being received through the thick and dense atmosphere. Nor was it heated by radiation from what is still an atmosphere that is at much lower temperatures, less than 230K at an altitude of 50Km, for example.

    Until people come to grips with what I believe to be the correct physical mechanism which produced (and maintains) the temperature of the Venus surface, they will never correctly understand what is the same process working on Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune – all the planets in our solar system with qualifying atmospheres.

    As I have said, the paper is up for worldwide open review on the PROM* system at Principia Scientific International. It has already been reviewed by several of our 150 members, but if you wish to submit any comments, criticism, rebuttal or support, you may do so through our CEO John O’Sullivan or our Chairman, Dr Timothy Ball, a retired professor of climatology. You may also contact me via the email address on my website which opens when you click my name above.

    However, I will only respond to those who have clearly read and understood the whole paper, whether or not they agree with the conclusions reached.

    (*Peer Review in Open Media.)

    • “It is still obvious that the 13-month running average in Roy Spencer’s November plot has been declining since 1998.”

      I think the opposite is obvious.

      The 13-month peak reached in 2010 is roughly equal to the peak in 1998. Yet 1998 had a stronger El Nino.

      And the 13-month trough covering the recent double dip La Nina is higher than the trough during any similar prior La Nina.

      •  
        You don’t determine trends by looking only at maxima and minima. Even though Spencer used to pass off his “curve” as being irrelevant, it did in fact indicate the sinusoidal nature of the 60 year cycle. You can see the last curve Roy published in his September plot at the foot of this page.

        I believe the world will see steeper cooling after 2014 continuing until at least 2027, followed by 30 years of warming from 2028 or so.

        There is another comment on Roy Spencer’s thread showing a zero trend for the last 16 years, so take your own cherry pick. The real trend is curved and has passed the maximum in the 60 year cycle, about which you can read in the references cited in my paper, if all you are interested in is trends, rather than the reasons for such.
        .
         
        .

      • Such a curve fit is biased to show cooling even if there is warming.

        But believe what you want, the more climate skeptics insist the world will cool the more discredited they will be as the world continues warming as it will leave the scientists being the only people who predicted warming.

        All the clues are there. Warmer el Ninos, warmer La Ninas. Despite a cooler Sun.

  77. I reckon the 2012 increase in CO2 will turn out to be somewhere between 2.4ppm and 2.6ppm. If at the upper end it would become the 2nd highest annual CO2 increase on record behind 1998.

    • lolwot,

      Yr: “…highest annual CO2 increase on record behand 1998.”

      You know, lolwot, your last lacks your former, wonted panache. And, you know, lolwot, the CO2 business, when discussed in old-bore, naked-fact terms, as in your last comment, kinda leaves all your has-been boogey-man’s pot-belly, cellulite, stretch-marks, and former muscle-gone-to-fat grossly exposed. A creep-out spectacle and sad reminder of CO2′s former, demon-carbon, glory days, actually.

      Now, more than ever, lolwot, you need to corset, strap-in, pad-out, and otherwise clad and cover your gone-to-seed, even-the-dorks-think-it-uncool, cosmetically defective CO2 pitch in swathes of horror-story, apocalyptic fustian. You, know, lolwot, how you take a real-drag, change-the-channel, CO2 factoid and hype it into a scare-booger diablo-dude and all. That deal, lolwot. That sort of thing. Like we used to get from you all the time in the good ol’ days, lolwot.

      I dunno, lolwot, but I’m kinda gettin’ the impression your heart just isn’t in the CAGW hustle anymore. ‘Bout time, I’d say. Time to move on, guy.

  78. Good news and a good son ter have Fustino.
    Best wishes fer Christmas and a Xmas Carol,
    Australian crackpot variety :)

    ‘On the first day of Christmas my true love sent to me,
    A kookaburra in a gum tree…

    On the second day of Christmas my true love sent to me,
    Two cockatoo and a kookaburra in a gum tree…

    Three parakeets …
    Four great galahs …
    Five black swans …
    Six roos a – jumping …
    Seven emus running …
    Eight koalas clinging
    Nine wombats waddling…
    Ten dingoes dashing …
    Eleven snakes a -sliding
    Twelve goannas going.’

    Beth

  79. Sorry ‘Faustino’ my typing’s up the creek!

  80. The CAGW alarmists have gone very quiet over the past few days. Where have they gone?

    Has the failure of the climate circus at the Doha climate chat has knocked the stuffing out of them?

    Here’s another one to knock a bit more sense into them. The value of green energy companies has dropped 90% since 2007:

    http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/2012/dec/6/so-hows-your-green-energy-stock-doing/

    And three eastern European states are saying they were duped by ammendments added on the final day of the Doha climate chat and are considering pulling out: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/10/us-climate-talks-kyoto-idUKBRE8B90ZY20121210

    I guess the writing’s on the wall for economically irrational policies, eh?

  81. ‘Writing on the wall fer economically irrational policies?’
    Wouldn’t that be the Xmas gift that keeps on giving :)
    Say Faustino, after I sent yr Xmas carol today, I went
    out ter the car and jammed me finger in the door. Talk
    about ‘ Hunger Games’ scenarios fer both of us but yrs
    was worse. What is it with me and doors lately? I thought
    I’d lost the top of me finger but only the fingernail ( …
    Second visit ter the MD this week! This time he discussed
    future cut backs by our Labor Govt to OZ medical services.

    Beth the one armed band-aid.

    • You need a minder Beth. Someone to keep you more aware of pointy things and sharp edges and such other traps ;)

    • Yes Beth – the dental subsidy I used to get here in Oz from Medicare also cut out on November 30th. Guess they need the money for that so-called “clean” energy and a few billion for developing countries diverted from humanitarian aid to climate aid, because the Earth needs just so much help – or it might die of carbon dioxide poisoning. /sarc

      Doug (in Sydney)

  82. Ah feah ah do, Peter, lol. Hmm, someone like James Stewart in ‘Vertigo.’
    Say, Peter do u … :)

  83. I’m not sure why what this guy’s doing isn’t getting more attention, but it seems awfully devastating to me:

    http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/severe-analytical-problems-in-dendroclimatology-part-five/

  84. Thought fer ‘Today’

    ‘Weakness
    Stems from
    Preparing against attack.’

    H/t Sub-Tzu the Art of War.

    ‘By reinforcing his vanguard
    He weakens his rear;
    By reinforcing his rear
    H e weakens his vanguard.
    By reinforcing his right flank
    He weakens his left …’

    A few flank – failures of climate science.

    Creating a Hockey stick temperature hike…
    Hide the data and hide the decline. Uh Oh!
    Dendro proxies selected by cherry picking …
    Studies find bias and criticize dendo as inadequate
    proxy fer temperature. Uh Oh!
    Doomsday pronouncements. Little children will never
    see snow again!
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
    They do. Uh Oh!
    Hyping it up at climate Conferences is the way ter go …
    Doha failure ter commit. Carbon indulgences failing.
    Uh Oh!

  85. When irony is iron.

  86. The usual too late edit… uh oh!
    The guy is Sun -Tzu

  87. so WUWT has leaked AR5 draft report. apparently it says man-made global warming isn’t true.

    Or maybe climate skeptics are up to their old tricks of spinning science.

  88. Lolwot – give them a chance! They only say half of it isn’t true. In the next one after that they will say only a quarter of it is true, etc until, in the limit, they will come to the real truth of the matter.. You’re jumping the gun. It’s called “face saving.”

  89. Basically I am more interested in demonstrating why carbon dioxide has no warming effect, and I believe I have done that in my new paper in a radically different way that has nothing to do with convection rates or the amount of energy transferred by radiation from the surface. I came to the conclusion for the reasons explained clearly in the paper. There has been one final update to a couple of paragraphs in the last 12 hours, and I am happy now that the argument is cogent.

    I don’t really want to get into discussions about the details of Scafetta’s paper. I’m sure the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics would consider a rebuttal paper from anyone. Personally I had come to the conclusion about two years ago that planetary orbits affect solar radiation in some way, possibly through their magnetic or gravitational fields, and that variations in solar radiation and cosmic rays then somehow affect Earth’s climate.

    I am convinced that the limited absorption and radiation by carbon dioxide in the 15 micron band can have absolutely no net warming effect on Earth’s surface, whilst its absorption in the 2 micron band has a minor cooling effect. If water vapour does anything, it increases the mean specific heat, thus reducing the lapse rate and so also reducing the surface temperature, as you will understand after reading my paper.

    I don’t conduct blog comments on my website which is not set up that way, but you are welcome to email me at the address therein. At this stage I am seeking any valid point by point criticism or correction for my latest paper Planetary Surface Temperatures A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms which is still on the PROM (Peer Review in Open Media) system. So far I have had nothing but good comments about it from those who have emailed me.

    I’m sorry if I have bothered some people who obviously do not wish to have their thoughts on these issues challenged. But my motive in drawing attention to my paper on about a dozen climate blogs such as Roy’s, is a genuine attempt to seek out any valid rebuttal before it goes on the main publications menu at PSI and is more widely promoted. In short, I want to get it right – in the interests of science and humanity.