Open thread weekend

by Judith Curry

Its your turn to introduce topics for discussion

I am in the throes of working on a big proposal due Feb 4, so not much time for blogging until then.  Fortunately, several interesting guest posts are forthcoming.

1,260 responses to “Open thread weekend

  1. Sensitive points. Evvybody’s got tetchy lately.
    ========

    • What’d you mean by THAT!? ;op

    • Skeptics are not afraid of nature. The curious skeptic respects nature and gains strength by understanding limitations and breaking down barriers to the unknown. It is superstition and fear that freezes the weak — logically and spiritually – and, fear of climate change has frozen Western academia to death: government funding of global warming alarmism is a fraudulent inducement to deceive the public and academia has been a willing accomplice.

      • Wagathon, on the whole I agree. But skeptics need to agree that AGW has occurred. The global warming between 1910 and 1940 did happen and there is no other credible explanation than man-made CO2. 15 million model T Fords, electricity in every town…..etc. But why did it stop and reverse so dramatically in 1940? Because CO2’s specific heat was never responsible. It must have been one or more of CO2’s vibration nodes that were swallowing the energy. When it mysteriously stopped in 1940, quantum mechanics carries the secret wraped in its theories. After all, no one would argue that the CO2 molecule could not lose one photon of energy in the right conditions and that is all it takes to close a major vibration mode. But the 1910-1940 heat was still in the atmosphere and by 2000 had worked its way through the oceans, almost doubling the 1940 increase in temperature (0.45 to 0.9C). The IPCC ignored all this.

      • It’s the sun stupid.

        “Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent) … Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin … If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.” ~Reid Bryson

      • Those numbers are wrong Wagathon

      • Proof of the failure of the Western educational system is the difficulty global warming alarmists have understanding simple concepts like–e.g., ‘parts per million.’

      • hilarious coming from someone who doesn’t understand percentages.

      • “There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050.” ~Dr. Fred Singer

        [Source: Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

      • omanuel | January 26, 2013 at 7:54 am | Science magazine reports hot, hot heat from the magnetic Sun.

        http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/01/magnetic-sun-produces-hot-hot-he.html?ref=em

        I really don’t understand these arguments, looking to find ‘heat sources’ for the increasing heat from the photosphere layer.

        I’ve only been thinking of this for a couple of months and then not a lot, so perhaps you’ll indulge me as I think it through a bit more with you here..?

        Ignoring the quite frankly silly AGWScienceFiction narrative that gives the Sun’s temperature as 6000°C which they take from the narrow 300 mile wide photosphere band and claim, as Pekka confidently tells me, that the Sun produces very little longwave infrared (radiant heat) as they show proof in those interminable planck diagrams, the Sun is actually considerably hotter, 15 million degrees hot at its core.

        The Sun is around 15,000,000°C not 6,000 – and something that hot must be giving off a lot of heat. [27 million degrees Fahrenheit]

        Because, this heat is the Sun’s thermal energy, it’s great heat energy, on the move in transfer by radiation.

        (Which in the real world is thermal infrared, aka heat, aka radiant heat, aka the Sun’s thermal energy in transfer via radiation which AGWSF calls longwave infrared, so AGWSF says that the Sun gives off very little heat…)

        Why would the relative heat flow from the Sun be any different in principle from, say, an incandescent lightbulb which radiates out 5% visible light and 95% thermal infrared, heat? Or a steel billet at white hot which radiates most of its energy as heat?

        (And just to add here, ignoring the equally frankly ludicrous idea from AGWSF that visible light is heat.., to make clear I’m sticking with traditional physics which is that light is light and heat is heat, light is not a thermal energy.)

        In the real world physics the hotter something is the faster the heat from it flows and its movement is always spontaneously from hotter to colder.

        I think, what we could be seeing in the bands outward is residual layers left behind as what must be an enormous heat flow from the core rushes out at great speed into cold space. This is 15 million degrees of heat, longwave infrared, rushing out from the core with nothing more than the Sun’s gravity to contain it. [“the Sun blasts more than a billion tons of matter out into space at millions of kilometers per hour” *1.]

        What is creating this gravity? It can’t be the 300 mile wide photosphere, it takes mass to create gravity and visible light is tiny and isn’t a solid surface [though AGWSF likes to pass this off as a “surface”, it is actually considered where the Sun’s atmosphere starts], it can only be primarily the core which is some 150 times as dense as water.

        Actually, let me go back to the issue of calling it “surface” when it is really atmosphere – http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Curric_7-12/Chapter_2.pdf

        Astrophysicists classify the Sun as a star of average size, temperature, and brightness—a typical dwarf star just past
        middle age. It has a power output of about 1026 watts and is expected to continue producing energy at that rate for another 5 billion years. The Sun is said to have a diameter of 1.4 million kilometers, about 109 times the diameter of Earth, but this is a slightly misleading statement because the Sun has no true “surface.” There is nothing hard, or definite, about the solar disk that we see; in fact, the matter that makes up the apparent surface is so rarified that we would consider it to be a vacuum here on Earth. It is more accurate to think of the Sun’s boundary as extending far out into the solar system, well beyond Earth. In studying the structure of the Sun, solar physicists divide it into four domains: the interior, the surface atmospheres, the inner corona, and the outer corona.

        The “surface” which we see is simply a thin layer of light which is the solar disc, which is the visible layer and “There is nothing hard, or definite, about the solar disk that we see; in fact, the matter that makes up the apparent surface is so rarified that we would consider it to be a vacuum here on Earth”.

        However, there is something “hard or definite” about the core which is a plasma 150/160 times as dense as water, and “The energy output of the Sun’s core is so large that it would shine about 1013 times brighter than the solar surface if we could “see” it.”

        Now, it goes on to say “The immense energy produced in the core is bound by the surrounding radiative layer. This layer has an insulating
        effect that helps maintain the high temperature of the core.

        Is that really what it is doing?

        The radiative layer is much less dense than the core, there may well be light bouncing around it “for a hundred thousand years”*2, but, is it really stopping that 15 million degrees of invisible heat.., all or most of which could be the ‘thousand times brighter energy we can’t see’? And if it can’t, than neither can the other layers.

        Isn’t this layer more likely to be similar to our own atmosphere for example, which molecules of nitrogen and oxygen bounce around visible light but which cannot stop the more powerful, bigger, thermal infrared heat energy from travelling through?

        Isn’t this radiative layer simply a residual layer left behind the great 15 million degree radiant heat which is travelling at the speed of light and so a heck of a lot faster than the billions of particles are travelling..? Kept in place by the core’s gravity.

        Anyway, ditto the other layers. I see these simply as effects from the immense thermal energy generated by the dense core, in effect all of them “atmospheres” of the core under its gravity relative to their mass as on Earth we have the different layers of atmospheres from the surface out- in other words the core is the real surface of the Sun. [what would 150 times denser than water equate to on Earth?]

        So, the typical angst scientists have about the Sun trying to work out why it goes from hot to colder until the photosphere and starts heating up again and trying to find what is ‘creating the heat in these hotter outer layers’, is, I think, backwards, because it seem to me the natural flow of heat from hotter to colder through different densities and amounts of the atmospheres around the core can explain it all, these are simply effects, what the heat left behind.

        Ah, I’ve just found how dense the core is – “The Sun’s core is about 16 million K and has a density around 160 times the density of water. This is over 20 times denser than the dense metal iron which has a density of “only” 7 times that of water.”*3

        *1 http://beyondweather.ehe.osu.edu/issue/the-sun-and-earths-climate/the-sun-earth%E2%80%99s-primary-energy-source
        *2 http://www.thesuntoday.org/glossary/layers-of-the-sun/
        *3 http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s2.htm

  2. Comments on this new animation of Arctic sea ice volume from PIOMAS, created by Andy Lee Robinson (courtesy of Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice Blog):

    • Yikes, curves flying through space like magic carpets. And how many polar bears died creating the sound effects?
      =========

    • looks like the canary in the coal mine is leaning awkwardly

      • Wonder when AGW skeptics expect this trend to reverse and their new glacial advance to begin?

      • A reasonable skeptic might not make a prediction, but would evaluate the data upon which others predictions were based and form a conclusion based on that evaluation.

      • R. Gates,

        It’s a guess, no more wild than the consensus ‘disappearing arctic ice soon’ prediction, but I think at the latest by 2020 we will see the likely overblown and misattributed trend reverse.

        By the way, global sea ice is almost on average now.

      • R. Gates, forget about overblown and misattributed (sorry). It will reverse by 2020.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        40+ years of Arctic sea ice volume decline to reverse in 2020? Must be something very substantial to reverse this very strong negative trend. Let me guess the thinking here: (tongue in cheek, okay, so chill)

        The long-awaited and much anticipated cool phase of the AMO?
        The Maunder Minimum II?
        The Iron Sun rusting?
        A. Watts long-awaited and much anticipated “major” paper is so many pages long that it covers the planet, reducing global albedo?

      • R. Gates

        You missed something.

        The study cited by Edim was on global sea ice, which is back to close to the baseline value.

        This includes Antarctic sea ice, which is growing and Arctic sea ice, which (as you pointed out) is receding.

        The former gets almost no press coverage, while the latter gets lots of ballyhoo, like the article you posted.

        Whether or not global sea ice reaches the baseline by 2020 is anyone’s guess.

        Max

      • If the Earth were naturally warming following the LIA, wouldn’t you expect a continuing decline in sea ice? Add to that natural variability and whatever cyclical changes may exist with regard to Arctic sea ice (why are all the scary graphs just ASI? Why not use total average global sea ice, like you all do with temps?) And if so, how much loss would be attributed to which?

        When the canary in the coal mind starts having trouble breathing, it would be of less concern if the cage were hung next to gas powered generator, in a chamber full bat guano.

        But hey, don’t let complexity of attribution or uncertainty bars get in the way of a good, scary graphic.

      • Appeals to global sea ice are just a lame deception attempt to mislead people into missing the fact arctic sea ice is rapidly approaching summer zero.

      • Appeals to only Arctic sea ice are just a lame deception attempt to mislead people into missing the fact global sea ice likely is a better measure of globaclimarewarmingchange, and much less dramatic.

      • R. Gates – Look at the cooling after the Roman Warm Period and look at the cooling after the Medieval Warm Period. The next glacial advance and the cooling will arrive on a similar time scale, just like it always does.

      • Earth warms, the oceans warm, Arctic Sea Ice melts, the snows start, the ice rebuilds, the earth and oceans cool and the Arctic freezes, the sea ice maxes out, the snows stop, earth warms, ice retreats and you can repeat this process, over and over and over and over. This has repeated in the same bounds for ten thousand years.

    • Yes.
      Little to do with CO2 and a lot to do with ‘polar amplification’

      http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm

      • Polar amplification should work at both Poles. And the same theory predicts an atmospheric hot spot which isn’t there.

        I love the magnetic correlation though.

        See:

        http://www.mikereyfman.com/photo/photo.php?No=6&Gallery=Polar-Bears-Svalbard-Spitsbergen-Norway

        See the pale area on the sea surface behind the bear? that is a smooth, oil and/or surfactant polluted water which is less rippled than clean. It has lower albedo and less emissivity than a clean water surface. At a larger scale it would produce fewer aerosols and less cloud would form above it.

        Enough light oil spill — that is the oil needed to make smooths — comes down the rivers of Siberia to equal one Exxon Valdez every four weeks. It’s big oil, it’s anthropogenic, what’s not to like?

        JF
        Got screw? I got hammer….

      • Julian, interesting point re pollution from Siberia. Do you have any citations please? BTW the bears seem healthy, at least for the time being.

    • The sea ice thing is an interesting study in how scientists interpret the accuracy of their predictions.

      If the sea ice shrinks 50% less than anticipated, the predictors (perhaps with some rationalization and backpedalling), conclude that the predictions were wrong.

      If the sea ice shrinks 50% more than anticipated, the predictors claim victory. Somehow, because it’s moving in the anticipated direction, it’s “righter”. Even though the prediction is just as wrong.

      I just find that kind of interesting.

    • Yep, that’s what four cm/yr in thickness by 33 years will get you (per PIOMAS). I think Gates is a bit frightened when that is spread to be extent. It’s ok Gates, the open water area per day in 2012 was, get this, LOWER than in 2011. It’ll come back, but black soot might keep it suppressed a bit with so many starting to burn wood with prices of energy so high. That doesn’t help.

    • 1979 huh?

      Wasn’t that about the time when the ‘hot news’ was ‘Catastrophic Global Cooling’ and that catastrophe could only be avoided by ‘doing something right now’. And wasn’t the most powerful piece of evidence the record HIGH levels of Arctic sea ice?

      Well, whatever we did must have worked, because sea ice apparently began declining right away. Luckily.

      • No Bob you are just getting a bit carried away making things up.

      • @Lolwot:

        Silly me, I KNOW that the ‘Great Global Cooling Myth of the ’70’s’ has been thoroughly debunked (See Wikipedia and multiple debunking papers by climate experts) and all agree that there never was a ‘Cooling Scare’ or calls for action to stave such a thing off and since I am well along in my dotage I am sure that all the stories on the subject that I remember reading in the popular press and major news papers at the time are simply figments of my overheated denialist imagination.

        Nevertheless, the memories are persistent and apparently I am not the only codger who has conjured them up out of whole cloth, as several other fogies commenting on this piece:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/25/the-cia-documents-the-global-cooling-research-of-the-1970s/

        (yeah, I know, another totally discredited denialist rag, but references are included) seem to imagine that they remember much the same thing. I know that us old folks are supposed to have ‘tricky’ memories, but for some reason, a false memory of stories sounding the global cooling alarm seem to be amazingly widespread among those of us who followed (or imagined that we followed) science reporting back in the 70’s.

        Of course most of us were not climate scientists, so when all the major media, the CIA, science textbooks, and scientific periodicals were ballyhooing the imaginary cooling problem, how were we to know that REAL climate scientists were ridiculing the whole idea and trying, with no initial success, to warn us of our TRUE doom: WARMING. (See Wikipedia for reports, written by climate experts, on their efforts.)

        Fortunately, they were able to turn THAT little publicity faux pas around, once the politicians understood that an existential threat to the planetary biosphere justified unlimited political power to combat it, and now enjoy the multi-billion dollar economic rewards and near infinite political power that they so richly deserve for their unceasing efforts to spread the warning of our true nemesis: Anthropogenic CO2 driven Global Warming/Global Climate Change/Global Climate Weirding/ Global Bad Thing to be Named Later. Whoda thunk it?

    • It would be even more informative if you made the animation go back to 1959, or 1910, or 1850. Oh wait, we only have satellite data since 1979.
      That’s the problem with much of our new data, be it seal level from TOPEX or sea ice by satellite or Sea temp.’s from Argo. They are measurements from new techniques that often can’t be directly compared to the older data.

      For example, is the sea level data actually different? From memory, I think the the sea level from satellite I just saw earlier today was 3.2 mm/year +/- 0.4 mm The older data is 2.5 mm/year (I read this; it seems a bit higher than some I’ve seen like 1.8 mm/year) plus/minus error bars. If it was 2.5 +/- 0.4, you could not really be sure that the 3.2 mm/year was really higher than the 2.5 mm within error, especially given that they are different techniques. I just need a bit more, which time will tell one way or another.

    • Cherry picking.

    • If you take a look at the global sea ice area, the present condidtion is close to the 1979 – present mean. Don’t know about whether antarctic sea ice volume is also more. My guess is it would be proportional to the area in the absence of contrary factors.

  3. It isn’t always the case that everything about a hoax is false. Skeptics of Western global warming are really aware of obvious mistakes that fall within their particular areas of expertise and most skeptics take issue with the picture of impending calamity that global warming fearmongers always try to paint. Climate scaremongering may win a few headlines but facts are facts. The truth always has appeal and no matter how well-funded a hoax finally dies when lying lynx are finally spotted and the public sees it has been lied to and feels tricked, manipulated and deceived by supporters of the hoax.

  4. Most of the institutional scientists have to protect their patch from any outside predators.
    For years we are told:
    -It is CO2
    -It can not be the sun
    -The TSI is nearly constant
    There is more to the solar or whatever drives it than the TSI. Only few days ago I went to some old geomagnetic data from 1990s and guess what: the Earth’s magnetic field has a strong magnetic ‘zing’ fully synchronised with the sunspot cycle:

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

    I doubt that any institutional scientist would whish to follow the above finding, despite fact that it is totally unknown to the either the solar or the Earth sciences.

    • vukcevic wrote: “Only few days ago I went to some old geomagnetic data from 1990s […]”

      Please save us some precious time by linking directly to the data. IF you do so: thanks sincerely.

  5. SWH = Significant Wave Height
    Climatology Animations (average annual cycle – monthly resolution – global) …

    Maximum SWH

    Mean SWH

    Color Scheme:
    Small = ~5m = magenta
    Medium = ~8m = royal blue
    Large = ~12m = bright green

    Credit: Significant wave height climatology animations have been assembled using Australian Department of Defence [ http://www.metoc.gov.au/products/wms_M10_swh.php ] images developed from data provided by the GlobWave Project [ http://www.globwave.org/ ].

    • That’s awesome. I take it that the biggest waves in each hemisphere generally occur in that hemisphere’s winter?

      • Yes sir.

        I hope nature-appreciating readers will take the time to comparatively study a whole pile of climatology animations — summary list here …

        http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/unprecedented-third-consecutive-la-nina/comment-page-1/#comment-40885

        Beginners: To quickly understand annual global SWH patterns, start with the 850hPa wind animation and note how it lines up with annually cycling average sea level pressure (SLP) gradients.

        Everyone: Be aware that the solar cycle modulates terrestrial circulatory morphology and multidecadal meridional integration. I’ve invested time in the construction of these animations in the hopes that they will foster stronger awareness of the role of geometry in flow modulation. Without strong awareness of asymmetries, paradoxical misinterpretation of solar-terrestrial statistics is inevitable.

  6. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    This week saw a startling claim by Willis Eschenbach

    WUWT: Always Trust Your Gut Extinct
    Posted on January 25, 2013
    by Willis Eschenbach

    “In 1988, E. O. Wilson, an ant expert with little knowledge of extinction, made a startling claim that extinction rates were through the roof. He claimed there was a “Sixth Wave” of extinctions going on, and that we were losing a huge amount, 2.7% of all the species per year. This claim quickly went viral and soon was believed by everyone.”

    Wilson’s work is pretty familiar to me, and I did not recall him ever using a phrase as imprecise as “Sixth Wave”.

    A bit of digging establishes that (apparently) *none* of the Ed Wilson references that Willis Eschenbach cites ever use this phrase (for example, the phrase “Sixth Wave” appears in *none* of Wilson’s books) Doh!!!

    Hmmm … so perhaps Willis should either (1)  provide a scholarly reference to support his quotation, or else (2)  retract his (mistaken?) “viral” claim. `Cuz hey, those “viruses” do spread pretty freely, eh? Willis Eschenbach, please don’t be a viral carrier of incorrect quotations!

    \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 free-as-in-freedom, non-viral reference that (verifiably!) *does* use the phrase “Sixth Wave” is John Cairns excellent The Unmanaged Commons – A Major Challenge for Sustainability Ethics. Cairns’ article is a very good summary of what biologists like Ed Wilson are really writing about. Highly recommended … because Cairns’ reasoning, scholarship, science, and economics *ALL* are sound.

    Conclusion  Your “gut extinct” should warn you to be wary of poorly-referenced, cherry-picked, out-of-context (pseudo?)-quotations on WUWT!

    Perhaps Anthony and Willis should post another apology for their scholarly missteps?

    \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 don’t you go to WUWT and address Wilis directly.

      • Yeah and at least there leave the annoying hearts, exclamation marks and smileys behind, so maybe somebody there will take you seriously…

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        John recommends: “leave the annoying hearts, exclamation marks and smileys behind, so maybe somebody there will take you seriously…

        John, it’s the scholarly references, that document WUWT‘s various errors, infelicities, and illogicalities, that Willis and Anthony should take seriously, eh?

        And of course, everyone here on Climate Etc should take them seriously too!

        As for smileys, they do no harm … and they cheerfully signify that a logical argument and/or a verifiable scholarly reference may be lurking nearby!

        As in the present post, 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}

      • @smileyface,
        Through all the smileys, bold fonts and exlamation points I vaguely catch something about the phrase “sixth term” being used, which apparently is distracting some from the core of Willis’ argument about the ridiculous percentage of 2,7% of all species disappearing yearly….try writing “red herring” in bold-italic-blue-color-with-a-smiley-face-clown-hat-before-and-aft.

      • Scott Basinger

        They ran out of emoticons.

    • fan,

      either you enjoy posting bs or you are simply incompetent.

      It doesn’t take but a few minutes to confirm that Wilson has used the term sixth wave. Whether he was the first isn’t relevant. What is relevant to the discussion is that the term is widely in use and the idea that the planet is facing mass extinctions of species is repeatedly expoused.

      http://old.fnps.org/palmetto/taylor_syd_does_life_on_earth_have_a_future__notes_from_the_conference_keynote_address_by_stuart_l_pimm_phd_vol_21_no_1_november_2001.pdf

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-faces-catastrophic-loss-of-species-408605.html

      http://science.blogdig.net/archives/articles/November2006/11/Eremozoic_Era.html

      • The consensus is that ‘fan’ is a weak kneed coward who won’t address his BS at the appropriate blog … like sniping from behind the curtain and giggling like a school girl … all that smiley rubbish!

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Timg56 asserts: “Fan, either you enjoy posting bs or you are simply incompetent. It doesn’t take but a few minutes to confirm that Wilson has used the term ‘Sixth Wave’.”

        That’s odd … precisely *none* of your links document Ed Wilson’s use of the term “Sixth Wave.” Why is that, Timg56?

        Note  An academic “quote” has a standard meaning: the person used that phrase verbatim in a verifiable publication. `Cuz otherwise, careless and/or forgetful and/or agenda-driven writers could just claim any old phrase was a quote, eh?

        For folks who don’t like to read Ed Wilson’s scientific works (Willis, is that you?), here’s a Library of Congress video Ed Wilson speaking about his deepest (mixed conservative/liberal/scientific/religious!) beliefs.

        What Climate Etc readers will see is the real Ed Wilson, who is a wider deeper broader person than the narrow-minded/narrow-hearted imaginary Ed Wilson that WUWT tries to fob off on its readers. Enjoy! \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,

        looks like you are out to show us it is incompetence.

        The first linked article is a keynote address where Dr Pimm quotes Dr Wilson. Now, is it possible that Dr Pimm was in error? Perhaps.

        The second article references Dr Wilson’s claim or 30,000 species a year going extinct. OK, there is no direct quote regarding “sixth wave of extinction”, but it is clear that Dr Wilson is of the opinion that species are disappearing at an unprecedented rate.

        The third linked article includes a defintion of a term – from a Wilson paper, that uses the phrase sixth wave.

        So your claim above is in error. Which is not surprising, as you are often in error here. Only one of the links can be said not to document his use of the term. One could possibly be argued whether it does, but that would be one of those semmantics thingy’s you mentioned elsewhere as being on a check list for moderating away posts. That leaves one that is undeniably documentation of his use.

        I must say that one thought I repeatedly return to whenever I see you trying to argue a postion (at least I’m assuming that is what you are doing) is that our son made a smart choice in attending WSU.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        • Links reviewed by timg56 : three

        • Links authored by Ed Wilson: zero of three

        • Usages by Ed Wilson of “sixth wave”: zero of three

        Still, it’s never a mistake for folks to read, for themselves, Ed Wilson’s own words — not pale ideologically-distorted filterings of those words — or listen to Ed Wilson lecture in his own voice.

        So thank you, timg56, for working so effectively to cultivate *more* rational discourse here on 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}

      • fan,

        care to tell us what my ideology is?

      • fan,

        from Dr Wilson’s book The Creation:

        Eremozoic Era (ehre mo ZO ik) [Origin: EO Wilson, 2006]

        noun.

        the age of loneliness.
        the upcoming biological age after the sixth great extinction, when earth will be depauperate of nearly all life due to human activities.
        Usage: The human hammer having fallen, the sixth mass extinction has begun. This spasm of permanent loss is expected, if it is not abated, to reach the end-of-Mesozoic level by the end of the century. We will then enter what poets and scientists alike may choose to call the Eremozoic Era — The Age of Loneliness.”

        Dr Wilson sounds like someone I’d like to meet.

        You sound like someone to toss the scraps of organic waste at which my wife puts in zip lock bags and makes me take down to Portland to use as compost.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        timg56 requests  “fan, care to tell us what my ideology is?”

        LOL … Timg56, please let me confess plainly, that I am no more qualified to speak to your ideology, than Willis Eschenbach/Anthony Watts/WUWT is qualified to speak of Ed Wilson’s.

        The main difference is, I’ve got sense enough not to guess about your beliefs. Whereas with regard to Ed Wilson’s beliefs, well … Ed speaks plainly enough for himself, 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}

        morediscourse@tradermail.info
        A fan of *MORE* discourse

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Timg56 confesses “Dr Wilson sounds like someone I’d like to meet.”

        Yah, sure, you betcha (as we Swedes say). Beginning at minute 8:20: The ideal scientists first thinks like a poet, then works like a bookkeeper, and finally, writes like a journalist.”

        It doesn’t get much better than that, does it tim56? \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}

      • Robert I Ellison

        The following are excerpts from E.O. Wilson’s acclaimed book The Diversity of Life. In this 1992 work, Wilson reflects on the evolution of life and man’s destruction of the natural world.

        **

        The sixth great extinction spasm of geological time is upon us, grace of mankind. Earth has at last acquired a force that can break the crucible of biodiversity. The creation of that diversity came slow and hard: 3 billion years of evolution to start the profusion of animals that occupy the seas, another 350 million years to assemble the rain forests in which half or more of the species on earth now live. There was a succession of dynasties.

        One can hardly doubt that global extinctions are continuing – but they are are not anything to do with global warming. Indeed – we have lost a generation in framing the wrong responses to the wrong problem.

    • http://eowilsonfoundation.org/the-diversity-of-life

      E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation
      “The sixth great extinction spasm of geological time is upon us, grace of mankind. Earth has at last acquired a force that can break the crucible of biodiversity. The creation of that diversity came slow and hard: 3 billion years of evolution to start the profusion of animals that occupy the seas, another 350 million years to assemble the rain forests in which half or more of the species on earth now live. There was a succession of dynasties.”

      http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

      “There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past. As long ago as 1993, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Earth is currently losing something on the order of 30,000 species per year — which breaks down to the even more daunting statistic of some three species per hour. Some biologists have begun to feel that this biodiversity crisis — this “Sixth Extinction” — is even more severe, and more imminent, than Wilson had supposed.”

      http://www.rewilding.org/thesixthgreatextinction.htm

      “A few biologists—including geneticist Michael Soulè (who was later the founder of the Society for Conservation Biology) and Harvard’s famed E. O. Wilson—put these worrisome anecdotes and bits of data together. They knew, through paleontological research by others, that in the 570 million years or so of the evolution of modern animal phyla there had been five great extinction events. The last happened 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous when dinosaurs became extinct. Wilson and company calculated that the current rate of extinction is one thousand to ten thousand times the background rate of extinction in the fossil record.

      That discovery hit with all the subtlety of an asteroid striking Earth: RIGHT NOW, TODAY, LIFE FACES THE SIXTH GREAT EXTINCTION EVENT IN EARTH HISTORY. ”

      http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/extinction/index.html

      “We’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction crisis. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) are being driven to extinction. Compare this to the natural background rate of one extinction per million species per year, and you can see why scientists refer to it as a crisis unparalleled in human history.”

      http://www.myhero.com/go/hero.asp?hero=Wilson_EO

      “Edward Osborn Wilson is working to merge evolution and faith in a desperate attempt to save the planet from what he calls the sixth extinction, the greatest catastrophe to hit earth since the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. ”

      You are a disgrace.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        • Links supplied by DocMartyn: five

        • Links authored by Ed Wilson: one out of five

        • Usage of the term “Sixth Wave”: zero out of five

        It’s surprising that so many folks here on Climate Etc have trouble grasping what the word “quote” means … fortunately, whenever Ed Wilson writes or speaks on subject of extinction, what he says is well-worth reading … because Wilson’s deep wisdom shows us plainly the scientific shallowness and moral short-sightedness of WUWT-style rate-quibbling and cherry-picking.

        So thank you for those excellent thoughtful links, DocMartyn! \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}

      • The opening line of the E. O. Wilson FOUNDATION begins

        The sixth great extinction spasm of geological time is upon us, grace of mankind. Earth has at last acquired a force that can break the crucible of biodiversity.”

        and you quibble. You are utter scum.

      • Doc,

        fan will argue that this does not meet his standard for being a quote

        http://raysweb.net/specialplaces/pages/wilson.html

        It is true that he does not use the exact phrase sixth wave, but he does talk about a new era of extinction. If one counts the previously identified waves, they should hit the number 6. Amazing, huh?

        The fact that Dr Wilson is renowned in his field of study, has had an impressive career and is by all accounts I’ve read, a wonderful human being (and who knows, perhaps even more pleasant company than Willis), is not proof that he is incapable of making statements or holding opinions that may not be well supported by the evidence. And that is Willis’ point. That claims by Dr Wilson and others regarding the planet facing a new, unprecendented, wave of extinctions do not add up.

        To expect fan to address that point is likely a futile wish.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        DocMartyn, it appears that you (and Willis Eschenbach) are having great difficulty in locating even *one* use by Ed Wilson of the imputed (by Willis) phrase “Sixth Wave”.

        Gee … maybe that’s because Ed Wilson’s real messages are quite different from the messages of ignorance and hate that Wilson’s cherry-picking ideological opponents impute to him?

        So why not open your mind and your heart, DocMartyn? You might like the result! \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}

      • Steven Mosher

        In the words of anthony, Wilson never said sixth wave

      • What a lapse that he never said it. Does he still have time?
        ============

      • E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation
        “The sixth great extinction spasm of geological time is upon us, grace of mankind…. There was a succession of dynasties.”

        Made in China
        or
        you know the one

      • Help me here Fan, is a wave worse than a spasm?

      • So which is sillier and more absurd, the ‘sixth-wave’ concept, or Phan One’s defense.
        ===========

    • Here’s a YouTube video about it;

    • logicalchemist

      As best I can figure out John Cairn’s article “The Unmanaged Commons – A Major Challenge for Sustainability Ethics” promotes maintaining a static environment. This argument ignores the proven fact that “the environment” never was and never will be static. One only has to look at the geologic record to see that major ecolgical changes have taken place many times in history- starting before the first stirrings of life and continuing in until now. The scale of past environment changes is staggering- the earth has a mass of ~5.8 x 10^24. The mass of carbonate- CO2 ion, is ~ 0.2 x 10^24kg. The amount of CO2 produced by man, ~12 gigatons/year 1.2 x 10^12 kg, isn’t even a rounding error by 7 orders of magnitude. Crustal movements process something like 50 cubic kilometers a year- 20 x 10^12 kg/yr. So at best we can say that woman’s and man’s impact on the earth approximates that of plate tectonics.

      Point by point-
      -oppose any activities that impair the integrity of the global commons….?what constitutes the “integrity” of an ever-changing complex system? I have no idea either.
      -improve my environmental literacy so that I am aware of threats to the global commons….there are few things that can threaten the global environment- a large meteor impact, a super-volcano eruption, a nearby supernova, a major change in the sun. Even explosion of every nuclear device on the planet would affect the environment for only a few thousand years. Extremely uncomfortable for mankind perhaps, but life and the environment would survive..
      -oppose any further increase of the human population on this finite planet….the population is on track to stabilize at ~9 billion if the underdeveloped nations are allowed to continue their development. Easily within manageable carrying capacity and likely to occur within the next 50 years if it is not stopped.
      – oppose a laissez faire market system ruled by conscience alone, since it rewards for lack of conscience….Global management of the economy by an uncontrolled(i.e. unelected by the people and not otherwise controlled) organization also rewards lack of conscience. One only has to look at the rapacious corruption in the United Nations and the threat of its uncontrolled expansion.
      -oppose all activities that diminish posterity’s use of the commons….barring a catastrophe mentioned above, the commons will always be there.
      -country that attempts to solve its population problems by exporting people….countries don’t export people. People are the most valuable resource they have. People export themselves seeking better conditions.
      -social arrangements that enhance responsibility for the global commons…..see comments on the UN. Unrestricted control by any entity group, or social arrangement is far more likely to damage the future environment than any individual actors.
      -global commons is effectively limited in its capacity to accommodate use……capacity is determined by technology. Even applies to the stone age. They traded choice flint for weapons and other valuables like shells, pearls, gold and silver across thousands of kilometers. More technology and more use of energy increases the size of the global commons.
      -the “right” to use the global commons must be matched by an operational responsibility to nurture and care for it-…..only if you can come up with an operational definition of “nuture and care for it”.
      -global tragedy is the price that will be paid for misuse of the commons…..global tragedy would also come from over-zealous centralized controls that limit us from expanding our economies into space.
      -I will not be misled by accusations of uncertainty and “unsound science” by those who benefit from the status quo…..I also will not be misled by uncertain, unsound science promulgated by those who benefit from it.
      -on a planet with diminishing natural capital, humankind cannot be governed by ethics that ignore natural systems (ecosystems) and posterity…..the natural capital only diminishes when new technology is not allowed to flourish. Mankind has shown a remarkable capacity to enhance and improve the environment and correct actual hazards of new technologies.
      -the basic theorem of ecology that one can never do merely one thing…..trying to maintain a static ecology is inherently impossible. It is the one thing that will guarantee a disaster through restriction of adaptability.
      -that access to the resources of the global commons must be controlled (i.e., managed) so that the unscrupulous do not destroy them….the access to the global commons must be managed by free trade and interchange between individuals to limit the damage done by uncontrolled and unscrupulous large groups.
      -that food and other resources should never be sent to any population that has exceeded the carrying capacity….this is patently ridiculous. It would mean the abandonment of every area with a population of over 2-3 people per hectare.
      -Management of the global commons now appears heretical, but, as the ecological collapse continues, it may increasingly appeal to common sense…..I see little sign of collapse but many signs of unrestricted self aggrandizment from groups and organizations. The best approach to maintain a desireable environment is to increase the use of energy and spread it’s use as widely as possible to increase the quality of life and the adaptability of people to the changes that will inevitably occur in the environment.

      • There are currently 1.9 million identified, with a total of 9 million guesstimated. According to E. O. Wilson, the average time of a species is a million years; at steady state we should be able to observe 10 speciation events a year and the extinction of 10 species per year.

      • logicalchemist, I propose that you be made head of all Green organisations, with unlimited powers to determine their policy. That should fix it.

    • Fan,
      Using your line of logic, one could say that Willis never meant to “quote” Dr. Wilson. If you’re so hung up on “verbatim” and “quote”, then how do you get the idea that Willis was doing this? In your first post you wrote, “I did not recall him ever using a phrase as imprecise as “Sixth Wave”(my emphasis). Did you really mean “precise”?

      From the links and paragraphs from his books above Dr. Wilson clearly talks about a “sixth great extinction” . It is also clear that Dr. Pimm thought Dr. Wilson used the phrase because he wrote, “E.O. Wilson,…….., calls it the “sixth wave of extinction”” . Do you think Dr. Pimm owes Dr. Wilson an apology or has Dr. Wilson demanded that Dr. Pimm correct the quote? Any reasonable person would think that Dr. Pimm was paraphrasing the quote, “sixth great extinction” and it seems others have used this phrase because it might be more of a catch-phrase and has become more like a simile or metaphor with the word “wave” being the metaphor.

      Willis wrote “He claimed there was a “Sixth Wave” of extinctions going on”. He didn’t use the term “said” like Dr. Pimm did. He used “claimed”. Willis did use quotation marks but like Dr. Pimm he was probably paraphrasing the concept, “sixth great extinction”, and Dr. Wilson was clearly one of the first to be outspoken about the issue.

      You really sound like a criminal defense trial lawyer who is trying to get a defendant caught red handed and has confessed to a crime but now has a change of heart because his lawyer can’t stand to lose a case. If the denizens on Climate Etc are the jury, it sure doesn’t look like you’re going to win this one but no one can say you didn’t earn you fee, counselor.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        DCA posts “If the denizens on Climate Etc are the jury [on whether Willis quoted and/or summarized Wilson properly] it sure doesn’t look like you’re going to win this “ LOL … it’s a pleasure to accept your advice DCA!

        Climate Etc readers are hereby encouraged to carefully compare:

        Ed Wilson’s real views on extinction, with

        WUWT‘s distorted summary of those views.

        All who read both accounts carefully, will learn much about Ed Wilson and the practices of science from the former … and much about WUWT and the practices of denialism from the latter!

        Now let the Climate Etc jury commence deliberation! \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}

      • Willis wrote about this two years ago here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/ and Dr. Craig Loehle rewrote and developed the ideas, and got it peer-reviewed and published in Diversity and Distributions, available here: http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3463

        The jury has already rendered its verdict not only at the D&D journal but the vast majority of the 321 comments of WUWT along with practically all the comments here on Climate Etc.

        Sorry counselor, you lose. I guess you can always appeal the verdict again because it’s already been appealed three times now, once at the D&D journal, once at WUWT last week and a third time here on Climate Etc.

      • Fan,

        There is an old trial lawyers’ saying “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.”

        I hope you don’t hurt yourself pounding your fists.

    • Scott Basinger

      “The sixth great extinction spasm of geological time is upon us,”

      I think you need some more hairs to split. This just makes you look sillier than you normally do, Fan.

  7. Chip Knappenberger in the Wall Street Journal today looks at the tempeaature effect from the Keystone XL pipeline oil being burned in the U.S.: 0.00001 C/year.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323940004578256270618537596.html.

    And assuming that the oil would be burned in part or total outside of the U.S. if Keystone XL were not built, this number would be much smaller.

    So what is the fuss about, again?

    • There is not temperature effect from the Keystone Pipeline.

      Pipelines are merely the ‘preferred method’ to move liquids. Rail works equally well.

      The discussion about Keystone isn’t whether the oil gets burned…it’s whether it gets hauled by railroad or pipeline.

      The cost differential is at most $3/barrel.

      • Wouldn’t it have a lower carbon footprint by pipeline? Efficiency is a big consideration.

      • cap’n

        You are right, of course.

        More fossil; fuel based energy is required to move oil by tank truck, rail car or tanker ship than by pipeline.

        Don’t have the rail plus tanker (via Vancouver and the Panama Canal to Houston or Vancouver Long Beach and Houston by rail car), but.

        Moving the 830,000 bbl/day crude to Houston by:

        tank truck would generate around 3 million tons CO2 per year, and by
        rail car would generate around 1.8 million tons CO2 per year

        You’d have to subtract the CO2 generated to pump the oil via pipeline, but this is a relatively small number.

        So the Keystone pipeline would reduce CO2 emissions compared to moving Canadian crude to Houston via rail car or tank truck.

        Max

  8. Speaking of extinctions the UN is cloning the IPCC with a new biodiversity assessment group. http://www.ipbes.net/about-ipbes.html says this:

    “Biodiversity from terrestrial, marine, coastal, and inland water ecosystems provides the basis for ecosystems and the services they provide that underpin human well-being. However, biodiversity and ecosystem services are declining at an unprecedented rate, and in order to address this challenge, adequate local, national and international policies need to be adopted and implemented. To achieve this, decision makers need scientifically credible and independent information that takes into account the complex relationships between biodiversity, ecosystem services, and people. They also need effective methods to interpret this scientific information in order to make informed decisions. The scientific community also needs to understand the needs of decision makers better in order to provide them with the relevant information. In essence, the dialogue between the scientific community, governments, and other stakeholders on biodiversity and ecosystem services needs to be strengthened.

    To this end, a new platform has been established by the international community – the ‘Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ (IPBES).”

    Robert Watson, who helped found the IPCC, is helping found IPBES. Many scary assessments to follow. All unprecedented of course.

    • Sir Robert “the science is settled” Watson, the guy also who pulled a “7C warming by 2100″ prediction out of a dark spot where the sun never shines, in order to frighten the AGU attendees in San Francisco last year?

      Wow!

      Like General Douglas MacArthur, some of these “old soldiers (in the war against global warming) never die”.

      Max

      • Watson got his start organizing the big scary science report on stratospheric ozone that put the Montreal Protocol over the top. That became the model for the IPCC and so it goes, year after year, decade after decade, green without end.

      • But now it’s become an ‘Open Threat Weakened’.
        ==================

    • Global warming increases sustaining capacity for all life and increases the diversity of life. To the extent there is an anthropogenic component to the increase it is all to the good. Besides, the fertilizing effect of this anthropogenic CO2 seems to be even more effective than its warming effect, thus increasing total life and diversity of life by synergy.

      Atmospheric CO2, in virtually perpetual free fall, has just had a dead cat bounce, fortunately rebounding off the resilience of the human species and spirit.
      ==============

      • “…Co2, in virtually perpetual freefall..”

        On the mark, spot on and in the bullseye. How many ppm back in the ‘old’ days? 200,000? 300,000?

        There has been a long, chaotic, variable – but relentless – decline throughout the history of the planet..

        And Lo! We unwittingly (but fortuitously) provide a temporary boost for the benefit of not only ourselves, but the generality of life on earth.

        And what cries do we hear?? “All change is bad! Change due to Hom Saps is necessarily terrible and catastrophic!!!”

        ***

        Methinks they doth protest too much.

      • You know a religion is doomed when the heretics have the ear of Gaia.
        =========================

      • On the mark, spot on and in the bullseye. How many ppm back in the ‘old’ days? 200,000? 300,000?

        Citation needed.

      • “Citation needed”

        Indeed not – it was a question. How many ppm?

        Perhaps you’d be better thinking (yourself) when your best guess is as to when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 250,000ppm? And if you haven’t got a clue or don’t want to guess it really doesn’t matter. The (important, in case you didn’t get it) point is that it is a mere fraction of what it once was.

        Which leads to the undeniable statement “It has been falling” [relentlessly]

      • Well it certainly hasn’t been anywhere near that level in the last 500m years, in fact it probably hasn’t been above 7,000ppm during that time.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

        We have pushed up CO2 levels to the highest they have been in more than 10m years. It’s true that CO2 levels have been higher during much of the time before that, but then the world was different in many ways and that was long before humans came onto the scene, so it doesn’t say anything about our ability to withstand the effects of current (and increasing) levels.

      • Actually that last remark may not be totally true. If, for example, the historical record were to indicate that we are likely to see a substantial rise in sea levels with higher CO2 levels then that would be relevant.

      • Fair points aa, but when you say that sea level rise would be ‘relevant’, my feeling is that in reality it would be relatively unimportant. We’ve had an average of about 6mm per year over the last 15,000 years (300 feet) and humanity has barely noticed. Of course, it’s easy to imagine problems – catastrophes, even – but human adaptability is immense, and I think sea level rises will always rank low on the list of things human beings have to worry about.
        3000 children die every day from diarrhoea, and our imagination concerns itself with the fact that some people may (or may not) have to move from where they are living in 30 or 40 or 50 years time? For me it is always a question of perspective – and recognising that however powerful is the force of imagination, [see the long and embarrassing history of scares, and predictions of imminent disaster] reality trundles along regardless – with much more significant events passing us by.

      • Anteros,

        First of all, it’s a bit misleading to say we’ve had 6mm slr a year for the last 15,000 years when the large majority of that happened prior to 7,000 years ago. For the last few thousand years sea levels have been fairly stable.
        And it’s nothing to do with imagining problems, it’s about making observations which lead to the conclusion that such problems are a real possibility, likelihood even.
        It’s perfectly possible to worry both about problems that are occurring now and those that might occur further into the future. The thing is, if you don’t worry about future problems then suddenly they become today’s problems and you run out of time to do anything about them. And people having to leave their homes is a problem if there are very large numbers of them and there are not many places for them to go, especially if they are relatively poor.

  9. As I haven’t yet seen a simple computation with the new data, I tried it by myself. My result is very close to Nic Lewis’ estimate. I also included the new black carbon forcing estimate which will further reduce CO2 sensitivity by almost 20%. Computations are based on IPCC data + additional estimate with latest black carbon forcng..

    The estimates including black carbon are
    Transient climate sensitivity : 0.83 K
    Equilibrium climate sensitivity : 1.35 K

    Remarks:
    Transient sensitivity below AR4 “very likely” range.
    Equilibrium sensitivity in AR4 “very unlikely” range.

    Computation

    CO2 Climate Sensitivity from Instrumental Temperature Record and based on IPCC Data

    What is the best time span for an estimate ?

    1945-2005

    Why ?

    1. CO2 increase from 1750-1945 was only 30 ppm (280-310 ppm) but took off after 1945.
    2. Minimizes influence of PDO/AMO decadal oszillations, as they were in very similar phases at 1945 and 2005.

    CO2 @ 1945: 310 ppm
    CO2 @ 2005: 380 ppm

    380/310 = 1.226

    1.226^3.4 = 2.

    Due to logarithmic temperature increase, temperature difference has then to be multiplied with 3.4 to compute sensitivity for CO2 doubling.

    HadCrut global temperature increase 1945 –2005: 0.4 Kelvin

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl

    How to compute equilibrium sensitivity from transient climate sensitivity ?

    Quote IPCC AR4
    “Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a most likely value of about 3°C, based upon multiple observational and modelling constraints. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. {8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2}
    The transient climate response is better constrained than the equilibrium climate sensitivity. It is very likely larger than 1°C and very unlikely greater than 3°C. {10.5}“

    Take quotient of mean values:
    S(equilibrium) / S(transient) = 0.5*(4.5+2) / 0.5*(3+1) = 1.62

    Sensitivity Estimates
    —————————-

    IPCC AR4 Estimate

    IPCC AR4 total net forcing was assumed to be about equal to CO2 forcing.
    Attribute all incease to CO2.

    AR4 transient climate sensitivity : 0.4 K * 3.4 = 1.36 K
    AR4 equilibrium climate sensitivity : 1.36 K * 1.62 = 2.2 K

    IPCC AR5 Estimate

    CO2 forcing only about 0.75 of total forcing due to reduced aerosol cooling.

    AR5 transient climate sensitivity : 0.4 K * 3.4 * 0.75 = 1.02 K
    AR5 equilibrium climate sensitivity : 1.02 K * 1.62 * 0.75 = 1.65 K

    Remark: transient sensitivity at the edge of AR4 “very likely” range.

    State of the Art Estimate

    Due to black carbon forcing doubled, CO2 forcing is only about 61% of total forcing
    (Black carbon forcing about doubled to about 1.1, add 0.55 to AR5 total forcing)

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract

    Transient climate sensitivity : 0.4 K * 3.4 * 0.61 = 0.83 K
    Equilibrium climate sensitivity : 0.83 K * 1.62 * 0.61 = 1.35 K

    Remarks:
    Transient sensitivity below AR4 “very likely” range.
    Equilibrium sensitivity in AR4 “very unlikely” range.

    Possible further corrections:

    Temperature increase 1945 –2005: 0.25 K instead of 0.4 K

    Reasons:

    Overwriting of SST meta data without proper reason after 1941 (increased SST warming from about 0.2 K to 0.3 K)

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/12/hadsst3/

    See “The new HadSST3 dataset still contains some seemingly arbitrary assumptions…” and subsequent text.

    UHI warming not accounted for (about half of land warming since 1979 due to UHI / non-climatic contamination):

    http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/rrm-pjm-1207.pdf

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

    Best Transient climate sensitivity : 0.25 K * 3.4 * 0.61 = 0.52 K
    Best Equilibrium climate sensitivity : 0.52 K * 1.62 * 0.61 = 0.84 K

    Best estimate probably still too high due to missing solar amplifier consideration. (IPCC forcing universe cannot explain Medieval, Roman, Minoan and other Warm Periods.)

    • Manfred

      Interesting calculation.

      Let’s see if one of the CAGW supporters takes a crack at refuting it.

      Max

    • Manfred

      OK. I’ve gone through your calculation.

      There are a couple of minor “typos” in the text, which do not change the results, however.

      In the “IPCC AR5 estimate” for ECS:
      AR5 ECS = 1.02K*1.62*0.75 = 1.65K

      In the “State of the Art estimate for ECS:
      ECS = 0.83K*1.62*0.61 = 1.35K

      In the “Possible Further Correction” estimate for ECS:
      Best ECS = 0.52K*1.62*0.61 = 0.84K

      You will probably get some flak from CAGW supporters on the adjusted “warming since 1945″ and/or the “UHI correction”, but the rest seems pretty straightforward to me and hard to argue with.

      Let’s see if anyone tries.

      Max

  10. Auditors might appreciate this brief, via Rattus Norvegius at Eli’s:

    > [A] audit trail reveals that Donors is being indirectly supported by the American billionaire Charles Koch who, with his brother David, jointly owns a majority stake in Koch Industries, a large oil, gas and chemicals conglomerate based in Kansas.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html

    • Willard

      Are you referring to BEST donors?

      Max

    • I am shocked. This is likely just the tip of the iceburg, as long as they have money they are likely to do more. It is time to take control of Koch Industries and all the other Big industry giants and make them state owned since they obviously know nothing about science, the environment and likely are white, male and Christian.

    • willard,

      try following the embedded links.

      The one where some guy at Drexel “estimates” $500 million in funding – it leads to another Independant article dated 1/25, which is basically the same story line as the article from the 24th, only with Michael Mann making another of his usually whiny appearances. Nothing in support of the $500 million estimate is provided.

      I could estimate the length of my tallywacker at 10 1/2 inches. Doesn’t make it so. I’m willing to bet my estimate, though off, is closer to being accurate than the $500 million one.

      • I believe you are referring to this cameo appearance, timg56:

        > The trust has given money to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is currently being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.

        Now, where was the last time I heard someone talking about scientific fraud?

      • Willard, Mann’s affidavit claims he was accused of scientific fraud. I think he was actually accused of being a scientific joke with no sense of humor which is more like defamation of Nobel prize almost winner character.

      • It’s OK for you to think that, Cap’N. You’re just mad.

      • Willard, “It’s OK for you to think that, Cap’N. You’re just mad.” Must be because of all the Coke I was forced to drink due to deceptive advertizing :)

      • Willard

        Let’s see how “eminent climatologist” and Nobelist, Michael (the “shtick”) Mann’s, libel suit ends up.

        I’m not taking any bets.

        The US tort law system is even wackier than the GISS temperature record.

        Max

      • I don’t believe your madness is related to my high-fructose-syrop beverage of choice, Cap’n.

        Tony’s Making Me Do It.

      • Hey, I once nearly bought a cell of that cola’s Ice Bear.
        ===========

    • John Carpenter

      Ah yes, the Koch brothers conspiracy. They are definitely at the root of evil climate denialism. How far and wide thier reach, only astute auditors will know.

    • For reference, here’s the 25/1 article timg56 kindly suggested we read:

      > Commentators believe that it is becoming increasingly common for wealthy individuals with vested interests in fossil fuels to fund climate-change scepticism anonymously through labyrinthine financial arrangements. The Donors Trust is one way of doing this. It is a “donors-advised fund” and has special status under the US tax system, giving its wealthy donors anonymity as well as highly beneficial tax concessions.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/top-climate-scientist-denounces-billionaires-over-funding-for-climatesceptic-organisations-8467665.html

      Absolutely open science. Labyrinthine financial arrangements. What would be the average?

    • A not so old study by Drexler:

      > A new study conducted by Dr. Robert Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel University’s College of Arts and Sciences, along with Jason Carmichael of McGill University and J. Craig Jenkins of Ohio State University, set out to identify the informational, cultural and political processes that influence public concern about climate change. The study, which was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world, reveals that the driving factor that most influences public opinion on climate change is the mobilizing efforts of advocacy groups and elites.

      http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2012/February/Bob-Brulle-Climate-Change-Study/

      If that conclusion is OK, no wonder there are so many ClimateBallers. Which is OK, since they’re all mad.

      We also note the name of Dr. Shaun Lovejoy’s alma mater.

      • Willard

        You are hitting the jackpot with your “conspiracy” theories!

        Max

      • Look, those evil brothers have amplified the effect of their money with a global temperature standstill. Isn’t that against the tax code or should be?
        ============

      • Perhaps you should stick to your eyeballing, demands for future evidence, model bashing (except for your precious Lewis) and talk of CAGW assumptions, MiniMax.

        I’m no Zeke.

      • kim

        It’s shocking!

        Not only is this “conspiracy” trying to thwart communication of scientific concerns about rampant human-induced global warming, it is undermining the very foundation of the scientific consensus by stopping the warming itself.

        Glad Willard brought this “conspiracy” to our attention.

        It must be squashed immediately!

        It is of urgent priority that global warming be made to resume immediately, even if this requires a massive use of taxpayer funding.

        Max

      • Willard

        You state that you are no Zeke.

        No.

        You sure as hell aren’t.

        Max

      • You have been forewarned, MiniMax.

        Thank you for playing.

      • Kim, Max, Willard is on to something. Koch is pronounced “coke” and Willard has already discovered that Coke is trying to get future generations to consume there products. It is almost like people in business like to stay in business. What bast$$ds!

      • Cap’n

        You write that “Willard is on to something” and mention “coke” in the same sentence.

        Is that what he’s on?

        Does that explain his erratic posts?

        I thought he’d just OD’d on IPCC hubris.

        Max

      • Nice catch, Cap’n!

        Why do we talk of the “bitter truth” when it tastes so sweet?

      • Willard, “Why do we talk of the “bitter truth” when it tastes so sweet?” Luckily Pepsico can be trusted, they donated about 5% more to the DNC.

      • Seems that the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation agree with you there, Cap’n:

        > Many of the arguments were drafted on behalf of the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation by Coca-Cola’s law firm, King & Spalding. For years, each group has received donations from Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc., but Hispanic Federation President Jose Calderon told the Daily News that those contributions had no impact on their decision to join the lawsuit against the city.

        http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/naacp-hispanic-federation-fight-soda-restrictions-article-1.1247187

      • Dr Brulle’s (et al) study sounds reasonable. What i didn’t see was any reference to the $500 million figure. Nor did I see anything about advocacy being one-sided. But then the article didn’t link to the paper (or I missed it.)

        Is the average citizen swayed by advocacy groups? If they weren’t, we wouldn’t see so many of them or so much money being spent. The question is, Is one side dominating the debate? The argument for Big Oil / Fossil Fuel / Koch brothers appears to have more basis in conspiracy thinking than fact.

      • timg56,

        There is no immediate relationship between Brulle’s estimate and its other study. Strange that this estimate is not backed up by anything more substantial.

        I cited the study because I found its result surprising. I also wished to mention McGill U by pure chauvinism.

        I’m not sure to which debate you are referring, though. What do you have in mind?

      • De bait and switch.
        =====

      • “… the driving factor that most influences public opinion on climate change is the mobilizing efforts of advocacy groups and elites.”

        They got that right.

        From the UN IPCC, through ‘all the world’s Scientific Academies’ via myriad NGOs and activist groups, pliant politicians, Common Purpose and the state controlled education systems of the first world.

        Nice work if you can get it. Oh, yeah, you can. Merely state that climate change has adversely affected (insert field of interest here). Grunt, grunt, pop. Another paper to be quoted as proof that global warming is ruining all our fun. Easy really.

      • I wonder who funded thatstudy?

  11. Makarieva has been accepted and published in its final form

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.html

    • Guest post coming soon!

      • Great!

        We’ll have something sensible to talk about again.

        Max

      • Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think you would mention the grounds on which it was published. The editor who accepted the paper wrote
        ——————————–
        The authors have presented an entirely new view of what may be driving dynamics in the atmosphere. This new theory has been subject to considerable criticism which any reader can see in the public review and interactive discussion of the manuscript in ACPD. Normally, the negative reviewer comments would not lead to final acceptance and publication of a manuscript in ACP.

        After extensive deliberation however, the editor concluded that the revised manuscript still should be published – despite the strong criticism from the esteemed reviewers – to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory. This is not an endorsement or confirmation of the theory, but rather a call for further development of the arguments presented in the paper that shall lead to conclusive disproof or validation by the scientific community. In addition to the above manuscript-specific comment from the handling editor, the following lines from the ACP executive committee shall provide a general explanation for the exceptional approach taken in this case and the precedent set for potentially similar future cases: (1) The paper is highly controversial, proposing a fundamentally new view that seems to be in contradiction to common textbook knowledge. (2) The majority of reviewers and experts in the field seem to disagree, whereas some colleagues provide support, and the handling editor (and the executive committee) are not convinced that the new view presented in the controversial paper is wrong. (3) The handling editor (and the executive committee) concluded to allow final publication of the manuscript in ACP, in order to facilitate further development of the presented arguments, which may lead to disproof or validation by the scientific community.
        =====================================

        Eli confidently looks forward to the avalanche of crank papers from the Oliver Manuals and Tallblokes of the world which will soon inundate ACP. They asked for it, go give it to them guys. The predictable outcome, of course, is that people are going to cite this example as a reason to throw ACP invitations to review into the trash pit.

      • A guest post from Makarieva and Shiel should be coming within the next few days, best to defer discussion on this until the topical post.

      • Microclimate is what Makarieva can you get.
        ============

      • +1

      • The Bunny’s twitched its ears it’s wrong, but the editors aren’t convinced Makarieva’s wrong. So who are the curious, Bunny? Cats, mebbe?
        ==========

      • Eli, if you think that this getting into ACP is bad, you should see some of the stuff that is getting into IPCC. Its proof, prooooof that IPCCS voodoo science, etc.
        Is that a megaphone problem? or is that different?

    • From the Abstract:

      “Phase transitions of atmospheric water play a ubiquitous role in the Earth’s climate system, but their direct impact on atmospheric dynamics has escaped wide attention.”

      If it’s true that phase transitions impact has escaped wide attention (driving winds), it should be interesting discussion.

      • She got eaten alive @ Id’s, and has risen cyclonically from the boney ashes. A Fire Bird.
        =======

      • kim she got eaten alive everywhere. eli makes a good point above.

      • Eli’s point is, “heretics!” and “I am afraid of scientific scrutiny”.

      • Go tell Aunt willard that the Old Grey Goose is dead, and the little ones chew on the bones, oh.
        =============

      • From the Rabett’s mouth:

        > Eli confidently looks forward to the avalanche of crank papers from the Oliver Manuals and Tallblokes of the world which will soon inundate ACP. They asked for it, go give it to them guys.

        http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2013/01/atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.html

      • Eli’s point is not heretics, it’s cranks. You, of course are welcome to debate science with the dragons.

      • Eli’s projecting. I am looking forward to the guest post.

        http://thd.pnpi.spb.ru/~makariev/

      • Steven Mosher

        I thought Eli’s best point was the difficult of getting reviewers. scientists will just ignore bad science that gets published, not a problem. The deeper issue I thought he was pushing at was reviewer blowback. I have less of a problem with crankery and more of a problem with good folks wasting their time ( I think reviwers should be granted the right to have a rebuttal published.. full stop no negotiation )
        on the positive side I wish more cranks would spend time detailing their crankery. it would keep them off the street …

      • More or less what Steve said, although there is the megaphone problem, see, here appearing in this distinguished journal is proooof, prooooooof, that Dr. Makarieva’s majic medicine, etc.

      • As far as I can tell, reviewers like Isaac Held here didn’t get a second shot at responding to the responses to their first comments. These responses just blew off his main points, and I am fairly sure Isaac Held would have had more to say on them given a chance. This is the unfortunate thing about the ACP procedure. If you know the reviewers aren’t going to get it back, you just have to make a half-way convincing argument to the non-expert editor, and it gets accepted. The editor is a respected aerosols guy, but this is not his field. Other journals would for sure send it back to someone who rejected it first time before publication.

      • Douglas Sheil

        Eli Rabett | January 26, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
        If I undertand you correctly: you imply an apparently coherent but radical theory should be rejected on principle — because it will attract questions from some ill defined group. If I read you correctly this would seem to suggest that science cannot be open to radical ideas as they will waste too much time and the effects are disruptive. Right?
        My view is that science should embrace new and stimulating ideas. That is what we do! Doesn’t mean that they will all be right — but some might might be. Its our job to find these ideas and evaluate them properly.
        I remember you gave some useful suggestions on vapour dynamics in a previous discussion.
        Thanks again for those!
        Best wishes
        Douglas

    • This does not sound like anything new, but guess we’ll see …

  12. From a discussion elsewhere between Jim Cripwell and oneuniverse
    on the CO2 signal being indistinguisable from zero by observed data
    and a request for data – http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/12/open-thread-weekend-6/#comment-288467

    I posted a link to Bob Tisdale

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/21/noaa-sotc-claim-that-2012-was-warmest-la-nina-year-is-wrong/
    “INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA AND THEIR LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES?

    “Why should you be interested? NOAA also conveniently overlooked the fact that their own datasets indicate El Niño and La Niña events, not manmade greenhouse gases, are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 30 years and the warming of ocean heat content in the tropics since 1955. I’ve searched sea surface temperature records and ocean heat content data for more than 4 years (more than 3 years for the ocean heat content data), and I can find no evidence of an anthropogenic greenhouse gas signal. That is, the warming of the global oceans has been caused by Mother Nature, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.” Bob Tisdale

    And I’ll add another, an in a nutshell precis of Miskolczi by Arno Arrak

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/24/of-doric-columns-and-climate-change/#comment-1208026

    “..Already done by Ferenc Miskolczi. It’s extent is zero. In 2010 he used NOAA database of weather balloon observations to measure the absorption of long-wave radiation by the atmosphere and discovered that it had been constant for 61 years. At the same time, the amount of carbon dioxide in air increased by 21.6 percent. Greenhouse theory tells us that absorption of long-wave radiation by carbon dioxide is the energy source of global warming. But Miskolczi has proved that the added carbon dioxide had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of long-wave radiation by the atmosphere. This is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and it overrides any predictions from theory. Greenhouse theory is incapable of explaining it but Miskolczi shows that its cause is negative water vapor feedback. With it, the greenhouse effect is dead. And the theory of anthropogenic global warming likewise is dead. While Miskolczi is the first to use this particular database to study long-wave absorption by the atmosphere, the same analysis could have been performed even before IPCC got started. That is because in 1988, the year IPCC was established, it already contained forty years worth of observations. That would have been enough for the same analysis that Miskolczi performed in 2010. It would have proved that anthropogenic global warming does not exist and that there was no justification for starting up the IPCC. Miskolczi has been vilified and called a crackpot by true believers in the blogosphere, to the extent that opponents of global warming have been afraid to cite his work. That avoidance of Miskolczi should stop because it proves without a doubt that the so-called global warming “science” is nothing but a pseudoscience.”

    Any more to add to these?

    • yeah I think Fan (or was it someone else?) has compiled a whole list of these “ideas”

    • Myrrh

      That’s a compelling list of evidence supporting a GH effect of (near) zero, but I think that oneuniverse has got the scientific method backward here.

      “Null” = “zero” (in German)

      The “null” hypothesis is that increasing CO2 has “zero” effect on our planet’s climate.

      In his exchange with Jim Cripwell, it is up to oneuniverse to refute the “null” hypothesis by showing empirical evidence, which falsifies it.

      It is NOT up to Jim Cripwell to provide evidence for the “null” hypothesis – it is always the other way around.

      As I understand it, this is what Jim Cripwell has requested and, so far, it has not been forthcoming.

      Max

      PS If either Jim Cripwell or oneuniverse disagree with what I have just written, they should comment giving reasons.

      • Max, to repeat :

        Since I haven’t made a claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 will lead to an increase in global temperature (although I’ve explained why I think it’s plausible that it might), I’m not sure why you and Jim are looking to me to provide evidence to support the claim.

        Jim, one the other hand, has made this claim: “the climate sensitivity for CO2 added to the atmosphere form current levels, has been proven to be indistinguishable from zero, by observed data.”.

        How can the data have ‘proven’ it when there are large uncertainties in the magnitudes of non-CO2 forcings and their effect on the measured observables? This would be big news if true – I’m highly skeptical of his claim, and it’s reasonable to ask him for the data and quantitative analysis ie. the details of the proof, which he hasn’t provided.

      • oneuniverse

        You have clarified your position.

        You do not necessarily support the “consensus” claim that CO2 is a GHG, which has caused and will cause a significant increase in global average temperature with increased concentrations, therefore you do not feel the need to support this claim with empirical evidence.

        Good. So be it.

        Looks like you and I might not be that far apart.

        I also do not support the IPCC claims, especially those leading to CAGW, as outlined in its AR4 report, as they are not backed by empirical scientific evidence, as discussed earlier.

        Max

      • manacker: I happen to think that the IPCC reports don’t support CAGW. There’s a certain subjective element to that, since CAGW is not really a well-defined concept, but still, at least 95 per cent of CAGW claims are rhetoric, propaganda and exaggerations on top of the IPCC reports. So I’m curious as to which IPCC claims you think “lead to” CAGW.

      • manacker: You have clarified your position.

        I just repeated, using cut-and-paste, what I’d written earlier. I did make it clear, from early on in my conversation with Jim, that I was asking him to back up his own claim of negligible climate sensitivity to CO2. (Your suggestion that I’ve got the scientific method backward is incorrect, by the way)

        Dagfinn, statements such as these from the SPM of AR4 WGII have a catastrophic aspect IMO.

      • Dagfinn

        You write:

        manacker: I happen to think that the IPCC reports don’t support CAGW.

        adding

        I’m curious as to which IPCC claims you think “lead to” CAGW.

        The concept “CAGW” (for potentially catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is not a term that was invented by me.

        It is a commonly used expression for the IPCC premise that most of the observed warming since around 1950 has been caused by increased human-induced GHG concentrations and that these could lead to a potentially serious threat to humanity and our environment unless human GHG emissions are sharply curtailed.

        More specifically, IPCC outlines this premise in its AR4 report, as follows:

        1. human GHGs have been the cause of most of the observed warming since ~1950 [AR4 WGI SPM, p.10]
        2. this reflects a model-predicted 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C±0.7°C [AR4 WGI Ch.8, p.633]
        3. this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the range of 1.8°C to 6.4°C by the end of this century with increase in global sea level of up to 0.59 meters [AR4 WGI SPM, p.13]
        4.resulting in increased severity and/or intensity of heat waves, heavy precipitation events, droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high sea levels [AR4 WGI SPM, p.8],
        5. with resulting flooding of several coastal cities and regions, crop failures and famines, loss of drinking water for millions from disappearing glaciers, intensification and expansion of wildfires, severe loss of Amazon forests, decline of corals, extinction of fish species, increase in malnutrition, increase in vector borne and diarrheal diseases, etc. [AR4 WGII]
        6. unless world-wide actions are undertaken to dramatically curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2) [AR4 WGIII]

        That’s CAGW, as outlined by IPCC, in a nutshell.

        Max

      • Well, I think that’s an alarmist spin on the IPCC results. But I will admit that the IPCC itself is partly responsible since the SPM focuses one-sidedly on negative impacts, neglecting to mention some of the positive ones from the full report.

        My version is more like this:

        Water access: net gain from AGW.
        Direct effect of heat on humans: net gain from AGW.
        Effect of heat on crops: I don’t think this is a major issue if farmers are smart enough to grow different crops when the climate changes.
        Sea-level rise: expensive adaptation but manageable.
        Hurricanes: projected changes are not that great and adaptation is possible.
        Diseases: I’m not sure how scary this looks if we take the IPCC projections at face value. So this might be somewhat debatable.

      • “My version is more like this:

        Water access: net gain from AGW.
        Direct effect of heat on humans: net gain from AGW.
        Effect of heat on crops: I don’t think this is a major issue if farmers are smart enough to grow different crops when the climate changes.
        Sea-level rise: expensive adaptation but manageable.
        Hurricanes: projected changes are not that great and adaptation is possible.
        Diseases: I’m not sure how scary this looks if we take the IPCC projections at face value. So this might be somewhat debatable.”

        In the above I would replace AGW with Global warming [as in being in a warmer period rather than being in a colder period].
        So water access: net gain from being in warmer periods.
        Though it’s obvious that humans create dams and these are greatest factors in water access. But that goes without saying [it’s not vaguely disputable] and is not the issue. Though it relates to this water issue in regard to a loss the storage water due by having glacier recede, in that the area occupied by a glacier can replaced with an area used for dam.

        And obviously a dam is a better way to
        store water for human use [life in general grow better in water as compared to ice]. Or lake is a generally improvement over the same size chunk of glacial ice.

        The single greatest effect which seems mostly related to human activity
        is the increase in global CO2 [or one can not argue the human activity has reduced global CO2 levels- and only question is how much increase in CO2 is due to human activity]. And this increase in global CO2 has significantly improve the growth of plants- whether crops or in nature.
        This is small reason millions to billions of people have enough food to eat- a larger factor is an improvement in farming technology and market type distribution of food to people who need food.

    • Miskolczi had his fingers on the scale. To get his result (and there is some real question about how he did that) he used the wrong version of the TIGR database, one that is much too dry.

      • And he defines his optical depth in just the IR window region, where by definition little or no effect is expected. His optical depth truly is only in terms of radiation from the surface that is emitted to space, ignoring that the GHG effect is emitted from the atmosphere, and not seen in the window region.

      • SOD has an interesting series on that point (although not in relation to Mis) with some revealing graphics. He is up to part 10

        http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/23/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-ten-back-radiation/

      • SoD has built a Matlab model that’s fairly good in calculating clear sky radiative effects and has some additional features like imposing the stability requirement on the lapse rate that it cannot exceed the adiabatic value. I have downloaded the model and made some modifications to it to learn more on quantitative details. The overall picture has not changed much from the use of the morel but now I know much more about some important quantitative details that I haven’t seen discussed or described elsewhere.

        This exercise has confirmed also that Miskolczi had done a fair part of the same radiative calculations, but for some reason stopped short of doing the next step that would correct the error Jim D mentions. He did calculate the altitude profile of the point of emission of radiation to space, but he did that for one CO2 concentration only. Repeating that same calculation with a higher concentration and comparing the results would produce the correct result that most of the radiative forcing comes from changes in radiation originating in the atmosphere rather than at surface. I really cannot understand, why he didn’t do and report the results of such a simple additional step.

  13. Professor of Sociology and Environmental Science,
    … say no more lol. When east meets west.

  14. Via Planet3, Jon Foley on pet theories, which might explain why ClimateBallers disagree with one another:

    > [P]eople are reluctant to give up their pet hypothesis, and never develop a real theory. For example, people who love technology, markets and economics will usually persist in believing those change the world, even when they don’t. Others strongly believe in political change, and persist in believing that, even if evidence suggests otherwise.

    http://planet3.org/2013/01/23/jon-foley-on-why-environmentalists-disagree-with-each-other/

    #YouQuarterbacks, stop coveting your pet theories!

    • Willard

      Foley is right.

      “Human nature” is the reason why nobody agrees with anybody else.

      But I also think that (especially in our western culture) we are taught as children (or at least used to be) to challenge the status quo.

      Max

      • Here’s a better way to challenge the status quo than to keep repeating your eyeballing, your model bashing, and your meme hammering, MiniMax:

        > We produce new reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies over the last millennium, based on a model which includes the e ects of external climate forcings and accounts for the long-memory features displayed in the data sets. Our reconstruction is based on two linear models, one in which the latent temperature series is linearly related to three main external forcings (solar irradiance, greenhouse gas concentration, and volcanism), and the other in which the observed temperature proxy data (tree rings, sediment record, ice cores, etc.) is linearly related to the unobserved temperatures. Uncertainty about the
        linear relations is modeled using additive noise (errors). We have carefully investigated the correlation structure in regression errors using rigorous statistical tests, and we nd that a long memory fractional Gaussian noise is proper for both linear models. We then use Bayesian estimation to reconstruct the past unobserved land-air temperature anomalies and combined land-and-marine anomalies over the period 1000-1899. In addition, we show that the long memory model helps to quantify the uncertainty of the reconstruction more precisely,
        and the use of external climate forcings is crucial in substantially reducing uncertainty levels. Our reconstruction compares favorably with previous results, as measured via the validation metric of empirical coverage probability for 20th-century observations. Finally, we provide
        a measurement of equilibrium climate sensitivity over the last millennium based on our posterior reconstruction samples.

        http://www.stat.purdue.edu/~viens/publications/BLTV.pdf

        Please note that the full expression is status quo ante bellum:

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

      • Hey, wiley willie, I’ve got an even better way to “challenge” things.

        Manfred has done some calculating based on the post WWII temperature and CO2 record to come up with some estimates for CS

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-289107

        He’s “challenging the status quo” based on (oh horrors!) actual physical observations.

        Why don’t you take a crack at challenging his challenge, if you feel up to it.

        If you feel it’s a level too high for you, I’ll understand.

        Max

      • Willard, me boy

        Aren’t you going to take on Manfred’s challenge?

        Should be easy for a guy as intelligent and eloquent as you.

        C’mon. Have a go.

        Max

      • manacker

        ‘“Human nature” is the reason why nobody agrees with anybody else.’

        Species Survival is why no one agrees with everyone else.

        Let’s examine the case of misidentifying a wolf.

        Well it could be a wolf…or it could be a harmless little puppy dog.

        If we all agree it’s a harmless cute puppy and we are wrong…then we will all be eaten. Our species will become extinct.

        The only rational solution from a species standpoint is that some of us have to disagree about everything…that way some of us will survive in the event that the ‘consensus’ is wrong.

        I always find it interesting that various people get themselves all worked up over the ‘anti-vaxers’…if we didn’t have the ‘anti-vaxers’ the government would have to randomly select a control group to insure species survival in the unlikely event that a vaccine proved deadly.

        It’s good that some people voluntarily forgo their vaccines and risk personal illness or death in order to guarantee species survival in the event a vaccine ends up being faulty.

      • Harry –

        Or you could follow the Precautionary Principle, and kill the puppy. Just in case.

      • harrywr2, I am very happy that you took the shot for your cat too.

      • MiniMax,

        I have no commitment regarding Manfred’s napkin. A napkin is a napkin is a napkin. If Manfred wishes to turn this napkin into a more formal calculation, he can ask for your help, or submit it to climate scientists for feedback.

        ***

        Speaking of commitments, here was the last time you challenged me with numbers:

        > I think we’ve beaten this dog to death and should move on.

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/#comment-283851

        It did not turn that well for you. Nor did it turned that well when we read together, for instance:

        MiniMax asserts with the lone proof of his own ignorance that:

        > NO empirical evidence to support the premise a) that most of the past warming (since ~1950) has been a result of increased human GHG concentrations and b) that this demonstrates a high climate sensitivity, which leads to the conclusion that c) AGW represents a potential threat to humanity and our environment.

        These are not premises. The first two are conclusions not unlike John Nielsen-Gammon’s:

        http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/

        Readers that are not as thick as a brick like manacker that there are empirical evidence for at least (a) and (b) in NG’s post.

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/#comment-256539

        When someone challenges your point, MiniMax, repeating it does not suffice. Repeating the same thing over and over again is called an argumentum ad nauseam:

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

        ***

        More generally, you do not seem to understand how scientific discussions work, MiniMax. I believe Vaughan noticed the same thing not so long ago:

        > Max doesn’t really believe all this stuff he comes up with, he’s too smart for that. He’s just having fun seeing whose leg he can pull.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/20/berkeley-earth-update/#comment-288772

        I don’t mind much your misdemeanours, MiniMax, as they are par for the course. (Go, Team Denizens!) I could mind. Then I’d wonder about other hypotheses than that you’re simply pulling legs. Even you should expect by now that I’d start looking for evidence of these hypotheses.

        If that is what you want, please do continue.

        Thank you again for playing,

        w

      • My hands, kim, my hands.

        But you can go first, if you do care about lukewarm symbology.

        I thought you thought that CS was a round zero.

    • my pet theory is that people who own pets are nicer than people who dont own pets.

      • Pet’s rock. Rah rah pet rah.
        =======

      • My Swedish friend has this pet theory:

        > It’s not the fart that kills, it’s the smell.

      • Since we’re on the subject of essential knowledge of Scandinavian languages: in Norwegian, we also have the word “gangfart”, which means walking speed.

      • Steven Mosher

        There is a danger in switching back and forth between languages.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        There is a danger is switching back and forth”

        That’s why I always go forth and back

      • Yeah. Pet’s rock.

        Unless they’re pet rocks.

      • In German we have a whole series of common “farts” (spelled “fahrts”):

        Ausfahrt = exit
        Einfahrt = entrance
        Auffahrt = trip up
        Abfahrt = departure
        Rundfahrt = round trip
        Hinfahrt = trip to somewhere
        Rückfahrt = trip back
        Himmelfahrt = Ascension
        etc.

        No matter where you go in Germany, you’re “fahrting” (one way or the other)

      • Alex Heyworth

        Is that why Germany is so keen on wind power?

  15. From David Wojick, ‘The UN is cloning the IPCC with a new
    biodiversity group.’

    Hey, a shiny new Yew – Nighted – Nay – shuns bureaucracy,
    The Inter – governmental Platform and Bio – diversitee and Eco –
    system Sirvices,” The IPEBS, that should get the message across
    and make the serfs sit up. Oh Gaia!

    • Beth

      Who’s picking up the tab for this new UN offshoot and in what resort locations will they have their global “pow-wows”

      Ouch! (Don’t tell me.)

      Max

  16. Max,

    Who’s paying? Why, the looooooong suffering public, of course.
    Quiet down there, u serfs.

    Beth, (one of the serfs.)

    • Beth

      You got that right.

      Serfdom ain’t much fun.

      Be much better to get to travel to exotic places to meet in air conditioned meeting rooms and figure out how to squeeze the serfs a bit more.

      Max (a fellow serf)

  17. Judith says a new post is coming on A Makarieva’s new paper,
    ‘Where do winds come from?’ That’s great, it was discussed
    over several days at The Air Vent in October 2010. Fascinating
    thread with insightful comments by the scientist and posters.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/where-do-winds-come-from/

  18. Iceland’s Prime Minister explains the recent resurrection of his country:

    • Yep, sometimes you have to think outside the box and not bailout everyone :)

    • ya, set them geeks free from working at banks.

      • Pass Book Savings…

        The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks were to be located in major cities. Each bank was to operate autonomously in its region. A Fed Bank had a board of directors and an executive structure similar to that of any commercial bank or business firm. Commercial banks in a Federal Reserve district could become members of the Federal Reserve if they fulfilled certain requirements, including buying stock in their regional Fed Bank according to a formula based on their capital value. The Fed Bank then paid them a statutory annual return of 6 percent on the value of this stock. Member commercial banks therefore became the “stockholders” of the Fed banks.

        their ought, to be a law.

      • A half a tenth is a dollar, right?
        =========

  19. Guess it serfs us right , fellow serf, we should’a fought back more.
    Say, goin’ surfin his weekend…well some tame swimming. Wish a
    few of us Denizen Serfs could get to one of those ex-ot ic con-
    vention places fer a sceptics week-end, lol. Any oil money grants
    available …say, where’s Tony B ? (irony tag.)

    Beth the serf.

  20. The Fire-Ready-Aim C02 policy of government scientists in the EPA is a dramatic realization of self-defeating bureaucratic authoritarianism. What shall we call government-funded global warming fearmongers who would condemn the third and developing world to misery, poverty and death if not an army of Liberal Fascists who would deny nature to spread their secular, socialist doomsday?

  21. In Nassim Taleb’s ‘Prologue to The Black Swan’ Taleb observes that
    ‘the reason free markets work is because they allow people to be
    lucky, thanks to aggressive trial and error, not by giving rewards or ‘incentives’ for skill.’

    The government’s role would therefore seem to be providing a milieu favourable to aggressive trial and error, not bank rolling via the public purse, likely inefficient businesses or banks. We win, regardless of
    which competitors fail, by the provision of better technologies and
    produucts at *no cost* to us.. Cool eh?

    • Check out “Jiro Dreams of Sushi” on Netflix and you might change your opinion about–e.g., Asians being good at math is because they’re lucky.

  22. From Bart Verheggen’s tweets:

    > A record of the past written in an ancient ice core now reveals that Greenland’s ice sheet is not melted as easily as some fear. But the message is not entirely reassuring: it also implies that Antarctica has much greater potential to raise sea levels than previously thought.

    http://www.nature.com/news/greenland-defied-ancient-warming-1.12265

    • They find out they were wrong about Greenland Ice. They quickly arrive at new, different conclusions, with even more declarations of the new thoughts being right with no doubt expressed. I would expect them to look at new evidence that is different and increase their uncertainty. Finding out that they made a mistake makes them press on with less uncertainty.
      Finding out that Greenland is more stable than they thought makes them certain that Antarctic is more unstable than they thought.
      Antarctic is judged to be unstable based on Arctic being more stable. That does not make any sense.
      The Antarctic could easily loose enough ice to make up for what Greenland did not lose and still be very stable.
      Before, they judged Antarctic to be more stable, based on Antarctic data, and now they have changed that based on data from somewhere else.
      This NEEM data is very important, but the conclusions that they derived from it so far are very suspect.
      When they found that they made mistakes, that they should report their mistakes and go back and reconsider what else that they may have wrong.

      • > When they found that they made mistakes, that they should report their mistakes and go back and reconsider what else that they may have wrong.

        Yup.

        Something’s rotten in the state of Greenland.

        All that theorizes must die, passing through nature to the Internet.

  23. Just as we doubted it in a recent thread, researchers found evidence of the existence of leprechauns:

    We have known for over 20 years, since Sen wrote the book on famine in 1981, that hunger comes not from there not being enough food being produced, but from some people not having access to that food (either through their own production or through the market).

    And yet again and again we hear a weird underpants gnome-esque non-sequitur, in which

    1. The problem: There is already enough food in the world to feed everyone
    2. ?????
    3. The solution: Produce more food!

    http://www.rovingbandit.com/2013/01/taking-sen-seriously.html

  24. Correlation or causation?

    Internet Explorer vs Murder rate:

    #YouQuarterback — be the judge!

  25. why have I being censored? is the truth so scary?

  26. Joe's World {Progressive Evolution}

    Same here!

    • That makes you nine, simple.

      • Robert I Ellison

        FOMBS cites a false dichotomy between a market that is regulated to death – the heart’s desire of pissant progressives – and so-called laissez faire economics. Not having done a political rant – in the service of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – for a while here it is.

        The reality of the scientific enlightenment and libertarian thought in our great western tradition is far different. To quote from that exemplar of libertarian thought – F.A. Hayek.

        ‘There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom…there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody…Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of the assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong….To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such “acts of God” as earthquakes and floods. Whenever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself or make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken….There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them….’ Hayek – The Road to Serfdom

        I think perhaps Hayek is the impetus for Beth’s ‘serf’ jokes. But in seriousness – Hayek’s views encompass health care and welfare – as opposed to the US conservative impulse. In the libertarian worldview the state exists to protect the weak from the rapacious in defending the rule of law, to vouchsafe democracy, to provide services that the market can’t or won’t provide, to defend the populace from external aggression. There is no reason in principle that laws should not encompass – for instance – laws against pollution, laws to set aside wilderness areas or to legislate against child labour. The line is indistinct – but the potential to cross lines into egregious limitations of personal freedoms exists at all times and require vigilance to identify and resist. One line concerns the optimum size of government taxes and expenditure. Beyond a nominal share of about 30% of GDP – government begins to stifle economic growth and unfairly gather to itself too many of the fruits of labour and production.

        The rule of law extends to the regulation of markets – rules about prudential oversight of banking, information flows in markets, anti-monopolistic laws, the regulation of interest rates to prevent asset bubbles and other such rules as promote the efficiency of markets.

        There is no reason at all why the succouring of populations in need as a result of natural disasters, war, famine or plague should be limited to the national boundaries. Should aid promote free and fair markets, trade, economic growth, democracy and the rule of law – the much need maximisation of human welfare is guaranteed. As is population management, environmental progress, advances in health, education and human happiness. There is no collectivist agenda that can work a fraction as well as the balanced implementation of libertarian ideals – freedom, democracy, the rule of law and free markets. Progress in human development, the elimination of international conflict and the realisation of sustainable environments this century requires that the libertarian agenda be pursued with clarity in objectives and the fervour of heroes of freedom of the past. All good comes from human freedom and that is challenged today by the Godless hordes of green neo-socialists barbarians inside the walls of western civilisation.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Robert I Ellison reminds us “The state exists to protect the weak from the rapacious in defending the rule of law … The rule of law extends to the regulation of markets Should aid promote free and fair markets, the much needed maximisation of human welfare is guaranteed.”

        Your rational and spirited advocacy, here on Climate Etc both of carbon markets and of ObamaCare is noted and appreciated, Robert I Ellison!

        It’s nice to see science, economics, and morality so nicely reconciled, eh?

        “Justice is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society, and I don’t believe there is any royal road to attain such accommodations concretely.”

           — Judge Learned Hand

        Much appreciated too is the wise recognition — that is very much in the tradition of the Founders and Framers of the US Constitution — of the absolute scientific, economic, and moral necessity for wise compromise that the sobering realities of globalized climate-change are now requiring of the 21st century!

        \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

        PS: today’s XKCD holds substantial lessons for the many “outsider science” advocates who post here on 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}

      • Robert I Ellison

        FOMBS,

        We are reminded of the clarity of analysis that emerges form the Hartwell Group – something that you would do well to learn.

        ‘The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.

        The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.’ http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

        We want of course workable, pragmatic solutions that increase human dignity and the resiliance of global communities.

        And though I suggest that libertarians would endorse social health insurance – the devil (or barbarian as the case may be) is in the detail and I know too little about obamacare to comment. I was recently in a public hospital in Australia – an infected toe is no laughing matter apparently – paid for by my private health insurance. The facilities were top notch and the staff too attentive. The food was bloody awful. I felt a little aggrieved that I was denied the most expensive antibiotics for purely bureaucratic reasons as my insurance was paying. All in all I am happy that the service is available universally. My private insurance – however – assures me that I avoid long waiting lists for many types of treatment.

        Hayek as well talks about the accomodations that are unavoidable in a democracy – although I suggest you read and reread Hayeks words quoted by Faustino above. Wise words indeed on the fine balance between freedom and tryranny. I will certainly attest that America was founded on the libertarian ideals I hold dear – that America is the greatest and purest example of individual freedom and must continue to succeed and be a beacon of freedom for the world. It remains only for you to rediscover your libertarian roots aye FOMBS? Else I would suspect you of merely mouthing platitudes while being complicit in the overthrow of liberty.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Robert I Ellison  “It remains only for you to rediscover your libertarian roots aye FOMBS?”

        The pragmatism of America’s Founders and Framers, as interpreted by America’s great jurists like Learned Hand, has withstood every trial — even the harshest! — for more than two hundred years.

        Whereas new-fangled ideologies like “libertarianism” have not been tested even as sternly as Marxism … isn’t that true Robert I Ellison?

        Libertarianism and Marxism both are simple-minded ideologies that sound wonderful in principle, and both are highly entertaining as fiction … and yet it is exceedingly doubtful that either can be made to work in practice!

        When it comes to the grappling responsibly with the sobering, accelerating, globalized reality of climate-change, it is imprudent to repose much trust in untested economic and political ideologies. That is why it is reasonable to repose 10X more trust in the tried-and-true pragmatic principles of a jurist (say) Learned Hand, than in the untested theoretical principles of (say) Ayn Rand. And as for the “Hartwell Group” … their pure-minded theoretical ideals have never been tested at all!

        Shall we not prudently embrace pragmatic principles that are tested-and-true, Robert I Ellison, and alike reject the seductive-yet-shallow temptations of ideological Marxism and ideological Libertarianism?

        \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

        Your words appear to make sense.

        – Marxism is a freedom stifling dead-end.

        – “Ideological Libertarianism” (as you imagine it) is the “wild West” variety, where anything goes and there is essentially no rule of law. This is also bad.

        – The ideal is somewhere in between (as the Chief, Faustino and Beth have all also stated), with individual freedom plus responsibility to the overall society as the key criteria.

        But, from your comments on this site, I believe that you would draw the “ideal line” much closer to the “Marxism” side than the other three I have mentioned above (or than me, for that matter).

        So to me you might appear to be a “Marxist”, while to you I may appear to be a “wild West Libertarian”.

        Where you stand depends on where you sit, as they say.

        Max

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Although we may wrangle about the details, overall your post’s informed historical perspective, rationality, and good manners, all are (IMHO) wholly commendable manacker!

        If it should come to pass that James Hansen’s scientific worldview proves to be correct — supposing for example, that the Earth remains in sustained state of energy imbalance throughout the coming decade, such that the sea-level rise-rate accelerates (as Hansen’s thermodynamical models predict) — then local economic ideologies will have to be supplanted by global economic ideologies … at least insofar as sustaining the planetary commons is concerned.

        To insist “No! That can’t happen! That’s impossible” is mere futile irresponsible denialism, eh?

        Soberingly, it’s becoming evident that no established economic ideology grapples effectively with this global-scale challenge and responsibility, eh Manacker? So we are all of us going to live in interesting times, 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

        Yes. Times are (and will continue to be) interesting.

        Where you and I have our largest disagreement, it appears, is whether or not “James Hansen’s scientific worldview proves to be correct “.

        Only time will tell.

        As you know, there are hypotheses, scientific papers and model studies, which either support or refute this “worldview”.

        The “null hypothesis” is that human GHGs will have no appreciable impact on our planet’s future climate. (“Null” = “zero”)

        “Hansen’s scientific worldview” is that the “null hypothesis” is incorrect and that (among other things) the rate of sea-level rise-rate resulting from AGW will accelerate so that the rise can be measured in meters in this century, wiping out coastal cities and settlements across the globe.

        As a rational skeptic, my point of view on this is quite simple: The “Hansen scientific worldview” is not corroborated by empirical scientific evidence, which would falsify the “null hypothesis” (Feynman and Popper).

        Until this is the case, Hansen’s premise remains an uncorroborated hypothesis in the scientific sense, nothing more.

        The good news is that we do not have to wait until the sea level has really risen by meters to test Hansen/s premise.

        The premise is all based on a posited mean 2xCO2 ECS of 3.2C and rapidly accelerating human CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, leading to collapse of major landed ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica) and the meter-high sea level rise.

        Recent studies (Schlesinger 2012, Gillett 2011, Lewis – not yet published), which are based on actual observations rather than simply model predictions, are showing that the 3.2C value for ECS is likely to be too high by a factor of at least 2:1, with a big open question still being the amount of natural climate forcing.

        Satellite observations by Spencer&Braswell 2007 and Lindzen&Choi 2009/2011 are confirming a low 2xCO2 ECS.

        More work is needed, of course, but if added actual physical observations confirm these recent findings, we may have a major breakthrough in falsifying the “null hypothesis”, at the same time also falsifying the “Hansen scientific viewpoint” of a highly sensitive climate.

        If, at the same time the controlled experimental work at CERN validates the hypothesis proposed by Henrik Svensmark and others that natural changes in galactic cosmic rays influence cloud nucleation thereby also affecting our climate, we could have added constraints on natural forcing as well as on the 2xCO2 effect, enabling an even closer estimate.

        As you write, the times are interesting.

        Max

      • The ‘hockey stick’ is the smoking gun that the Left has been using fear, propaganda, practicing practicing black arts – say anything they believe works for them, demonize all who oppose their political agenda, do whatever it takes – to plunder the savings of the productive and gain political power over the people and the witchdoctors of academia have been a willing accomplices. The fundamental challenge of our time is surviving liberal fascism not AGW.

      • Robert I Ellison

        FOMBS knows little of the history of the scientific enlightenment. The libertarian ideals are indeed the ideals on which America was founded – individual freedom, free markets, the rule of law and democracy. Who could argue with that. They are ideals to be defended by each new generation with the fervour of the heroes of freedom of the past.

        The economic principles on which free markets should be founded are likewise confirmed by history. At the centre of prudential management of markets is the managment of interest rates to prevent asset bubbles and the maintenance of balanced government budgets. It is clear that the relative success of the Australian economy over decades – for instance – is founded on the management of these two things. This owes much more in the rational scheme of things to Friedrich Hayek than Any Rand. Common sense and the tried and true rather than inflexible ideology.

        From FOMBS we get obfuscation rather than clarity – something that seems a defining quality of the modern pissant progressive. It stems from a need to hide their true agendas. Nothing less than the complete dismantling of industrial economies in many instances. What about you FOMBS – are you a closet wrecker hoping to take advantage of catastrophe to coast to ideological supremacy and world domination? Planet Earth to FOMBS…

        What we have seen is failure over more than 20 years to move on carbon mitigation. What we get from FOMBS is more arm waving propaganda. What we get from the Hartwell Group is pragmatic proposals on black carbon and tropospheric ozone, technological innovation and cheap renewable energy, the consevation and restoration of agricultural land and ecosystems, health, education and development initiatives that inevitably reduce population pressures. The difference between arm waving and clarity in policy objectives couldn’t be more stark.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Robert I Ellison asks “What about you FOMBS – are you a closet wrecker hoping to take advantage of catastrophe to coast to ideological supremacy and world domination?”

        All I can say is, the earthlings must never master PSI climate-change theory!

        \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}

      • Robert I Ellison

        Willard linked to an article that talked about droughts and floods as an impetus to transformative economics – and the need to prepare the rhetorical and political strategies in advance.

        Again – you seem to deal in obscurantism, misdirection and deceit.
        These behaviours are a far greater blight on effective communication than any misguided theories of the so-called dragon slayers. Your science is hardly any better being barely recognisable as such consisting of misunderstanding and confusion – and perhaps quite deliberate obfuscation.

        If you want to deal in honest discourse by all means – but I fear that is a bridge too far. Climate Pragmatism – on the other hand – ‘offers a framework for renewed American leadership on climate change that’s effectiveness, paradoxically, does not depend on any agreement about climate science or the risks posed by uncontrolled greenhouse gases.

        The new report brings the Hartwell framework into an American perspective, and it is authored by a broad group of 14 international scholars and analysts representing a diverse range of political and ideological positions — from the conservative American Enterprise Institute to moderate Democratic think tank Third Way and the liberal Breakthrough Institute.’

        http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

        You instead seem obsessed with so called economic transformation as a panacea for all ills of the world – and are content to peddle climate apocalypse as a vehicle for dideological purposes. If you want progress on mitigation – by all means. If you want the wars of values that is the climate war – by all means again.

        The world is still not warming for a decade ot three more – according to the science. So sad too bad.

      • Hey Chief, Since you are on the topic of floods and chaotic stuff, you might get a kick out of this :)

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/01/tidal-forcing.html

        Kind of a hoot if it’s right :) There are a couple of papers on the lunar orbital cycles, but I haven’t see one that included lunar and precessional.

      • Capt’nDalla
        Again, my little brain does not compute the variance between lunar cycles and deep ocean mixing. I need a boost. I’m still stuck on the surface.

      • Polar sea ice is the boundary of the coldest sinking water that drives part of the deep ocean thermohaline currents. Change the rate of the sea ice formation and the location of formation, changes the flow characteristics of the sinking highest density salt water. Slow, more stable sinking produces less mixing since its flow is more laminar. Increase the rate and there is more mixing. Mixing efficiency determines total ocean heat capacity.

        Also breaking fixed sea ice free allows it to move away from the pole and melt more quickly. That releases a good bit of stored energy. Higher tidal flooding also increases evaporation which in turn increases precipitation relocating glacial mass if you have a place to park it.. The poles are the real heat sinks of the planet, mess with them and stuff happens.

        What is funny is the correlation with vocanic and geomagnetic. Solar forcing obviously can’t cause volcanoes, but shift enough water and ice and things get entertaining. So it kinda looks like people are looking at a lot of effects instead of causes :)

        Vaughan Pratt may get a chuckle since he is trying to figure out the volcanic part of his millikelven model.

      • Chief,

        There is no need to use my name as a hook to repost your Breakthrough discovery. It does not suit you well and messes with initial conditions to which you are most sensitive.

        If you want to comment on that study you’re exploiting right now, you can reply to it in a nested comment. Readers would not need to search to see how gratuitous are your remarks. Or perhaps is this your own peculiar way to deplore obscurantism?

      • OK. The comments are broken, yet again.

        Judy, please snip comments instead of deleting them. It might help keep the arborescence intact. Keeping a trace of your moderation might also have a dissuasive effect.

      • Willard

        Two good suggestions from you, snipping shows intent and effect
        tonyb

      • Hi Tony, glad that you enjoyed your skiing holiday.

        Problem for Judith is that she doesn’t have the time to read everything that is posted and to snip will take even more time.

        Apparently she is reluctant to allow others to assist in the moderation role.

        I reach for my toggle wheel when the ad homs start to fly.

      • Peter

        Thank you, I had a very nice holiday

        Hopefully things will be a bit calmer on the ad homs front with periodic reminders and civility will rule the day. If Judith will not set up some sort of light touch moderation team however things might slip. We shall see.

        tonyb

      • tony b

        Welcome back from your holiday in the mountains.

        Did you learn more about that medieval silver and gold mine that was covered up by advancing snow and ice during the LIA?

        (Or did you spend all your time “schussing” down the mountainside?)

        Max

      • Hi max

        Unfortunately it was much too cold and snowy to search for silver mines this time round. I did dome downhill and some langlauf and ate too much sacher torte.

        Tonyb

      • Robert I Ellison

        ‘It’s an old worry about the viability of democracy that lies at the heart of our fixation on disaster: that people are too irrational and unruly to cope with complex issues or distant futures; that they’re neither timely nor decisive enough to act prudently in good times or resolutely in bad. Only educated, farsighted actors are capable of such things, the story goes, whether in service of aristocracy, monarchy, or technocracy. We fervently hope that disasters can compel a moment of truth, because otherwise we fear those emergency measures will come to pass — and, in darker moments, we think we need them.’ http://jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-flood-next-time/

        Wee Willy – yes I have reverted because your minimax and don don habits do nothing to compel respect. Nor does the link you so approve of. Or the gratuitously vacuous snark passing for comment.

        It astonishes me far we are from rational discourse. This study that I am exploiting now? Seems to suggest that ‘Pragmatic Climate’ says something other than what I directly quoted. But no – it seems rather that the commodity of catastrophe is peddled to ‘compel a moment of truth’ that leads to a radical reorganisation of rational economic principles. The goal it seems is more the old revolutionary one of the overthrow of power structures however they are formulated. Economic ‘degrowth’ and fiscal redistribution requiring suspension of democracy and the rule of law. Emergency measures concieved in ‘darker moments’ indeed. Arising out of fears of technocrats unjustly gathering to themselves all power and wealth. In the nonsensical fantasy of the pissant progressive there is no solution but the ultimate solution – the overthrow of of established power seeded by a climate of manufactured catastrophe. It seems unlikely – it seems more likely that in the moment of a destabilised polity that the ruthless opportunist waiting in the wings pounces and inevitably imposes a rule by brute power.

        I would rather avoid the risk and devise solutions – at the risk of questioning the value of your lofty idealism – rather than wait for the ever more hysterical declarations of climate disaster.

        One of the quite simple approaches is conservation agriculture – http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/5.html – please note the graph of production and income over time. It is the most dynamic social movement in global agriculture since the Dust Bowl spurred the soil conservation movement in America and thence the world. It relies on building soil carbon. A 1% increase in soil carbon is easily achievable in carbon depleted agricultural soils – and would sequester 500 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nearly twice human emissions thus far. This seems too simple, practical and positive – and far from conducive to a climate of fear. So I am inclined to think that such a popular movement would lack support from the typical pissant progressive.

      • You’re mad, Chief.

        That’s OK.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Wee Willy,

        You seem to have run out of steam prematurely. I suggest you take the Kim masterclass in one line profundities.

        Cryptic is good but I prefer a more earthy medium.

        I am mad as a cut snake and flash as a dunny rat with a gold tooth.
        All it really takes is a soupcon of equanimity and a modicum of couth.

      • In case readers do not get the context of “That’s OK, you’re mad”. Here it is, courtesy of Tony:

        > I’d point out that Zeke has his interpretation but nowhere did I say “fraud”. He’s mad, and people don’t often think clearly when they are mad. That’s OK.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-for-zeke-hausfather/

        I believe that Tony wins an Internet with that line.

        This is the line of the week.

        ***

        In case readers are mad at pissant progressives while citing the Breathrough Institute’s, let’s recall its mission statement:

        Who We Are

        We are progressives who believe in the potential of human development, technology, and evolution to improve human lives and create a beautiful world.

        We are researchers, analysts, and writers who reject outmoded orthodoxies on the Left and Right, and are dedicated to new ways of thinking, new political frameworks, and new policy paradigms.

        We are the authors of reassessments of progressive assumptions, from “The Death of Environmentalism,” which argued for transcending a nature-based politics, to “Counterterrorism Since 9/11,” which describes how security and rights increase together, to “Climate Pragmatism,” which proposes an innovation-adaptation-regulation focused alternative to Kyoto.

        http://thebreakthrough.org/about/mission/

      • looks like pissant is in the eye of the beholder, eh willard?

        Of course, Chief gets to determine which progressives are pissant, because he, like many “skeptics,” has an eye that only beholds truth (justice, and the American way).

        It reminds me of how slaveholders shared the clear vision seen in Chief’s simplistic jinogism:

        The libertarian ideals are indeed the ideals on which America was founded – individual freedom, free markets, the rule of law and democracy.

      • It’s that fireball in the sky. The sun is the only independent variable: changes in solar energy explain both global warming AND global cooling (it happens, really!). “If the Earth determines that Canada should freeze again, the best response would simply be to sell your Canadian real estate. The Earth moves on… So should we.” (Neil Reynolds)

      • Joshua,

        No need to rub it in. Focus instead on his interesting idea of conservation agriculture. Think of it as conversation culture.

        ***

        Folowing up on uncertainties, here’s what I just found:

        This website presents a data-rich view of climate and a discussion of how that data fits together into the scientists’ current picture of our changing climate. But there’s a great deal that we don’t know about the future of Earth’s climate and how climate change will affect humans.

        http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties

        The NASA has a website to talk about uncertainties.

        Have any Denizens ever cited this resource?

        If not, auditors ought to wonder why.

      • Willard, that is an incomplete list. One of the largest uncertainties is the THC.

        http://www.whoi.edu/science/po/people/rhuang/publication/2008JPOGuanHuang.pdf

        That is a step in the right direction, but since Hansen and the “gang” assume that natural “unforced” variability range is virtually inconsequential, that ASS U MEs certainty that does not exist. With the growing TIDE of circumstantial evidence that the certainties are over estimated and uncertainties not even known unknowns, this looks like a train wreck in progress. It really looks like it is going to be incredibly entertaining :)

      • Joshua

        You may have missed this bit of US history but (unlike in many places where slavery is still practiced today) it was abolished by law in the USA in 1865.

        So the “rule of law” there no longer condones slavery.

        Nor do the “libertarian ideals”, to which the Chief referred.

        And, yes, Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder 60 some odd years earlier. But that does not detract from his thoughts on individual freedom, free markets and the rule of law and democracy.

        Max

      • Thanks for the update, manacker,

        No, I hadn’t realized that slavery has been abolished in the US. Thanks for filling me in (imagine my embarrassment).

        But it seems that I didn’t make my point sufficiently clear. So allow me to elaborate:

        The Chief referred to the individual freedom, free market, and rule of law that were the founding ideals of the US. Well, those founding ideals were viewed by the founders as specifically endorsing the view of human beings as property, and the systematic denial of those human beings any degree, whatsoever, as dignity.

        To elaborate further, it is all fine and good to write empty and jingoistic platitudes about the value of those founding ideals, for the purpose of elevating one’s own ideological perspective (as Chief regularly does), and to further leverage that personal sense of superiority to denigrate hundreds of millions of your fellow human beings as “pissants” and as “the enemy.” But such exploitation of those founding ideals ignores the reality that the devil is in the details. What is important is how those ideals are manifest, specifically. No jingoism and self-congratulatory denigration of other humans will further those ideals, and no matter how important Chief feels his keyboard battle against his imagined adversaries might be, the reality is that his comments on blogs will have zero impact on anything of any real substance.

        So the “rule of law” there no longer condones slavery.

        Nor do the “libertarian ideals”, to which the Chief referred.

        And so you support my point. You reference “libertarian ideals” as being variable over time, changing depending on circumstance, being used to justify different phenomena by different people at different times. What those “libertarian ideals” once condoned, they condone no longer. In your opinion. I’m sorry, manacker, but I see no particular reason to see your interpretation of those ideals as being inherently more valid than the interpretation of slave-holders. In some areas I might agree with your interpretation and ins some areas I might disagree. Until such time as you show me some evidence that you are a supernatural being (let alone a rational skeptic as opposed to a “skeptic”), I’m afraid I will not accept your interpretation (or that of the Chief) as being definitive.

        And, yes, Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder 60 some odd years earlier. But that does not detract from his thoughts on individual freedom, free markets and the rule of law and democracy.

        I must say, although you have written many classic posts, that one may take the cake. The fact that Jefferson was a slave-holder does not detract from his thoughts, say, about the nature of individual freedom?

        Beautiful!

      • @Joshua | January 29, 2013 at 2:08 pm –
        What a crock! The Rule of Law has nothing to do with slavery. You can say that SOME people did not apply the rule of law with perfection, but that isn’t the same thing. A lot of rules are violated, that in no way means the rule in question isn’t necessarily a good thing. You need a logic lesson.

      • Robert I Ellison

        The devil is indeed in the details – of which Johua has a typical trivial command.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290193

        The libertarian challenge is as I say to frame a positive narrative for the future of the world. The essence of this future is free markets, free peoples, economic development, sustainable environments, democracy and the rule of law as defined in the best contemporary practice. Times change and the Whig ideal with it. I am not mad but it is that challenge and how it may be expressed that engages my attention from time to time.

        Although I note that there is some understanding dawning in Willard about conservation farming and the many on site and downstream benefits. With Joshua it is just fun to call him a pissant progressive and say he looks like a monkey and smells like one too.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Robert I Ellison asserts  “The libertarian challenge is as I say to frame a positive narrative.”

        Robert I Ellison, it is good to know that rational libertarians will be abandoning free-market ideology.

        After all, it’s completely apparent, to every citizen with common-sense, that computerized trading at micro-second speeds, by computer programs that are written by PhDs in mathematics, that are employed by giant corporations … has nothing to do with cultivating Jeffersonian virtues in the body politic, eh?

        Uhhh … the efficient cultivation of civic virtue *is* what free markets are all about eh?

        And so it’s obvious, that free markets are *not* a virtuous end-in-themselves, right? `Cuz putting markets first — in the modern computer era especially> — would be ack-basswards, willfully ignorant, ideology-first crazy-talk, eh?

        Seems to me, that today’s main challenge for strict libertarians, it to appreciate that strict libertarianism nowadays makes very little sense!

        Perhaps that’s why strict libertarians do poorly in elections nowadays … it’s because voters have learned plain common-sense? And as for non-strict libertarians … they’re not easy to distinguish from Bill and Hillary Clinton, 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}

      • Robert I Ellison

        Free markets are a virtuous end in themselves but they are and never have been moral. Although one can argue that the actor in markets should have an ethical frameworks in which to make decisions – this is not always guaranteed. It is not always guaranteed in society that people will act justly or honestly. This is why we have courts and jails – a core function of the government in imposing the rule of law – and why we have rules for markets. You deliberately and falsely conflate libertarianism with laissez faire economics. Laissez faire economics is an object lesson in economic theory – not to be confused with the real world. Libertarianism is a practical and pragmatic and ongoing reflection on laws and rules, methods and means, the roles of government, industry and the polity. There are some fundamental tried and true techniques for economic managment – chief amongst these is the management of interest rates, the balancing of budgets, reasonable restraint in government taxation and expenditure, and effective and transparent banking and market regulation.

        It is a shame that America is relearning these lessons – at some considerable cost to the ordinary person and American power. But you will find that free markets will not be abandoned any time soon.

      • “Free markets are a virtuous end in themselves but they are and never have been moral.”

        Half right. Free markets are not moral. Nor are science, governments, corporations, education, hammers…. But free markets are also not a virtuous end in themselves, and for the same reason.

        That which is not human is not moral or immoral, virtuous or sinful. A free market is a mechanism. It is the economic mechanism of what has been the freest, most powerful, most generous culture in history. But “free markets” also existed on a limited scale in the trading of slaves and sale of horribly addictive drugs, hardly virtuous ends in themselves.

        It is people who are moral or not. What we are witnessing now is an experiment in attempting to retain a free market, while jettisoning the moral framework of the society in which it developed. We shall see what the law of unintended consequences has to say about that.

        “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

        Alexis de Tocqueville

      • It is people who are moral or not. What we are witnessing now is an experiment in attempting to retain a free market, while jettisoning the moral framework of the society in which it developed.

        No doubt:

        Jefferson still needed a cohort of “labourers in the ground” to carry out the hardest tasks, so the Monticello slave community became more segmented and hierarchical. They were all slaves, but some slaves would be better than others. The majority remained laborers; above them were enslaved artisans (both male and female); above them were enslaved managers; above them was the household staff. The higher you stood in the hierarchy, the better clothes and food you got; you also lived literally on a higher plane, closer to the mountaintop.

        If only we had retained that moral framework – eh?

      • “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

        And there we go. No morality without faith. No confirmation bias there. Nosireebub.

        Say, Gary, I may have missed it, but I still don’t recall seeing your explanation for how you were so completely wrong in your conspiracy theorizing about how the pre-election polls were rigged to give Obama the advantage. Did you see how, contrary to your unhinged analysis, in fact the vast majority of polls underestimated Obama’s performance?

        Surely you provided an explanation, right? I mean you couldn’t have possibly ducked the issue for this long, could you?

      • Robert I Ellison

        The virtuous end is the provision of sustenance and shelter – which is best achieved with free markets.

      • Robert I Ellison

        ‘Jefferson and other members of the founding generation were deeply influenced by the 18th-century European intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment. Enlightenment philosophy stressed that liberty and equality were natural human rights.

        Colonial Americans argued that King George III and Parliament had denied them the basic rights of British citizens. Despite the pervasiveness of slavery in their society, the revolutionary generation envisioned a new American government that secured the rights and freedoms of its citizens. However, these rights and freedoms did not extend to slaves.’

        In resulted in the paradox of slavery – but the fires of freedom are not quenched that easily and ultimately emerged in the formation of the Republican Party.

        ‘In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which opened the new territories to slavery, was passed. Southern Whigs generally supported the Act while Northern Whigs remained strongly opposed. Most remaining Northern Whigs, like Lincoln, joined the new Republican Party and strongly attacked the Act, appealing to widespread northern outrage over the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.’

        Ultimately – the US paid a heavy price for the abolition of slavery. .

      • Robert I Ellison

        Felons indeed David Springer – some poor sode were transported for failing to meekly starve to death and the population was salted by Scottish enlightenment freedom fighters. We quickly grew taller, stronger, smarter and much more assertive to those who might otherwise assume that they are our betters. Australia is our place in the sun – Australis felix.

      • Robert I Ellison

        That’s sod of course – mysterious appearances and disapearances are occurring. I must say it makes posting intersting.

      • David Springer

        Robert I Ellison | January 29, 2013 at 7:04 pm | Reply

        “We quickly grew taller, stronger, smarter and much more assertive to those who might otherwise assume that they are our betters.”

        In other words you quickly became more American. A noble goal indeed. Maybe someday you’ll get there.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Well it is this way Springer – we might accept Texans as fellow travellers – but the rest of the country is all hat and no cow.

      • Robert I Ellison

        So let’s recap wee willie,

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290058

        First the repetition was of course accidental – and to make some point of it is most ungenerous.

        > I’m not sure in which way Stern was wrong. Here’s a thought experiment to settle this.

        So this example was not serving as an analogy to climate modelling, but as an analogy for the use of the word “wrong”. Since you insisted so much about the chaotic nature of weather and the intrinsic indeterminacy of climate modelling, I played along, for conversation sake. But I had no commitment to do so.

        I also played along because even if you were to prove that climate modelling is not like poker modelling, we’d learn something. It provided me the incentive to do some digging (to draw some more cards, to keep with the theme) and found some interesting stuff about chaos theory, which I’ve not touched since at least a decade. My old thesis advisor was quite fond of attractors.

        Surely the point was that Stern ‘had a good hand’. My response by reference to a considerable scientific expertise was that the quality of the hand was unknown as past some time there was no longer a single deterministic solution and that – realistically – we don’t know how to estimate the spread in solutions with confidence (McWilliams 2007).

        So there is no realistic basis for either the original or upwardly revised claim. The foundations of the prognostication evaporate and what we are left with is the fallacy of assertion. Asserting something without proof is an error.

        You should think more about chaos as the core of models and as identified both phenomenonologically and numerically in climate.

        My point is that: poker is a game played by using models, we can model weather forecasting as a game, and this game would share structural similarities with the family of poker games, since it relies on models to make decision under uncertainty.

        I am quite bored with poker analogies. Models rely on equations that propagate through time. Weather models initialise conditions providing a window of some veracity for a few days until the solutions diverge from reality. Longer term probabilistic forecasts rely on similarities of current to past conditions. Stochasticity is in play in poker but the uncertainty in climate and weather is a different animal. There is uncertainty in data measurement and in representing processes at very small scales. These lead to structural instability and sensitive dependence in models – leading to what is perhaps best understood as ‘irreducible imprecision’ (McWilliams again). Poker does not assist in comprehending the fundamental maths of models or understanding their nonlinear behaviour.

        Thought experiments help visualize complex problems by setting up a simplified representation. Climate projections have the same utility: they help simplify what would otherwise be intractable. Both could be considered cognitive amplifier:

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

        Cognitive amplifiers are not required to have predictive skills to have their use. (We could ask for potential economic value alright, pending further specification of that concept, but let’s not digress.) If that’s the only weapon you got, you try to make the best of it.

        No one is suggesting that models not be used to explore conceptually how climate works – nor indeed that probabilistic forecasting will not be feasible at some time in the future as Palmer – and many others – suggest.

        You have progressed from Stern has a good hand to climate models are not deterministic but chaotic in the sense of theoretical physics and don’t have predictive skills. Congrats – I doubt that Stern understands that.

      • > Surely the point was that Stern ‘had a good hand’.

        No. Try again.

      • Robert I Ellison

        I’m not sure in which way Stern was wrong. Here’s a thought experiment to settle this. Suppose I tell you I have very, very good chances my next Poker hand just after having raised.

        You’re logical fallacy is splitting hairs. All that’s left in the tank wee willie?

      • Chief brings up a nice flush:

        (1) The Devil are in the details.

        (2) You are splitting hairs.

        Procrustes would fold with envy.

      • Robert I Ellison

        ‘And though I suggest that libertarians would endorse social health insurance – the devil (or barbarian as the case may be) is in the detail and I know too little about obamacare to comment.’

        Procrustes of course changed the length of his guests to suit the bed.

        The logical fallacy is distraction.

      • > Let’s try the more direct way: I don’t think Stern was saying that his calculations were incorrect, but that, in retrospect and considering the new game state, they might have been a bit too optimistic. Twas a figure of speech, really.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-289613

        Chief simply equivocated the word “wrong” to coatrack his pet topics on Stern’s back, starting with the assumption that none but him and his coterie realizes that weather is chaotic and that climate models can’t predict anything.

      • Robert I Ellison

        ‘Chief’ merely commented that Stern was wrong in the first instance and that there was no confidence that he was right in the second.

        Twas merely a flippant comment.

        But I hate to be mischaracterised – and the endless shifting sands of arguments with wee willie.

        What I argued was that models are chaotic – as they most certainly are – and that there is no single deterministic solution to climate models. Therefore was was as yet no rational basis for using models to claim something about the temperature in 2100. Did I not say this? Weather and climate are chaotic as well – but I digress. This is the logical fallacy of assertion without proof. So Stern was and is wrong to make a claim to knowledge that can’t be obtained from models. At best models can estimate probabilities of future temperatures – and that is a project for the future still.

        I will quote again from James McWilliams. ‘McWilliams’ primary areas of scientific research are the fluid dynamics of Earth’s oceans and atmosphere, both their theory and computational modeling. Particular subjects include the maintenance of the general circulations; climate dynamics; geostrophically and cyclostrophically balanced (or slow manifold) dynamics in rotating, stratified fluids; vortex dynamics; planetary boundary layers; planetary-scale thermohaline convection; the roles of coherent structures in turbulent flows in geophysical and astrophysical regimes; numerical algorithms; statistical estimation theory; and coastal ocean modeling.

        In the past several years he has helped develop a three-dimensional simulation model of the U.S. West Coast that incorporates physical oceanographic, biogeochemical, and sediment transport aspects of the coastal circulation. This model is being used to interpret coastal phenomena, diagnose historical variability in relation to observational data, and assess future possibilities.’

        ‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?

        Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.’ McWilliams 2007.

        There is no single solution. The individual model ensemble members are chosen after the fact on the basis of ‘a posteriori solution behaviour’. It looks good so it’s in. Confidence evaporates entirely.

        So this is hardly unknown except to me and ‘my coterie’. A very nice coat it is too. It is just that Stern – and by extension wee willie – is utterly clueless.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Nicolas Stern admits he was wrong:

        The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are “on track for something like four “. Had he known the way the situation would evolve, he says, “I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise.”

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davo

        This of course your original comment wee willie. The argument remains that there is no credible way to estimate either the 2 or 3 degrees rise or 4 or 5. And it becomes a rationale for wild claims about wars for food and water other imminent catastrophes. To somehow suggest that he then embraces uncertainty or that his much criticised zero discount rate is the soundest of economic principles is – apart from being utter nonsense – your logical fallacy of shifting goalposts. We were discussing the logically impossible temperature predictions. You make and can make no possible challenge to this charaterisation of models that is self evidently the way it is. Except to make silly little disparaging exclamations abotu chaos.

        The simplest and most rational way to project temperature is simply to accept that there are natural decadal variations and assume that all the warming in the instrumental record is from greenhouse gases – unlikely to be sure – and to project the trend of the instrumental record forward. We get a 0.7 degree C rise this century. Not nearly dire enough for catastrophists lke Stern I realise.

        We can of course undertake risk mitigation. Risk exists. As the dreaded Tsonis points out – a chaotic system is intrinsically sensitive and the risk is both ends of the cooling/warming spectrum and may exceed comfortable limits. Risk mitigation I have addressed elsewhere and shant repeat myself just yet.

        But yes both you and Stern continue to be relatively clueless – but you at least are rich in red herrings.

      • (This ended up in the wrong spot so am re-posting)

        Chief and Willard

        It doesn’t take a genius to see what Stern is doing here.

        When Nature is working against your doomsday predictions by interjecting a “standstill” in global warming as measured by thermometers all over the globe, and general public confidence in catastrophic climate change science is beginning to wane, the best thing to do is go on the offensive and ratchet up the fear factor with the old “it’s worse than we thought” ruse.

        It’s so obvious it hurts.

        Max

      • Manacker,
        Your comment was worth repeating :)

      • Thanks, Peter

        Max

      • Chief’s claim against Stern (and other progressive pissants) is this:

        > The argument remains that there is no credible way to estimate either the 2 or 3 degrees rise or 4 or 5.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290295

        Chief’s sole argument for his incredibilism is this:

        > What I argued was that models are chaotic [which leads to] logically impossible temperature predictions.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290295

        Following suit on red herrings can be relevant to a discussion. Most of my arguments tackled this sole argument. Nobody disagree that weather is chaotic are that models are not predictors. Chief’s argument against Stern (and other progressive pissants) has no merit and, standing aside that Chief seems to have borrowed Don Don’s vocabulary of rhetorical terms, his claim that I’m moving the goal posts is false.

        ***

        More on incredibilism over there:

        http://planet3.org/2012/08/24/incredibilism/

      • “incredibilism”?

        versus

        “credulity”?

        Go Team!

      • Robert I Ellison

        ‘The global coupled atmosphere–ocean–land–cryosphere system exhibits a
        wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena with associated physical,
        biological, and chemical feedbacks that collectively result in a continuum of
        temporal and spatial variability. The traditional boundaries between weather and climate are, therefore, somewhat artificial’. A UNIFIED MODELING
        APPROACH TO CLIMATE SYSTEM PREDICTION by James Hurrell, Gerald A. Meehl, Davi d Bader, Thomas L. Delworth ,
        Ben Kirtman, and Bruce Wielicki

        To quote myself – in context his time – What I argued was that models are chaotic – as they most certainly are – and that there is no single deterministic solution to climate models. Therefore there was as yet no rational basis for using models to claim something about the temperature in 2100.

        I know I have quoted this before from Slingo and Palmer 2011 I know.

        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.

        This really seems to be a clear cut – and quite eveident if you understand the maths – statement in peer reviewed science.

        Tim Palmer is of course well known as the head of the ECMWF. ‘My DPhil was in general relativity theory from Oxford in the mid 1970s, after which I moved into the field of weather and climate dynamics and prediction, first at the UK Meteorological Office and then at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts. I have been a visiting scientist at the University of Washington and more recently was the Rothschild Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Cambridge.’

        And you reply with some article or other on a space cadet blog site claiming that sceptics bear some similarity to the cartoon Incredibles? Your credibility is zilch and incredibily attains a new high. .

      • > Twas merely a flippant comment.

        Indeed, but let’s not forget that it also helps Chief divert the discussion into Stern’s cluelessness.

        Here’s thy wiki page for Nicholas Stern:

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

        No award or recognition can prevent Stern from being clueless about models uncertainty, of course. But here’s evidence that he acknowledges them:

        [W]e must recognize that predictions must be in terms of risks, uncertainties, and probabilities. There is uncertainty about future emissions, about the possibilities of absorption of greenhouse gases by the land, forests, and oceans, about the magnitude of warming from changes in greenhouse gas levels, and about the effects on local climates around the world. The issue for policy is how to manage risk, taking account of strong scientific evidence that the risks are potentially very large. These are not small probabilities of something nasty, but large probabilities of something catastrophic.

        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/24/climate-what-you-need-know/?pagination=false

        The topic of that book review might help explain Chief’s beef.

        The only occurence of “chaotic” is in this sentence: “In the absence of such basic preparations, negotiation by international bureaucrats on issues that require technical underpinnings and the evaluation of complex policies risk being unproductive, misguided, and chaotic.” This book review does not provide any evidence about Stern’s knowledge of chaos theory.

        Chief is welcome to have a ball. Chaos, chaos, chaos. Perhaps he could copy-paste his McWilliams’ quote again.

        ***

        Besides the usual criticisms (Nordhaus, Tol, etc.) of the Stern Review, here’s one from Dan Dennett’s alma mater:

        This report reviews and explains the differences between Stern and his academic critics. While the Stern Review is not a perfect document, it rests on much sounder ground than the economists who have attacked it. The Stern Review illustrates important ways in which economic analysis can be made to reflect the urgency of the climate problem. And it raises crucial questions about the economic aspects of climate change – even though it ultimately fails to find successful solutions to some of the important problems.

        http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/pubs/rp/sterndebatereport.pdf

      • A research program from Princeton U:

        In the spring of 2011 the research community Communicating Uncertainty: Science, Institutions, and Ethics in the Politics of Global Climate Change received funding from PIIRS. The three-year interdisciplinary community was led in its first year by Robert O. Keohane, professor of international affairs in Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs .

        The research community examines issues of uncertainty with respect to global climate change and other international environmental problems and aims to improve the capacity to discuss and weigh related policy prescriptions. Through multiple lenses, the research community will draw on the expertise of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory to work on real cases. The laboratory, located on Princeton University’s Forrestal Campus, is one of the world’s leading climate modeling centers. Sixteen Princeton faculty members from several disciplines compose the community’s core group:

        Climate scientists provide an understanding of the kinds of scientific uncertainties that arise.

        Historians contribute perspective on how uncertainty has been handled in the past regarding fields in which public policy depends in part on scientific knowledge.

        Specialists on international relations analyze the politics of climate change within global institutions, while regional specialists examine case studies of societies that have been more or less successful in adopting policy measures aimed at addressing the effects of climate change.

        Other social scientists investigate how uncertainty in scientists’ work on climate and other international environmental issues is understood by various audiences, ranging from high-level nonscientist policymakers to the general public.

        Ethicists question how policymakers concerned with ethics make decisions in light of uncertainty. What are the moral and political principles in play? What constitutes responsible communication of underlying science and policy rationale? What institutional designs facilitate such communication?

        http://www.princeton.edu/piirs/research-communities/communicating-uncertainty/

        Note the presence of Peter Singer, yet another Aussie.

        ***

        This spring, there are meetings. Note the one on Wednesday, April 24:

        IPCC Report on Climate and Uncertainty
        Howard Kunreuther University of Pennsylvania, and Elke Weber, Columbia University
        Commentator: Felix Creutzig, Technical University Berlin

        Kunreuther’s publications’ page:

        https://opimweb.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/37/research

        Searching for “Tipping Climate Negotiations, Climate Change and Common Sense: Essays in Honour of Tom Schelling. R. Hahn and A. Ulph (eds.) Oxford University Press” made us find this other page:

        http://www.opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/papers/

        There is a title under the name of both Kunrenther and Weber. Here is the abstract:

        > Utilizing findings from psychology and behavioral economics, this paper proposes strategies that reduce individuals’ cognitive and motivational barriers to the adoption of measures that reduce the impacts of climate change. We focus on ways to encourage reduction in carbon‐based energy use so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and encourage investment in adaptation measures to reduce property damage from future floods and hurricanes. Knowledge of individual decisionmaking
        processes can guide these prescriptive interventions, such as choice
        architecture in combination with effectively‐framed economic incentives.

        http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WP201219_HK-EUW_AidingDecisionsAdaptCC.pdf

        We forecast that the meeting will be around this idea.

      • Joshua

        Your last comment is as confused as your usual drivel related to climate change.

        I’m not going to get into a silly debate with you on Thomas Jefferson or libertarianism.

        It’s pointless.

        Max

      • manacker.

        It’s pointless.

        Because there is so much “point” to your many other comments at Climate Etc. They show others how they were wrong, and you were right. They convince people of your viewpoint.

        Yes, that’s why you didn’t respond to my laughter at your notion that Jefferson being a slaveholder is irrelevant to his views on individual freedom. Because there would be no “point” in trying to justify such a ridiculous statement. I mean it’s not like you’re ducking having made such a lame comment, or anything like that.

        No. Of course not.

        Too funny.

      • David Springer

        @Joshua

        Thomas Jefferson was against slavery, kind hearted, and pragmatic.

        He thought it would be cruel to free slaves before projects could be built and a welfare system established. He proposed locating the projects outside the United States sort of like what England did with felons in Australia. That worked out well for Australia. We’ll never know if Jefferson’s plan would have worked as well.

      • Really, David?

        Thomas Jefferson was against slavery, kind hearted, and pragmatic.

        Tell me, how did Jefferson treat those slaves – in his work at upholding chief’s libertarian ideals of individual freedom, a (virtuous) free market (of slave trade?), and the rule of law? Did he rape a women that he enslaved, perhaps, in a kind-hearted and pramgatic way? I mean what better way to demonstrate his concern over a woman’s individual freedom than to rape her, eh?

        I wonder if he struggled against slavery as did the Quakers, who Willis thinks just “sit around and quake?” What do you think?

      • Ah yes, those “libertarian free-market ideals,” in support of “individual freedom,” and consistent with the “rule of law.”

        Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.”

      • More of the “libertarian” ideals: “Free market,” “individual freedom,” and the “rule of law.”

        A letter has recently come to light describing how Monticello’s young black boys, “the small ones,” age 10, 11 or 12, were whipped to get them to work in Jefferson’s nail factory, whose profits paid the mansion’s grocery bills.

        But hey – who could think that whipping black boys should have anything to do with Jefferson’s views on individual freedom?

        Oh. My aching sides.

      • David Springer

        And their free descendants today murder each other over NOTHING. Is that an improvement of some kind over being whipped, Joshua?

        http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/29/15-year-old-girl-shot-and-killed-in-kenwood-neighborhood-park/

      • Weather and climate are both chaotic,
        So let’s throw linear fits.

      • David Springer

        Joshua | January 29, 2013 at 6:12 pm | Reply
        A letter has recently come to light describing how Monticello’s young black boys, “the small ones,” age 10, 11 or 12, were whipped to get them to work in Jefferson’s nail factory, whose profits paid the mansion’s grocery bills.

        But hey – who could think that whipping black boys should have anything to do with Jefferson’s views on individual freedom?

        Oh. My aching sides.

        ——————————————————————————-

        Maybe you could arrest the side splitting laughter by realizing those wielding the whips were as black as those doing the whipping. Black on black violence using whips in Montecello 250 years ago has become black on black violence today using guns instead of whips. And the reasons for the violence far less clear. The Monticello boys could have avoided the lash by doing what they were told. This girl here was doing everything right and she still died at the hands of members of her own race:

        http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/29/15-year-old-girl-shot-and-killed-in-kenwood-neighborhood-park/

      • Maybe you could arrest the side splitting laughter by realizing those wielding the whips were as black as those doing the whipping. Black on black violence using whips in Montecello 250 years ago has become black on black violence today using guns instead of whips.

        Ah. The hilarity continues. Jefferson wasn’t responsible for the violence because it was blacks who did the whipping. No matter that those blacks who did the whipping were freakin’ slaves owned by Jefferson – with no rights of their own, and whose very existence was owed to them doing as their master bade them to do.

        I mean I’m sure that those doing the whipping merely decided to do it on their own, that it had nothing to do with productivity and Jefferson’s income, and that no doubt, Jefferson never heard anything about it, as being “kind-hearted and pragmatic” surely he’d want the people he held in bondage – and systematically denied the rights that he dedicated his life in fighting to obtain for white people – to only be denied human rights, and not be whipped.

        Is there no end to your ability to avoid accountability?

        Say – willard, if you’re reading, what would you call David’s attempt to transition the discussion of Jefferson’s slave ownership to his feelings about violence in 21rst century in black communities in Chicago?

      • David Springer

        The point you seem unable or unwilling to grasp is that violence against blacks didn’t diminish with abolition. Instead of a black overseer’s whip in southern slave states it’s a black gang banger’s gun now in every state and the problem is arguably worse because even innocent little girls doing everything right like the one in the article are not safe in a northern state.

        At any rate slavery is illegal in all 57 of these United States and little black girls still aren’t safe but it isn’t white people who are killing them. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

      • the problem is arguably worse because even innocent little girls doing everything right like the one in the article are not safe in a northern state.

        The hilarity continues. The problem is worse than when blacks were relegated to slavery, systematically denied any component of human rights, whipped with impunity, raped with impunity, fed just enough scraps to keep alive, chained, sold, punished for learning how to read, not allowed to vote, etc. The problem is worse than when every black person was subjected to violence with no need for explanation and no legal accountability for doing so.

        Spectacular!

      • David Springer

        Illinois was never a slave state.

      • The point you seem unable or unwilling to grasp is that violence against blacks didn’t diminish with abolition.

        A truly spectacular comment unto itself. Imagine the ignorance required to make such a statement!

      • At least Springer reminds us all that you are not such a bad guy after all Joshua ;^)

      • > Violence against blacks didn’t diminish with abolition.

        Since violence only applies to people and not furniture, this statement is trivially true.

        We could even claim that it has increased, since at the time of abolition it was zero.

      • David Springer

        Wrong again, Wee Willie. Your command of language leaves a lot to be desired. Simple referral to a dictionary once in a while would improve your writing tremendously. Violence is by definition not confined to free men. I might concede its confinement to living things but even that’s arguable.

        vi·o·lence

        /ˈvī(ə)ləns/

        Noun

        1.Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
        2.Strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.

      • A dictionary won’t give you the legal term, Big Dave.

        Go fetch, big boy!

      • If you have access to Jstor, here’s something that might help you, Big Dave:

        http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1228541

        No, I’m not helping you rehearsing an old Internet claptrap.

      • Perhaps you can start from the beginning, Big Dave:

        > Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law, and is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.

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

      • In the spirit of full disclosure, here’s where we’re heading, Big Dave:

        http://www.thecorporation.com

        Please do continue.

      • David Springer

        I guess I failed to realize this blog is actually a court of law.

        But you’re still wrong:

        http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/violence

        Law: the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

        While the exercise of physical force agains the slave was legal the exhibition of force was clearly to intimidate the slave and thus still falls under the definition of violence. One can’t intimidate furniture but only a complete imbecile would argue that a slave could not be intimidated. Thanks for playing. I hope your game improves but until it does you’re just not in my league.

      • > Collectivist – limits obsessed – redistributive – dangerous – naive.

        Chief for the win!

      • Robert I Ellison

        Yea – willie for the pissant progressive hall of fame. We have these two ideas. Optimal economic growth – which we know how oto engineer. And it is not with the reckllessness of the US and Europe. This is contrasted with ‘economic degrowth’. This seems an example of utterly incompatible aspirations. So prepare to be further marginalised as the world declines to warm.

      • Robert I Ellison

        The world belongs to the builders and architects – the future is conceived in love and joy – hope is the last human attribute to perish – freedom is the unquenchable fire within.

        Much better – it packs another meaning into the sentence by conflating birth and invention – family and the creative soul.

        These postcards from the Climate War have been fun. In the real world the rivers are rising and there is no fresh food, bread or milk in the shops. Amazing how fragile our systems are and how much care and luck it takes to maintain them. Eh – let them eat lasagna. Speaking of which – I can smell it – it’s cooked. Bye.

      • > If you want to do a check on “climate uncertainty” […]

        After replaying his CAGW card using other words, MiniMax now returns to his other pet card: CS.

        Here’s what I already said on another subthread:

        > But you can go first, if you do care about lukewarm symbology.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-289429

        MiniMax should already know that I don’t care much about lukewarm symbology.

        Readers will notice MiniMax’ silence on that subthread.

      • Willard

        “Lukewarm” is a good expression.

        Doesn’t change the fact that several new papers and articles are suggesting that that model derived (2xCO2) ECS in AR4 was exaggerated by a factor of two.

        Maybe it is telling us that future warming from CO2 will be “lukewarming”.

        Ever thought about that while you contemplate your navel and ponder “uncertainty”?

        Max

      • Robert I Ellison

        wee willie linked to a couple of articles recently – one was discussing war and famine and other dire outcomes of global warming and the other using weather related disasters to create a revolution in society. It seems disingenuous in the extreme to then quibble about CAWG.

        Neither of these articles has any relevant science but are simply the usual litany of catastrophe from cult of AGW millennialist space cadets. Neither of them is worth a second glance.

        Climate sensitivity is of course variable both spatially and temporally – and actual warming from CO2 seems quite minimal. This is not is not to say that abrupt and nonlinear is not potentially an issue. But the politics of carbon mitigation is problematic – principally as the world is not warming for a decade or three more at least. Just so long as the space cadets hold on to their agenda to use wether disaster and ever wilder declarations of dire futures – documented in the Jacobin article – to create a social and economic revolution will be just as long as practical responses elude us.

      • David Springer

        It’s a bit unnerving to think about how often I find myself nodding my head in agreement with a curmudgeon like you. An acquired taste perhaps. Like beets or horseradish.

      • David Springer

        Damn broken threading. Lest there was any doubt the curmudgeon is Ellison.

      • Robert I Ellison

        I assure you the feeling is quite mutual Springer – and please tell me when you get the urge to dance naked so I can avoid the hemisphere.

      • David Springer

        You should be so lucky.

      • Actually Robert there is a minuscule net cooling effect from carbon dioxide, the main cooling being from water vapour which reduces the thermal gradient in the troposphere, and thus leads to a lower surface temperature. Without water vapour, the Second Law of Thermodynamics may be used to show that the surface temperature would have been at least 300K, rather than only about 288K. This is because the thermodynamic equilibrium state of maximum entropy is necessarily that for which a thermal gradient evolves, which is the very gradient they thought they had to explain with the old late 20th century conjecture of a radiative greenhouse effect, which was postulated and promulgated by those who were unfortunately unaware of the implications of the laws of physics. Just the biggest scientific mistake the world has ever seen – but don’t worry, evidence will smash it later this year and it will pass into the history books – and remain there as a reminder that valid science always wins out, sooner or later.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Actually Doug…that was as far as I got because I have added you to the list of those I simply pass over. Your physics are simply a mish mash of nothing much at all. And you take yourself way too seriously as well.

      • Robert I Ellison

        “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.” David Attenborough

        timg56 did some other useful research – ‘http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290381

        There are at least two world views. For one the equation is people and the use of resources and the need is to reduce one or preferably both. The other understands that there are things that can be achieved in population essentially through economic development, health, education and there is much we can do with resources with technological innovation. Indeed that there is much that can be achieved in ecological conservation and restoration and in carbon mitigation. Progress that has eluded us for decades. We believe that sustainable economic growth is not just possible but is the key to a bright future for humanity.

        Let’s call the two world views – in absolutely neutral language – pissant progressives and liberal defenders of freedom, justice and democracy. The world views are of profoundly incompatible. In the method of Marcuse – liberal truths are buried in obfuscation and vilification. There are expressions that are not allowable in the public spaces. Quite literally in some laws proposed for Australia – proposals that are almost universally rejected and that will never see the light of day. It was proposed in a government appointed review of media laws – for instance – to make publication of climate scepticism illegal in the media and on the net. A laughable attempt to curtail free speech. There is however this urge to totalitarianism that is always an undercurrent in the progressive zeitgeist. As Hayek said – from “the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.” We have seen it before.

        One side wants a rich, resilient world building on our technologies. The other side promulgates dire prophecies in the hopes of creating a revolutionary moment in which societies and economies can be radically reshaped. The choice between hope and despair seems a simple one.

      • I repeat in the correct place..

        Myrrh | February 1, 2013 at 5:46 am | Reply
        Gosh, and I thought it was AGW/CAGWs who took themselves way to seriously, believing in fantasies and passing themselves off as scientists.

      • And I’m sure your physics would be as you describe, Robert T Ellison if you were to attempt to explain the 720K temperature at the Venus poles which receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation..

        Try reading Dr Hans Jelbring’s peer-reviewed 2003 journal paper http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

      • Clicking on MiniMax’ name still brings me bad luck.

        Here was the response above:

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290389

        Here it is again:

        > Ever thought about that while you contemplate your navel and ponder “uncertainty”?

        After playing CAGW and CS, now MiniMax plays AdHominem, or perhaps in this case AbdHominem.

        As if searching for resources and sharing them amounted to navel gazing.

        Readers should wonder what pontificating around a few pet cards sounds like, then.

        Let’s hope Big Dave will bring me luck again.

      • David Springer

        willard (@nevaudit) | January 30, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Reply

        After playing CAGW and CS, now MiniMax plays AdHominem, or perhaps in this case AbdHominem.

        As if searching for resources and sharing them amounted to navel gazing.

        Readers should wonder what pontificating around a few pet cards sounds like, then.

        “Let’s hope Big Dave will bring me luck again.”

        Normally people have to rub my tummy to bring them luck. I can hardly begin to say how glad I am that you were able to reap the benefit absent physical contact. Overjoyed is too mild to express the emotion. An urge to dance naked in the moonlight thanking any and all pagan gods who might be listening is perhaps a better way to convey it.

        P.S. re; AbdHominem/navel gazing.

        Clever and stupid at the same time. I wish you’d focus on learning the definitions of real words, words like ‘violence’ instead of this self-indulgent wordplay that a precocious fifth grader could best you at.

      • > Normally people have to rub my tummy to bring them luck.

        Clicking on the reply button next to your name suffices for me, Big Dave.

        > I wish you’d focus on learning the definitions of real words [.]

        You were supposed to bring back a real definition of the word violence, Big Dave. Something with more bite than your some Random dictionary. Have you lost your way to the library?

        Here’s one just for you:

        Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

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

        Slaves does not meet this definition, Big Dave.

      • David Springer

        So in effect you’re saying Webster died and gave the job of authoritative definition of words in the english language to the the world health organization.

        Interesting point of view you have there. Interesting in how stupid it is.

      • Chief should have paid due diligence to that Jacobin article before saying this:

        > Just so long as the space cadets hold on to their agenda to use wether disaster and ever wilder declarations of dire futures – documented in the Jacobin article – to create a social and economic revolution will be just as long as practical responses elude us.

        Here’s how the author of the article underlines her take on the problem, with our emphasis:

        [C]ould disasters also focus public attention on the creeping crisis that threatened the region’s future one foot of marshland at a time? In that respect, Katrina and BP seemed like potential moments for transformation, when people would be energized around issues they’d once dismissed as the province of environmentalists.

        The reality has been more complicated. Awareness and understanding of the coastal crisis jumped, and civic participation boomed — at least among those who’d come back — as people tried to figure out what the future of New Orleans and coastal Louisiana would be. Sustainability is on the tip of every tongue — though there’s little consensus on what it means.

        http://jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-flood-next-time/

        Chief’s beef is unjustified.

        Yet again.

      • Robert I Ellison

        ‘Crises and disasters are of particular interest to politics that seek to transform embedded institutions and practices, whether radical or reformist. They bring underlying processes and patterns to the surface and shake the foundations of the status quo, offering a view of how things might be reconstructed differently — and the chance to do so.’

        ‘Climate change fundamentally challenges the hyper-individualist, growth-obsessed tenets of modern American liberalism, to say nothing of conservatism.’

        The thrust is bitingly clear to a jaundiced eye such as mine. Collectivist – limits obsessed – redistributive – dangerous – naive. Nothing that offers means of increasing the wealth and resilience of societies.

      • Robert I Ellison

        That was of course a reply to wee willie and his self serving quoting.

      • I will close my weekly review of searching for “climate uncertainty” results in my search engine, tweaked so that it will give me the weekly hits.

        There’s this one by Frank Ackerman, mentioned elsewhere in the thread, advertizing a forthcoming book:

        As we explain, both science and economics have continued to advance since Stern’s path-breaking work. After a review of “climate science for economists,” we examine three major areas: the treatment of climate damages in economics; new developments in economic theory; and the economics of mitigation and adaptation. Here are a few highlights from our book:

        Recent studies suggest that peak temperatures, once reached, will persist for centuries, if not millenia. Mitigation scenarios have often assumed that the world can “overshoot” a target such as 2°C of warming and then come back to it through later emission reductions; since this option is not available, much more stringent reductions are needed for climate stabilization.

        There is essentially no basis for the projection of future climate damages in many models. The use of simple, often quadratic, “damage functions” shapes the results of leading climate economics models, solely on the basis of modelers’ guesses. Empirical research, meanwhile, is finding increasingly ominous evidence of climate damages in agriculture, forestry, ocean acidification, and other areas.

        http://triplecrisis.com/climate-economics-the-state-of-the-art/

        Yet another economist that remains skeptical of model projections.

        ***

        Since I have no real dog in this economists’ fight and am more interested in issues of Open Access, I tried to post this comment:

        > I agree, the cost is unfortunately high; authors don’t get to set the prices that publishers charge for books (we would have priced it much lower). Can you persuade your library to buy a copy?

        Editors can choose their publishers according to their pricing policy.

        There are ways to publish research papers that can compete on the apps’ market. For instance, Jean Goodwin’s **Between Scientists & Citizens: Proceedings of a Conference at Iowa State University** costs a buck:

        http://jeangoodwin.net/2012/07/26/between-scientists-citizens-proceedings-of-a-conference-at-iowa-state-university-june-1-2-2012/

        Authors might try to find klout the modern way.

        For more background, v.

        http://www.aaronsw.com

        I will try later.

      • Willard

        You comment on your search for “climate uncertainty”.

        If you want to do a check on “climate uncertainty”, check out all the recent papers and articles pointing to a (2xCO2) equilibrium climate sensitivity around half of that previously estimated by IPCC based on model predictions (Judith’s “bombshell” on an earlier thread).

        It will be interesting to see how IPCC reacts to all this new information in its AR5 report, to be published next year some time. (Judith felt it was unlikely that IPCC would try to “sweep this under the rug”, but we’ll have to wait and see).

        Max

      • you might like one of my favorite authors,Carlyle. err he went way way too far this piece , but read it. Its the source of the phrase -the dismal science

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

      • Robert I Ellison

        Language is fluid – but the Whigs in both Britian and the US were clearly on balance abolitionist and had many more ‘progressive’ elements to their platforms. They continued in the tradition of Locke and Hume and others from the Scottish enlightenment. If you read Hayek’s essay – Why I am not a conservative – there is a little history.

        This is clearly the purest lineage of modern libertarian ideals. Although perhaps we should follow Hayek is this as well and identify as Whigs. The problem with that is that no one has the remotest idea what that means and the purpose of language is utterly defeated.

      • There ought never be enough uncertainty communicatin':

        In the spring of 2011 the research community Communicating Uncertainty: Science, Institutions, and Ethics in the Politics of Global Climate Change received funding from PIIRS. The three-year interdisciplinary community was led in its first year by Robert O. Keohane, professor of international affairs in Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs .

        http://www.princeton.edu/piirs/research-communities/communicating-uncertainty/

        Note the participation of Peter Singer, yet another Aussie:

        http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/

        ***

        Among the meetings scheduled for spring 2013, there is this one:

        IPCC Report on Climate and Uncertainty
        Howard Kunreuther, University of Pennsylvania, and Elke Weber, Columbia University

        Here’s the publication page of Kunreuther:

        https://opimweb.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/37/research

        Searching for “Tipping Climate Negotiations, Climate Change and Common Sense: Essays in Honour of Tom Schelling. R. Hahn and A. Ulph (eds.) Oxford University Press”, we stumbled upon this other publications’ page:

        http://www.opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/papers/

        A paper by Kunrenther and Weber there: Facilitating and Aiding Human Decisions to Adapt to or Mitigate the Impacts of Climate Change .

        The abstract:

        > Utilizing findings from psychology and behavioral economics, this paper proposes strategies that reduce individuals’ cognitive and motivational barriers to the adoption of measures that reduce the impacts of climate change. We focus on ways to encourage reduction in carbon‐based energy use so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and encourage investment in adaptation measures to reduce property damage from future floods and hurricanes. Knowledge of individual decision‐ making processes can guide these prescriptive interventions, such as choice architecture in combination with effectively‐framed economic incentives.

        We predict that the meeting will be around those lines.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Will this nest – in case not. – http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290140

        So obviously Breakthrough is not the pissant progressive who believes in ‘economic degrowth’, the overthrow of democracy, mandatory tofu and compulsory sterilisation? Someone tell Joe Romm that they are not a conservative conspiracy.

      • Willard

        From a British persective and having only just read the comment and its context, surely Anthony Watts meant Zeke is mad as in the ‘angry’ meaning, not the ‘mentally unbalanced’ sense of the word.
        tonyb

      • tonyb,

        Yes, it’s quite obvious that Tony meant “angry” when he said “mad”.

        That does not excuse his ad hominem.

      • Willard and Josh

        I agree that there no call for the Ad Homs. Accusations of fraud help no one, personally I dont subscribe to the fraud or conspiracy theories.

        Joshua ; The name changes are beyond my own comprehension. I am logged in as both names for historical reasons and sometimes the ‘system’ decides to use one name and sometimes another.

        tonyb

      • The climate is composed of many too many elements that simply cannot be added up and divided to arrive at a statistically meaningful average. The usefulness of an average global temperature has been compared to an average of all telephone numbers and calculating the world’s average currency exchange rate. Even if we could determine a statistically relevant, scientifically meaningful average global temperature, what will the gold standard of temperature be that we are all supposed to desire and work together to bring about? If we only could.

        It sounds like attempting to fabricate a leaning Tower of Nazi Babel to demand that everyone agree on an ideal average global temperature–even if that were possible. And, what if we don’t? What if trying to control Earth’s climate is the real disaster? The only disaster.

      • tony –

        surely Anthony Watts meant Zeke is mad as in the ‘angry’ meaning…

        I don’t think that anyone questions that. But with that interpretation, it is nonetheless a condescending remark, and unaccountable for Zeke’s objection to Watts’ irresponsible implication of fraud.

        Additionally, if being “angry” were reason to dismiss criticism (assuming that Zeke even was “angry”), then Anthony would have to dismiss almost every one of Willis’ posts at WUWT.

        BTW – tony – is there an explanation for when you use climatereason and when you use tonyb?

      • The witchdoctors of academia have been willing and material enablers in the use by their government employers of the authority of science to advance the political objectives of the Left. The promotion by Liberal Utopians that modern man is destroying the planet must ultimately be seen as a victory for Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev who years ago predicted in Russian, “We will bury you!” The modern English translation is, Choose Socialism, Vote Democrat and Stop the Seas from Rising! Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic aimed at superstitious and gullible hypocrites to grab political power and destroy Americanism.

      • Robert I Ellison

        You seem to know little of the history of the scientific enlightenment. The libertarian ideals are indeed the ideals on which America was founded – individual freedom, free markets, the rule of law and democracy. Who could argue with that FOMBS?

        The economic principles on which free markets should be founded are likewise confirmed by history. At the centre of prudential management of markets is the managment of interest rates to prevent asset bubbles and the maintenance of balanced government budgets. It is clear that the relative success of the Australian economy over decades – for instance – is founded on the management of these two things. This owes much more in the rational scheme of things to Friedrich Hayek than Any Rand. Common sense and the tried and true rather than inflexible ideology.

        From you we get obfuscation rather than clarity – something that seems a defining quality of the modern pissant progressive. It stems from a need to hide their true agendas. Nothing less than the complete dismantling of industrial economies in many instances. What about you FOMBS – are you a closet wrecker hoping to take advantage of catastrophe to coast to ideological supremacy and world domination? Planet Earth to FOMBS…

        What we have seen is failure over more than 20 years to move on carbon mitigation. What we get from you is more arm waving propaganda. What we get from the Hartwell Group is pragmatic proposals on black carbon and tropospheric ozone, technological innovation and cheap renewable energy, the consevation and restoration of agricultural land and ecosystems, health, education and development initiatives that inevitably reduce population pressures. The difference between arm waving and clarity in policy objectives couldn’t be more stark.

      • “Libertarianism and Marxism both are simple-minded ideologies that sound wonderful in principle”

        Well I’m not sure about Libertarianism, but I wouldn’t say that Marxism was simple minded. Particularly with Americans, mention of Marxism often brings North Korea into the conversation with suggestions that if anyone is even slightly sympathetic to what Marx wrote they should go and live there! Which its why its often a tricky subject to discuss – and no I don’t want to live in North Korea!

        But I’d say Marxism was more applicable to our modern day western mixed economies than is generally realised. It’s not just on questions of social health care, in fact I don’t believe Marx had anything to say on that topic. But he did advocate free education and graduated levels of income tax which we all take for granted. Marx spent nearly all his time writing about capitalism and had very little to say on what socialism may be like , so I would argue that Marxism is more to do with capitalism than either socialism or communism.

        It is true that Marx did predict the demise of capitalism and that hasn’t happened. But maybe if he hadn’t made that prediction it would have done. Keynes, Hayek and all other respected pro-capitalist economists will have all read and digested what Marx had to say and have, I’d say particularly Keynes, developed theories of capitalist management which have helped prevented any such occurance at least up until now.

        We are living in an in-between type of society. Yes we have capitalism but there is a high degree of socialism involved in all economies too. The political debate is nearly always about just what the mix should be, and I think I , for one, am happy with that.

      • Robert I Ellison

        The battle of values is not at the fringes between slightly more or slightly less social services – but around utterly incompatible views on economic growth. You describe not socialism but any modern economy – indeed as was the prime concern of Hayek.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290732

        You would find if you looked that Hayek’s view of interest rate management to avoid assett bubbles are of much more fundamental importance to the Australian economy – every month – than any Keynesian insprired rush of blood to the head.

        ‘‘There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom…there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody…Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of the assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong….To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such “acts of God” as earthquakes and floods. Whenever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself or make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken….There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them….’ Hayek – The Road to Serfdom

        Like marxism – readical environmentalism leads to peddling of a climate of disaster to creare a revolutonary moment such that economic systems can be reinvented. The success of such an endevour would be an extreme danger to the polity. The difference is between economic growth and sustainable futures and ruin.

      • Robert I Ellison

        I was replying to temp. way up above.

      • Hayek, as indeed were Marx and Keynes, is an economist. There is no reason to suppose he, or any of them, has any insight on the question of CO2 emissions and AGW. Or any insight on whether oil supplies will peak or on how pollution will affect human and environmental health and the growth of the economy.

        Science and politics/economics are totally separate issues. Its fair enough to have political views but science has to trump them. If they don’t fit in with scientific reality change your politics. It makes more sense than trying to do it the other way around.

      • Robert I Ellison

        ‘In 1950, Hayek left the London School of Economics for the University of Chicago, becoming a professor in the Committee on Social Thought. Hayek’s first class at Chicago was a faculty seminar on the philosophy of science attended by many of the University’s most notable scientists of the time, including Enrico Fermi, Sewall Wright and Leó Szilárd. During his time at Chicago, Hayek worked on the philosophy of science, economics, political philosophy, and the history of ideas. Hayek’s economic notes from this period have yet to be published. He did not become part of the Chicago School of Economics, but his recognition of the impact that demand and velocity had on money were a fundamental influence on it.[35] It can be noted that he never taught at the Economics Department which unwaveringly refused him access.’ So Hayek is much more than an economist.

        The question is – despite the vagaries of climate science – what policy is what the most effective response is. And the science is very vague as you should be aware. The models are theoretically probabilisitc but in practice nonlinearity is glossed over. There are modes of natural warming and cooling that that we understand little and that are likely to shift seemingly randomly at unpredicitable intervals. Build me a climate machine and I will say it trumps something or other – if it works. But until then deliver me from the pious expressions of the cult of space cadets.

        The most effective policy response is the one that works.

        ‘The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.

        The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.’

        http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

      • Robert I Ellison

        The question is – despite the vagaries of climate science – what the most effective policy response is. The other question is how much torture syntax can take before it becomes incomprehensible.

      • Now explain the Venus temperatures, tempterrain using actual measurements by the Russians which were used to estimate that the mean radiation from the Sun which reaches the Venus surface was no more than 10W/m^2. So no more than 10W/m^2 of energy directly absorbed from the Sun goes back into the atmosphere. Thus no more than 5W/m^2 of that energy comes back down as back radiation. But you would need over 16,000W/m^2 to maintain the surface at over 730K, now wouldn’t you? Are you sure the atmosphere was isothermal initially?

      • Doug Cotton,

        Unlike you I’m not claiming to be the world’s expert on both the atmospheres of Venus and Earth but for a start I’d just question this figure of 10W/m^2

        The energy incident on the Venusian atmosphere is, according to my figures 661W/m^2. The figure for Earth is 343W/m^2. Venus is 0.72 of the distance earth from the Sun so applying the inverse square law this seems about right.

        The abedo of Venus is given as 0.8 so this would mean 0.8 x 661W would be reflected (mainly from the the clouds in the atmosphere? ) and 0.2 x 661W = 132W/m^2 would be absorbed on the surface. Or are you saying that 122W is absorbed in the clouds?

      • Doug,

        Just to continue with what I wrote previously, having thought about it a bit more, we can calculate that the effective temperature of Venus when measured from a point far away in space is about 210K or -60 degC which is surprising low. That is because the albedo of Venus is low.

        So -60degC Is effectively the temperature of the upper layer of the Venusian atmosphere, or more correctly the upper layer of the troposphere where the convection occurs.

        Now, according to the graph in Wiki

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

        The temperature of the upper layer is actually -100degC. That corresponds to the region where the temperature starts to rise again. The same as our stratosphere. Is it called a stratosphere on Venus? I’m not sure.

        Anyway I agree with Roy Spencer that the presence of a lapse rate shows the existence of a GH effect. You can’t have one without the other. So we have 70 km of Venusian atmosphere with a lapse rate of approx 10K/km means the surface is warmer by some 700 degrees that the outer atmosphere.

        So I’m not saying I can explain the measured temperatures to a high degree of precision but everything does look to be in the right ballpark.

      • Doug,

        You’ve not replied so are you happy with the above explanation? Has the penny dropped yet?

        I’d just make one more point: If we were to measure the Venusian temperature from some distance out in space, using its emitted IR radiation, we would measure -60degC, or close to it , which corresponds to a temperature in the upper region of the Venusian troposphere. We couldn’t measure the surface temperature directly as the troposphere is opaque to IR.

        But say the atmosphere wasn’t opaque but instead was transparent to IR. In all other respects say it had exactly the same properties (albedo, mass, density etc) as the present one including its transparency to visible light. I know that’s not realistic but this is a thought experiment!. We wait a time for all temperatures to restabilise.

        We repeat the experiment and remeasure the Venusian temperature and we should get exactly the same result. -60 degC. Because -60degC is the temperature that Venus needs to be in order to maintain its energy balance when it is in equilibrium.

        But, now instead of measuring the temperature in the upper reaches of the troposphere we are directly measuring the surface temperature, because now the atmosphere is totally transparent to IR, and which has cooled by around 600 degC.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Robert I Ellison “I felt a little aggrieved that I was denied the most expensive antibiotics for purely bureaucratic reasons as my insurance was paying.”

        Just to break it to you gently, Robert I Ellison, physicians commonly prefer not to prescribe expensive antibiotics except in life-or-death cases … because the microbes haven’t evolved resistance to them.

        So when narcissistic patients ask to be treated with expensive antibiotics, the Hippocratic Oath requires that physicians gently fob-off these patients with administrative excuses … because explaining these considerations to narcissists never works, eh?

        This medical example of the Tragedy of the Commons shows yet another reason why unregulated markets perform poorly in medicine … and why far-right economic ideologues have yet to specify any viable alternative to ObamaCare, eh?

        It is a pleasure to augment your appreciation of the rich interplay of ethics and economics, Robert I Ellison!

        \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}

      • Robert I Ellison

        Is this back again? No matter.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290082

        Happy to relieve your further misapprehension FOMBS.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Hmmm – I tink the threading has totally lost the plot.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/25/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-290082

      • JC,

        Robert Elliston said:

        Hmmm – I tink the threading has totally lost the plot.

        I suggest this is an example of why no nesting is worth a try, perhaps on Open Threads for a start. Just post comments in the order they are submitted and refer to previous comments by person, date and time. That part can be automated with reply buttons, but without nesting.

      • Peter Lang’s idea of no nesting (Jan 29 at 2.33am) is now actually being implemented.

        Go team!

      • David Springer

        No nesting is not being implemented. Nesting is broken and there’s just no telling where a comment will land in the tree at this point. Near as I can tell deleting comments f*cks up WordPress nesting. When Curry went on the snipping rampage she sacrificed the nesting in the threads where the snips happened.

      • I disagree strongly, as you can not then have a one to one detailed exchange that is good for the two of them and it is also good for the rest because it can be easily skipped.

      • Girma
        @ January 29, 2013 at 7:32 am

        I disagree strongly, as you can not then have a one to one detailed exchange that is good for the two of them and it is also good for the rest because it can be easily skipped.

        Sure you can. It’s done this way on many other web sites. In my experience it is by far the best way. You don’t have to go searching through the comments on the active threads to find what new has been said since you last looked at the thread and to try to find if anyone has responded to your comments. Instead, when you return, you start reading where you left off. It works much better than nesting, IMO.

      • David Springer

        With only three levels of nesting its utility is reduced. Without a user ability to open/close nesting levels its utility is further reduced. There’s not a whole lot of utility left at this point. No nesting is the least utility and is really only suitable for small numbers of comments. For blogs with fewer than say 25 comments per article no-nesting is the way to go. More than that and nesting is required. For hundreds of comments under a single article you need the standard features of user able to open/close nesting levels. Those are typically called forums not blogs.

      • Springer on nesting,

        Sounds like a plan. Could you find or write an ap that works with wordpress?

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2, there may be plugins that handle it already, but if not, one could certainly be made. Of course, one could also just fix WordPress so it doesn’t break nesting when comments get deleted.

        By the way David Springer, you can actually tell where a comment will land even if nesting gets broken. There are three places a comment may land, and all three are predictable. The first possibility is if you reply to a regular comment, your reply will land where anticipated. The second possibility is if you reply to a comment that has been orphaned, your comment will land at the very bottom of the page. The third possibility is if you make a top level comment (not replying to someone), your comment will land at the bottom of all non-orphaned comments.

        The comments that land at the bottom when nesting is broken are ones that are attached to trees that no longer exist. To prevent the borked nesting like happens here, all that is needed is a modification to the code which handles deleting comments.

      • Brandon, “Of course, one could also just fix WordPress so it doesn’t break nesting when comments get deleted.”

        I quick fix would be a “snipped” place holder, just add a Snip button by the delete button

      • David Springer

        I should have said that *I* couldn’t predict where a comment would land and hadn’t put any thought into it because I really don’t care. I have enough software development problems of my own to deal with. Curry could just delete the text inside the comment instead of the whole comment to stop it from happening. Probably an extra few clicks per snip – edit / select all / delete / save.

      • > Probably an extra few clicks per snip – edit / select all / delete / save.

        Yes. Just adding a click can become a drag and UX can be an hindrance in the beginning. OTOH, if we believe how snips work at Steve’s, it can be a time saver in the middle run.

      • Clicking on Big Dave’s name served me well, so far.

        MiniMax, not so much.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Can the consensus of science be trusted?

        This video proves *NOT*!!!

        And plausible-seeming ideology-driven economic systems — Marxism, libertarianism, etc. — are comparably likely to work as these machines, 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}

      • Chief

        There is no doubt that a line can be drawn to find the “ideal” between the extremes of a “wild West” society and one where “Mother State” takes care of everything, and that each individual might draw that line in a slightly different place.

        And I agree completely with your closing statement that “all good comes from human freedom”, and, yes, that freedom is being “challenged today by the Godless hordes of green neo-socialists barbarians inside the walls of western civilisation.”

        The amazing part is that at least the more naïve of these think they are doing this for the common good.

        Max

      • The line is indistinct – but the potential to cross lines into egregious limitations of personal freedoms exists at all times and require vigilance to identify and resist.

        […]

        All good comes from human freedom and that is challenged today by the Godless hordes of green neo-socialists barbarians inside the walls of western civilisation…

        Ah yes indeed. Thank god that the chief is here, as a brave keyboard warrior, to fight for freedom and to stand strong against the “enemy,” – that come in the form of hordes of greens who breed like rats inside the walls of western civilization, who hold the reins of power as they attempt to crush the good intentions of “skeptics.”

        Just imagine where we’d be without brave souls like the Chief, who from behind their keyboards write post after post to turn the tide against the injustice.

        I mean sure, all those in western civilization do suffer terribly at the hands of chief’s enemies… but thank god he’s around because it could be so much worse.

        Lol! I love these guys.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Joshua,

        As usual you excel in the complete absence of any meaningful content. A litany of quite unmemorable slurs intended to marginalise and ridicule.

        The truth is that you are a 5 percenter. In Australia these people live in inner city enclaves, vote green, sip latte and pontificate on the pestilence of the human race, the evils of capitalism and the limits to economic growth.

        Tedious beyond words. The challenge for libertarian ideals is to frame a positive narrative for the future. The future belongs – as the past has – to those who can best articulate a peaceful and properous future. The clearest path for the human race this centruy is freedom, free markets, the most robust of democracies and the rule of law by the consent of the governed. If you object to the agenda or the rhetoric – it makes about as much difference to the world as a monkeys fart. And you look like one too.

        Excuse me if I again refuse to take you at all seriously. You have simply not – again – cleared that bar.

        Robert I Ellison
        Chief Hydrologist

      • Chief,

        I will acknowledge that your combining relentless pomposity with obsession about arses, farts, and cleaning off your keyboard is a rather unique feat.

        I will remind you that your simplistic preaching about the benefits of freedom and democracy is bland and banal and fails to substantiate your exalted sense of self-worth.

        I will point out that despite your delusions of grandeur, writing repetitive posts on blogs, full of hand-wringing about conspiracies of “pissants,” wouldn’t do squat to save the world from your imagined enemies even if they were real.

        And I will promise you that at the very moment that I have the slightest concern over whether the chief (perhaps a title awarded to you for your leadership role in the 101st division of the fighting keyboard commandos?) takes me seriously, you will be the first to be informed.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Joshua,

        Oh the tedium. Do you have anything but complaints about imagined (or real) slights, accusation of pomposity and vague claims of conspiracies? As for inane and banal – and here I was trying for the grand and florid oratory of past heroes of freedom. Admittedly whilst comparing the impact of your prose to a monkeys fart – and saying that you look like one too. Sadly – perhaps I owe more to the scatological humour of Rebelais than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

        As for Chief – I dropped it because of I was bored with dickwads who – in full knowledge of source of the appellation – continue to try to make some idiot point or other.

        Biosketch. Robert styles himself in the blogosphere as a Chief Hydrologist. ‘Cecil Terwilliger (brother to Sideshow Bob) was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer. He opined that this was a sacred vocation in some cultures. The more I thought about this the more it resonated with me. I am an hydrologist by training, profession and (much more) through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. Given the importance of water to us practically and symbolically, there is more than an element of the sacred.’

        So I am named after a would be clown in the Simpsons. Webby could never understand this – placed me on his climate clown list with a puzzling complaint that I was self identifying with a clown. As for the chances of me taking you seriously – don’t hold your breath.

        Robert I Ellison
        Cheif Hydrologist

      • Robert I Ellison humorously said:

        “The future belongs – as the past has – to those who can best articulate a peaceful and properous future.”

        ____
        O f course, this is not what the past has shown at all. The sword has proven quite an effective tool in carving out (yes out of human flesh) vast expanses of the past—nothing to do with peaceful articulation at all. The powerful and violent have swept across vast reaches of the planet with the only truth being the power of the sword itself combined with a skilled and powerful hand, killing millions of otherwise “peaceful and articulate” people and forever changing history. Think of Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, etc.

      • Robert I Ellison

        They rather prove the point Gatesy. Brief but bloody passages in history. The world belongs to the builders and architects – the future is created with love and joy – hope is the last human attribute to perish – freedom is the unquenchable fire within.

      • Robert I Ellison said:

        “…the future is created with love and joy – hope is the last human attribute to perish – freedom is the unquenchable fire within.”

        ______
        All very noble and poetic but only half the story. History is a process whereby creation and destruction exist side by side. Yin/Yang, love/hate, joy/sorrow, and all the rest exist in eternal conflict and balance. The lion kills the gazelle so that both species might go on. Life and death exist as a partnership as it were, and the times of destruction, death, and chaos can be equally as long as the times of love and joy and sunshine in the meadows. The wolf comes calling and will have his due.

      • “Robert I Ellison said:

        “…the future is created with love and joy – hope is the last human attribute to perish – freedom is the unquenchable fire within.”

        ______
        All very noble and poetic but only half the story. History is a process whereby creation and destruction exist side by side. Yin/Yang, love/hate, joy/sorrow, and all the rest exist in eternal conflict and balance. The lion kills the gazelle so that both species might go on. Life and death exist as a partnership as it were, and the times of destruction, death, and chaos can be equally as long as the times of love and joy and sunshine in the meadows. The wolf comes calling and will have his due.”

        Destruction may be inevitable, but this does not mean it is something one should seek. The gazelle should run from the lion. The gazelle *should* “obey” and seek “the unquenchable fire within”. As should the lion.

        And history is not up and down, there are seasons and eons. It is a dance
        and song.

      • David Springer

        “The lion kills the gazelle so that both species might go on.”

        That’s one of the stupider things you’ve written and you’ve written a great many stupid things. What benefit does the lion confer upon the gazelle? Forcing the gazelle to get some exercise perhaps to ward off coronary disease and diabetes?

      • Robert Ellison said The lion kills the gazelle so that both species might go on.”

        Dave Springer That’s one of the stupider things you’ve written…. What benefit does the lion confer upon the gazelle?

        Much as it pains me to admit it I have to go with Robert on this one. Gazelles exist as a species only because they have evolved to be as they are to evade capture by predators. Similarly wolves and deer, birds and cats etc. No cats means birds, like the Kiwi bird, evolve in the direction of flightlessness. Expose them to cats and they are get eaten and go almost extinct.

        So if I can give Robert a compliment it would be to suggest that he’s said much more stupid things than this.

        But, just because the evolution of one species is very much dependent on the evolution of another, does it really follow that humans should let GH emissions rise out of all control?

      • Robert I Ellison

        What I said was that the world belongs to the builders and architects – the future is conceived in love and joy – hope is the last human attribute to perish – freedom is the unquenchable fire within.

        What I didn’t do was make any sort of dimwitted allusion to social Darwinism or make a weird little climate argument by analogy to gazelles, lions and kiwis.

        As has been said repeatedly – the most effective policy response is the one that works.

        ‘The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.

        The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.’

        http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

        The people standing in the way of progress in many needs of society and the environment is not us. TT – I suggest you stop playing games and deal in good faith for a change – you may as well because the game is moving on without you.

      • Robert I Ellison

        And I would like an apology for your suggestion that you agreed with me. Defamation in my books as it implies that I am much less clever than I think I am or am about as dumb as I think you are. Whatever. It is based on something I didn’t say.

      • Robert

        You have no empirical proof that there would be “environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings” because “climate forcings” are all natural and primarily from extra terrestrial sources over which mankind has no control. The laws of physics fully explain this, showing how surface temperatures relate to such things as atmospheric height, gravity and mean specific heat of the atmospheric gases, and that no greenhouse effect has been responsible for raising Earth’s surface by 33 degrees or the Venus surface by about 500 degrees.

        I suggest you also read this* peer-reviewed journal paper which, you may note, refers to the thesis which the author wrote for his PhD in Climatology back in 1998. No one has successfully rebutted his work with valid physics. Either be the first to do so, or stop propagating the greatest scientific mistake of all time, because it’s going to cost many lives. Think on that, even if you have a vested interest in maintaining the hoax.

        * http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

      • Robert I Ellison

        If you read the reference Doug instead of going over your rigmatole – you would note that is dicusses such things as black carbon, tropospheric ozone, sulphides, health, education, economic governance, restoration and conservation of farmlands and ecosystems. Essentially – we don’t need to know anything about climate or to have any expectations to recognise that these are goods by themelves.

        This is the third time I have posted this in the past day. Pay attention.

        We can by conservation farming increase farm productivity by 70%, decrease input costs, conserve soil, water and nutrients and improve downstream environments.

        Frankly – I think your pseudo physics is not worth spending a microsecond on. On the other hand you would do well to study practical and pragmatic options such as given in the link – one that you have not bothered to open before spouting your usual nonsense.

      • And one of the problems of “increasing farm production” is that we deplete the minerals in the food supply (especially selenium) which are vital for good health and longevity. The soil should be rested one year in seven in order to regain it’s minerals. Instead we produce two crops a year in many cases.

      • Robert I Ellison

        We need much more intensive soil and vegetation management systems to meet the challenge of the 21st century.

        Part of this is cycling nutrients in the soil – and even adding micronutrients in the form of crushed rock to soils to kick start the soil formation and soil ecologies needed to restore soil function and enhance pedogenesis.

        It is not rocket science – http://www.fao.org/ag/save-and-grow/ – but you are comparing conventional agriculture with conservation agriculture. The latter is a whole new ball game for 15% of Australian farmers and growing rapidly because of the productivity increases and decreased input costs. It includes a whole range of techniques – from adding biomass, crusher dust and charcoal on smallholder farms (about 70% of global agriculture) – to high tech GPS guided farm equipment and weed recognition software that guides pin point weedicide applications.

        And has the potential to take 500 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. What’s not to like.

      • And are they replacing such important a mineral as selenium? I doubt it. There’s a relative high level around Walcha in NSW, Australia, where there is a high percentage of people living beyond 100, as also appears the case in other selenium rich regions of the world. Selenium helps prevent cancer and works in synergy with vitamin E. Most vitamin E is removed in the process of making white bread, for example, so there are still many problems and many people being, in effect, killed by food processing and modern farming technology, which is all about saving the mighty dollar in production costs, but not looking at the end products. There are numerous studies which show long-term declines in nutrients in many fruits and vegetables, for example.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Of course it is not new Doug – http://yourorganicgardeningblog.com/rock-dust-for-bigger-better-tasting-veggies-showier-flowers/ – the importance is in soil processes. Healthy soils mean healthy foods.

        http://us-rem.com/articles/soil-sustainability/

        You don’t really pay attention do you?

      • David Springer

        R. Gates | January 30, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Reply

        “All very noble and poetic but only half the story. History is a process whereby creation and destruction exist side by side. Yin/Yang, love/hate, joy/sorrow, and all the rest exist in eternal conflict and balance. The lion kills the gazelle so that both species might go on. Life and death exist as a partnership as it were, and the times of destruction, death, and chaos can be equally as long as the times of love and joy and sunshine in the meadows. The wolf comes calling and will have his due.”

        This is just so incredibly stupid. Let’s embellish a little to illustrate the deep, deep ignorance from which it springs.

        “All very noble and poetic but only half the story. History is a process whereby creation and destruction exist side by side. Yin/Yang, love/hate, joy/sorrow, Hitler/Judaism, and all the rest exist in eternal conflict and balance. The Nazi kills the Jew so that both species might go on. Life and death exist as a partnership as it were, and the times of destruction, death, and chaos can be equally as long as the times of love and joy and sunshine in the meadows. The storm trooper comes calling and will have his due.

        See what I mean, Vern?

      • “Hayek sees interest-group politics as a threat to liberal government and the extended
        order. When a democratic institution is concerned with the political distribution of
        economic benefits to groups, group advantage becomes the basis of legislation, and
        the rule of law is likely to be violated. Political parties become coalitions of interest
        groups, and these alliances provide the legislative majorities by which such groups
        gain privileges that impose costs on the public (Hayek 1979, 5–19). As government
        interferes with market competition on behalf of favored groups, spontaneous order is
        destroyed. Intervention distorts prices and misallocates resources, and these problems
        precipitate further state direction to coordinate economic activity (1979, 89–96).
        Because economic competition among groups is the mechanism of cultural evolution,
        extensive state control of the economy can lead to the desuetude and disappearance of
        the evolved practices that gave rise to the extended order and that support its large
        population (1979, 170–73). The level of living and even the very survival of a
        substantial segment of that population may eventually be threatened when state
        control replaces the market (Hayek 1988, 7).
        Hayek argues that a legislature empowered to violate the rule of law will grant
        exploitative benefits to interest groups. If the institution that makes the rules can also
        distribute favors through the design of policy, it will abuse its lawmaking authority by
        serving special interests. He contends that contemporary legislative institutions have
        become preoccupied with policy formulation to the detriment of the general rules
        necessary for spontaneous order because framing policy offers legislators opportuni-
        ties to acquire political support by awarding privileges to interest groups. When the
        power to design policy and the power to enact general rules are combined in one
        legislative body, the former activity will gain the upper hand, and unrestrained gov-
        ernment will be the result (Hayek 1979, 15–25).

        http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CE4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.org%2Fpdf%2Ftir%2Ftir_15_01_2_boykin.pdf&ei=aUEHUY_fBYSMqQGRloCQDg&usg=AFQjCNHPk06oQfdjPM3FXEob56XC2iZMNA&bvm=bv.41524429,d.b2U&cad=rja

      • Living proof, Australia 2007-13.

      • My 2.19 was meant as a reply to jim2’s @ 10.30. Getting hard to follow …

      • Living proof – The US too!

      • Jim 2
        @ January 28, 2013 at 10:30 pm

        +100
        Thank you for those quotes of wisdom.

        The current Australian government demonstrates the truth of what he says. Up until about 2 years ago, our Leftist government had add 16,000 new regulations and removed just 89. It’s add many more since and not sure if any have been removed, but if so not many.

  27. Latimer Alder

    Can anyone tell me how I apply for some of this big sceptical money apparently sloshing around the denialosphere?

    I do my bit to fight the good fight against the forces of alarmism…but have never even had the sniff of half a crown. And – judging by the appearance and habits of my fellow sceptics that I have met in person – neither have they.

    So where does it all go? And how can I lay my hands on my fair share? Its been an expensive winter with unexpected snow and ever-rising energy bills.

  28. The fundamental assumption of the greenhouse effect is that back radiation has warmed the surface from 255K to 288K. But this assumption is itself based on a false assumption.

    Roy Spencer (in his post about Greenhouse misunderstandings) claims in his point (6) that the atmosphere would have been isothermal at 255K in the absence of any GHG.

    An isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which reads: “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system”

    In isothermal conditions there would be more potential energy (PE) in eash molecule at the top, and, because kinetic energy (KE) is homogeneous, molecules could “fall” downwards and do work in the process. hence it was not an equilibrium state, let alone one of maximum entropy, as is required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics has to be obeyed. So (PE+KE) has to be homogeneous, because otherwise work could be done, and so the system would not be at an equilibrium with greatest entropy, as the Second Law requires. In the process of reaching such equilibrium it is inevitable that molecules at the bottom have more kinetic energy, and there are more of them in any given volume, and so that does give a measure of higher pressure, yes. But the whole column could still cool down, maintaining the same gradient and pressure.

    So pressure does not maintain temperature. The relationship in the ideal gas law only applies in adiabatic conditions, but the atmosphere can radiate heat away. If you “turned off” the Sun, Venus atmosphere and surface would eventually cool down.

    We need to consider how the thermal energy actually gets into the Venus surface, especially at the poles. The facts are ..

    (1) the poles receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation.

    (2) the atmosphere 1Km above the poles is at least 9 degrees cooler, and not absorbing much insolation either. It could have at most 1W/m^2 coming back out of the surface, which (at 0.5 absorptivity) would raise it to a mere 7K.

    (3) Rather than being 7K, the lowest Km of the Venus atmosphere is around 720K, just a few degrees less hot than the surface.

    If all convection (resulting from absorbed incident insolation at various altitudes) only went down the thermal gradient (ie towards space) how would enough energy get into the surface, especially if it were even just 1 degree hotter than the base of the atmosphere?

    My answer is that the sloping playing field (the thermal profile) becomes a level playing field due to gravity, so all energy absorbed in the atmosphere (mostly incident insolation) spreads out in all directions, creating convection both up and down, and also diffusion and convection right around the globe producing equal temperatures at equal altitudes, but higher temperatures at lower altitudes. Then intra-atmospheric radiation reduces the magnitude of the net gradient by about 10% to 15% on Venus, (as best I can work out) but by about a third on Earth. Some of the extra reduction on Earth. though, is probably due to release of latent heat.

    Here’s a thought experiment. Construct a perfectly insulated sealed cylinder filled with pure nitrogen gas. Suppose there are two insulating dividers which you can now slide into place one third and two thirds up the cylinder, thus making three equal zones. Warm the middle zone with a heating element, which you then turn off. Allow equilibrium to establish with the warmer nitrogen in the central zone. Then remove the dividers. Those molecules which move to the top zone will lose some KE as they gain extra PE, whereas those which fall to the lowest zone will gain KE as they lose PE. Hence, when the new equilibrium is established, the highest zone measures a lower temperature than the middle zone, and the lowest zones measures a higher temperature than the middle zone. Hence the highest zone measures a lower temperature than the lowest zone. QED.

    So there is no need for any greenhouse effect to raise the surface temperature, simply because gravity cannot help but do so, because the atmosphere must obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    • Physicists had this argument in the 19th century. Claiming an isothermal column ( for an isolated column) were Maxwell and Boltzmann , on the side of a temperature gradient was Loschmidt.

      They all agreed though that if there were an isothermal gradient, the implication was that a perpetual motion machine was possible and not in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics.

      My money would be on no perpetual motion machine and no thermal gradient but I’d like to be wrong! If such machines were possible we’d have a very green and everlasting source of energy.

      http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3028792

      • Should be : They all agreed though that if there were a temperature gradient……………..

      • “In 1868, J.C. Maxwell proved that a perpetual motion machine of the second kind would become possible if the equilibrium temperature in a vertical column of gas subject to gravity were a function of height. However, Maxwell claimed that the temperature had to be the same at all points of the column. So did Boltzmann. Their opponent was Loschmidt, who died more than 100 years ago, in 1895. He claimed that the equilibrium temperature declined with height, and that a perpetual motion machine of the second kind operating by means of such a column was compatible with the second law of thermodynamics. Thus, he was convinced that he had detected a never‐ending source of usable energy for humankind.”

        As guess, I imagine they would have thought nuclear energy was perpetual motion machine [particularly, if they were aware of
        fantastical ideas like breeder reactors].

        So, Maxwell saying that gravity does not affect equilibrium temperature
        and Loschmidt was saying that “equilibrium temperature declined with height”.
        We know temperature declines with height- but all 3 of them would known this obvious fact.
        But issue is equilibrium temperature, not temperature.
        So what did they mean by equilibrium temperature?
        It means balanced heat.

        So accordingly, Maxwell is correct and Loschmidt is wrong.

        And it’s my impression that Doug Cotton also believes that with atmosphere with decreasing temperature with elevation, that there is balanced heat- or a equilibrium temperature.
        Or seems that is part of what wrote paper about and continually posting about.

        At least it works until you get to the stratosphere, at which point, one has continued decrease in air density, yet air temperature rising.

        Of course we do know how to change the atmospheric lapse rate,
        so if wanted lower equilibrium temperature with elevation, you could manage it.
        So you could have Loschmidt’s “never‐ending source of usable energy for humankind”
        But, it seems like an expensive way to harvest energy.
        And not a perpetual motion machine. But it is practically unlimited
        source of energy.
        But so is wind or solar energy.

      • Yes, I am very aware of all that, but their argument about perpetual motion is wrong, as is explained in my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” as well as in an article awaiting publication, from which I quote below …

        * Rebuttal of counter arguments:

        Sometimes it is assumed that a wire outside the cylinder running from the warmer base of the cylinder to the top would conduct heat back up. However, gravity also induces a thermal gradient in a solid, and we need to calculate the weighted mean specific heat of the contents of the cylinder, the wire and, to some extent, the walls. All these comprise the total system and the overall equilibrium state, which will not lead to any endless loop of energy flow.

        Another “argument” starts by introducing the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics which pertains to three systems all in equilibrium with each other. However, in the form used, the Zeroth law suffers from the same approximation as does the original Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in that it ignores the effect of an external force field, usually gravity. As the initial assumption is false, so too is the conclusion.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Doug Cotton posts “Gravity also induces a thermal gradient in a solid.”

        And therefore, because a vertical column of lead (or any relatively dense solid/fluid/gas) has a larger temperature gradient than an adjacent vertical column of aluminum (or any relatively less-dense solid/fluid/gas) — as predicted by the theories of Doug Cotton/PSI — then thermocouples installed at the top and bottom of the paired columns will generate electricity for free, from the temperature difference between the two columns!

        Thank you Doug Cotton/PSI, for so plainly refuting the thermodynamical theories of Doug Cotton/PSI.

        And more seriously, thank you for illustrating to Climate Etc readers that contrarian/denialist cognition is impervious to scientific evidence and reason. It is well to keep this imperviousness in mind, when assessing the skeptical climate-change literature! \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}

      • ” Doug Cotton posts “Gravity also induces a thermal gradient in a solid.”

        And therefore, because a vertical column of lead (or any relatively dense solid/fluid/gas) has a larger temperature gradient than an adjacent vertical column of aluminum (or any relatively less-dense solid/fluid/gas) — as predicted by the theories of Doug Cotton/PSI — then thermocouples installed at the top and bottom of the paired columns will generate electricity for free, from the temperature difference between the two columns! ”

        “A fan of *MORE* discourse” is correct.

        And it actually might be a good energy source-
        if it were true.

        Unlike solar, wind, and trying use the difference temperature due variation of lapse rates- which all have low energy densities.

      • Doug Cotton,

        So not only are you saying Planck was incorrect, you’ve now added Maxwell and Boltzmann to the list? That’s an impressive string of scalps. Anyone else you would like to add?

        So you think that gravity induces a thermal gradient in a sold but it doesn’t do it water?

        If that were the case then we could, in principle, sink large metal posts into the ocean floor. The water in the ocean would be warmer at the surface but the temperature gradient in the pole would in the opposite direction. So again the possibility of using this temperature difference as a power source arises.

        The important point in all this is not so much the amount of power generated which could be argued would be small, but more that if any power is generated at all, then we’ve discovered a perpetual motion machine. That would be quite remarkable if it were true. It is more likely that it isn’t, though, and it is likely there is something wrong with our initial assumptions.

      • He has also questioned Einstein with his photons containing energy.

      • “If that were the case then we could, in principle, sink large metal posts into the ocean floor. The water in the ocean would be warmer at the surface but the temperature gradient in the pole would in the opposite direction. So again the possibility of using this temperature difference as a power source arises.”

        Well if stick pole deep enough in the muck at the bottom, it can get warmer beneath the muck than surface waters.

        But if pole is not well insulated, it be the same temperature as the water.
        And of course you easier temperature gradient and closer to any market which could a vague interest buying any power one makes. Anywhere on if drill a mile or two beneath the surface. And much greater difference to temperature, unlimited heat, and almost always uneconomical to utilize- it’s called, geothermal energy.

        “The important point in all this is not so much the amount of power generated which could be argued would be small, but more that if any power is generated at all, then we’ve discovered a perpetual motion machine. ”
        But it’s not perpetual motion machine- it’s not generating energy from nothing, rather it’s taking energy from huge reservoir of heat which exceeds all energy needs which all humans could reasonable use. And it’s “renewable energy” [Hooray!!]. The problem is it’s a low density energy.
        It’s not economical. It’s a waste of time and effort.
        You could breed hamster and have run them on trendmills. Or better, horses!
        But again, it’s not economical.

        If you *had to be* in the middle of the ocean [*for some reason*] and the cost of getting power was hideously expensive [no good reason it should be], then maybe it’s option to look at.
        Or if crazy billionaire and want to do it, as a hobby, knock yourself out.

      • I have never said Planck was incorrect. I used Planck curves in my paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

        On the issue of a gravitationally induced thermal gradient, yes, Loschmidt was right and Maxwell and Boltzmann have been proved incorrect with over 800 experiments since 2002. It only takes one experiment to prove a hypothesis wrong. You don’t have one to prove me wrong.

        Your thought experiments regarding wires of different specific heat are not valid in deducing endless thermal cycles. That cannot happen at thermal equilibrium when entropy is at a maximum, as dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You are trying to violate it yet again, and you will never succeed. I have explained how the wires become a single system – just like two water pipes of different diameter filled with water and joined at the top and bottom. Water does not flow in endless cycles, now does it.

        Give up – you’ll never prove wrong what has been confirmed by over 800 empirical results with experiments done in the real world, not your mathematical world devoid of the laws of physics. Details and references are in my paper on Planetary Surface Temperatures.

      • Doug Cotton,

        You have said “Electromagnetic radiation does not exhibit a particle like nature. Planck’s suggestion of this (made in desperation) was wrong!”

        You now say ” I have never said Planck was incorrect”

        So Planck was quite correct, it was just his desperate suggestion that was wrong?

        Have I got it right now?

      • The process of diffusion (causing the gravitational gradient) is over-ridden by the high rate of solar absorption in the stratosphere. The issue is irrelevant an dthe stratosphere is merely a “hump” in the cooling, which continues in the mesosphere..

      • “Yes, I am very aware of all that, but their argument about perpetual motion is wrong, as is explained in my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” as well as in an article awaiting publication, from which I quote below …”

        Suppose you use copper which is the best and cheapest conductor of
        heat [diamond is better but isn’t cheap].
        So you have meter by meter by 1000 meters of solid copper.
        You have it horizontal and you insulated it using best technology available.
        At one end the copper is immersed in boiling water and at other end one wants use this heat of the boiling water.
        How much energy can be transferred from the boiling water end to the
        other end?
        100, 200, 500 watts per second per square meter?
        Any idea?
        Now, if you put it vertical, what is the differences in amount energy
        being conducted?
        Does it matter if the heat is being transferred up or down?
        If so, what is the difference?

        And finally would the amount energy involved have any chance
        of paying the cost of the 1 meter square and 1000 meter length
        of copper?

        Or the price of copper is:
        “Current price for copper $3.68 per pound ”

        http://www.ask.com/answers/42384841/what-is-the-current-price-of-copper-per-pound

        The density of copper is:
        “The density of copper at room temperature is 8.94 g/cm”
        Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/82000/density-of-copper/#ixzz2JVedWAVO
        Or 8.94 tonnes per cubic meter, so total for 1000 meters is
        8940 tonnes. Or say 9000 tons times 2000 [lbs] is
        18 million lbs. Times 3.68 is about 66 million dollars.
        You could also use cheaper steel or iron and at say $1000 per ton that is $7,800 per meter or 7.8 million dollars for this fabricated iron/steel.

        So we got this thing which transfer heat 1000 meters
        {Not saying using water or something else would not work better, but
        could require pumping and other complications]
        and transferring a heat difference of 100 C over 1000 meters
        could price of energy over 100 years pay the 10 million dollars worth of capital [not including cost of money which could be more 10 times this amount] and one is being paid a generous price of 5 cent per KW hour of the electricity generated [and assuming [*somehow*] 100% of the thermal energy is converted into electrical power].

        So if 5 cents electrical power is made in an hour. It’s $438 dollars per year of gross income.
        Not net income.

    • gbaikie’s argument is wrong at this step:

      So what did they mean by equilibrium temperature? It means balanced heat.

      “Balanced heat” is a meaningless statement to a physicist. In any event, that is not what thermal equilibrium means. And, to make it even more clear, the physicists who carefully worded the modern statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, even spelled it out in their statement of …

      “The Second Law of Thermodynamics: An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system. ”

      THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM IS NOT ABOUT EQUAL TEMPERATURE, BUT ABOUT MAXIMUM ENTROPY STATES. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

      • “gbaikie’s argument is wrong at this step:

        -So what did they mean by equilibrium temperature? It means balanced heat.-

        “Balanced heat” is a meaningless statement to a physicist”

        If true, then they would be more stupid than most people.

        Therefore as precaution when talking to physicists you instead need to use the term, equilibrium temperature.
        Or talk about a high level of Entropy.

        “In any event, that is not what thermal equilibrium means. And, to make it even more clear, the physicists who carefully worded the modern statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, even spelled it out in their statement of …

        “The Second Law of Thermodynamics: An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system. ”

        THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM IS NOT ABOUT EQUAL TEMPERATURE, BUT ABOUT MAXIMUM ENTROPY STATES. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.”

        I think I was very clear, in saying it is not equal to temperature.

        To try to be clearer, equilibrium temperature is NOT synonymous to equal temperature. Rather the term is “equilibrium temperature”
        rather than “equilibrium” + “temperature”.

        So this is correct :”THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM IS NOT ABOUT EQUAL TEMPERATURE”

        But this is incorrect “THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM IS NOT ABOUT EQUAL HEAT”.
        Though physicists may not like to use the term heat. Because there
        additional form of energies other than what is called heat.

        As for entire statement:
        “THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM IS NOT ABOUT EQUAL TEMPERATURE, BUT ABOUT MAXIMUM ENTROPY STATES. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.”

        This “huge difference” one can only be talking about the potential energy of gas molecules at higher elevation. Or one can say [if not talking to stupid physicists] that higher molecule will get more kinetic energy if it were to travel to a lower elevation. Or simply having a gas molecule travel to higher elevation, it does not lose energy.
        And one can think of it as transforming kinetic energy into potential energy.

        BUT the atmosphere is not about individual gas molecules and where they go, individual molecules are constantly and every nanosecond transferring their “translation motion” [kinetic energy].
        They are part of “machine” maintaining a thermodynamic equilibrium. And continue analogy of a machine, the machine can various loads that it “deals with”.
        So these “loads” can be warm or cool surface. It can be convection [meaning movement of air packets]- such as wind going up, down, and side ways. Or it can be transforming liquids into gases and gases into liquids.

        So, when talking about an atmosphere and it being THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM we talking about the kinetic motion
        of gas molecules of the atmosphere.
        And amount heat or it’s temperature depends average velocity molecules and how many molecules [their mass] are in some volume of the atmosphere.

        Or in regards measuring heat or energy of gas in a atmosphere the kinetic energy equal 1/2 kg mass times average velocity gas molecules [meters per second] equals joules of heat.

      • Who said “equilibrium temperature” ???

        The Second Law of Thermodynamics says Thermal Equilibrium which may be totally different in a vertical plane in a gravitational field.

        Read Wikipedia as I really don’t have time to keep teaching you basic physics – start with “Laws of Thermodynamics” and then “Thermal Equilibrium”

      • Wind is not convection. Convection involves adiabatic movement of air, yes, but not all movement of air is convection. Wind completely over-rides the slow moving convection which is moving at less than 0.05 Km/hour. You will never explain atmospheric temperatures if you don’t understand the differeence.

        Likewise absorption and radiation in the stratosphere over-rides convection, thus explaining the temperature inversion. The thermosphere does an even better job of it, but you won’t feel hot up there. It’s just the air that’s got a high temperature, often a few hundred degrees.

        Of course everything happens at the molecular level. How do you think the temperature in a horizontal plane in an insulated room becomes equal when thermal equilibrium evolves?

        All I am saying, is that is does not become equal in the vertical plane, because of the effect of gravity on each and every molecular movement between collision. At the next collision it has more or less KE to share with the other molecule. Elementary.

        So we equate potential energy loss with the amount of energy required to warm a parcel of mass M by a temperature difference T after a change in height H and we get, where Cp=specific heat) …

        M.Cp.T = M.g.H

        So the thermal gradient (dry adiabatical lapse rate) is given by

        T/H = -g/Cp

        all in just two lines. Elementary!

      • gbaike

        The Second Law is about thermodynamic equilibrium” NOT “thermal equilibrium..”

        I have quoted it several times from Wikipedia, where you will also find a link to their item on “thermoDYNAMIC equilibrium” and you will note that such includes consideration of potential energy, as does entropy.

        Every time you talk about “thermal equilibrium” or “equilibrium temperature” you demonstrate that you miss the whole point.

        So I repeat ..

        THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM IS NOT ABOUT EQUAL TEMPERATURE, BUT ABOUT MAXIMUM ENTROPY STATES. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

      • Doug Cotton | January 26, 2013 at 10:52 pm said: ”Wind is not convection”

        Dooug!!! you supposed to stand up for the truth; instead, you are obsessed about: thermodynamics, equilibrium, entropy crap, same as the Warmist & Fakes!… YES, wind is THE ”convection” Horizontal winds collect the heat from the ground / VERTICAL WINDS as on a convayerbelt take the heat up and directly / personally discharge it.!!!
        CONDUCTION DOESN’T EXIST!!! ”conduction” is all about smokescreen; which obviously blinded you as well. To use your words: ”You will never explain atmospheric temperatures if you don’t understand the difference”

        Well every individual atom of O&N takes heat from the ground; and is personally taking it high up, to waste it = same as when individual ant takes the grain to the nest = NO conduction (from one to another)

        B] CO2 is a good conductor of heat, BUT; in the atmosphere CO2 doesn’t ”conduct” any bloody heat. BECAUSE: in-between every two CO2 molecule – there are thousands of O&N atoms, as BEST INSULATORS. good insulator, prevents conduction; should I teach you English?

        same as: copper wire ”conducts” electricity / plastic insulation – INSULATES!!! Therefore: O&N instead of the phony ”conduction” they directly take the heat up, the ”VERTICAL WIND” (made of O&N) is doing the convection of heat high up, to waste it personally / they become cold -.shrink / become heavier per volume -> drop down, to take more heat.

        (spaced grains of copper, with lots of plastic in -between; will not conduct electricity = CO2 molecules, with lots of O2 + N2 in-between, prevent any conduction of heat. Doug, if you keep repeating the Warmist & fake’s gospel -> you will become just another ”closed parashoot brains”

      • As I have said, genuine adiabatic convection – the only process (apart from diffusion of kinetic energy in still air) which maintains the thermal gradient (AKA adiabatic lapse rate) is a very slow process, moving air upwards at probably less than 0.05 Km/hr. Wind is obviously normally somewhat faster, and so it over-rides convection in local areas where it occurs. You can demonstrate with a blower heater outside pointing upwards. So I confirm wind is not convection and the result of wind (temperature wise) is totally different.

        After the wind passes, the process of diffusion (conduction) of KE takes over and repairs the damage to the thermal plot. This is what clearly happens on Venus and is the only possible explanation as to how absorbed incident solar radiation leads to warm air passing up the temperature gradient (from cold to hot) and into the surface – all by convection which spreads out in all directions from any source of additional thermal energy. You all have a lot to learn about just exactly how diffusion and convection function in a gravitational field. Start here!

    • Planck was right about the Planck function. Climatologists who think carbon dioxide can radiate at intensities reaching well outside the limitations of the Planck curve are the ones who apparently disbelieve Planck.

      Climatologists also postulate that an isothermal atmosphere at 255K would be a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which is of course garbage, because an isothermal atmosphere would be a complete violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the requirements thereof for thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum available entropy.

      Second Law of Thermodynamics:

      “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.”

      The issue of photons is not relevant, and not needed when discussing electro-magnetic radiation.

      • You probably can’t tell the difference between a black body and a gas. The difference is that a black body is an ideal object that radiates with the Planck curve. Gases are far from that, and only radiate (and absorb) at wavelengths consistent with their molecular properties. CO2 is mostly active near 15 microns. Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum are also evidence of absorption properties of specific gases and ions that not black bodies. Didn’t you ever look at spectral lines in flames to tell which metals were present? Lots of the interesting physics is related to spectral properties, not the bland Planck function, and that includes the atmosphere.

  29. Keeping in the thematic of thy blog:

    > A wide consensus [gasp!] of climate scientists agrees on the many underlying facts around climate science, but these facts are not widely accepted by policy-makers or the general public. [YEAH! Go Team Denizens!] Addressing this issue, the American Statistical Association formed an Advisory Committee on Climate Change Policy, with the objective of improving communication of statistical issues associated with climate change. [You wish.]  This committee has been active in giving public lectures, writing nontechnical articles, and participating in visits to Congress. This symposium will focus on uncertainty. [Garlgarlgarl: more! more! MORE!] The public and policy-makers sometimes equate uncertainty with ignorance and miss the reality that statistically calculated uncertainty is a form of knowledge that can help clarify responses to environmental risks. [That’s what you say, punk!] The three speakers are statisticians with extensive published research in climate change. [Right, and I’m a ninja.] Their talks address uncertainties in observations and climate models, strategies for formulating policies, and methods for communicating uncertainty to decision-makers. [Models, bad.] The discussant is an author and journalist who has been writing for more than 20 years on climate science and policy. [Whatever, Andy.]  The objectives of the session are to provide information about recent scientific developments, as well as discuss the challenges of formulating climate science for policy-makers and the general [Sure: follow the money, I say!]. This symposium will be one of the activities of Mathematics of Planet Earth 2013.

    http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Session5841.html

  30. I left a couple of comments at Jo Nova’s blog that could be summarized in two sensational headlines: “Skeptical Science goes lukewarm” (without admitting it) and “Skeptical Science revolutionizes climate science” (without admitting it).

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/spiegel-speculates-on-why-global-warming-stalled/#comment-1229328

    The thing is that in this post, they seem to have figured out the exact human contribution to global warming with such precision that there would seem to be no need for all the complexity of climate modeling, nor for all that uncertainty that the IPCC is telling us about.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html

    And their reason why this analysis is lukewarm is this (quoting myself):

    What they seem to find is a nice linear trend of 0.15-0.16 degrees C per decade. It doesn’t look that convincing, but let’s accept it for the sake of the argument. The “problem” is that’s the trend is barely enough to break the so-called scientifically motivated 2 degree target. But they claim we will get increased warming in the future:

    “Given that human greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, and that the natural influences do not show a trend on longer timescales, we must expect increasing global warming in the future.”

    If that’s the case, why hasn’t it happened yet? Why is the trend until now linear? By their logic, it shouldn’t be. It should be accelerating, since CO2 emissions have been increasing throughout the period.

    • “Given that human greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, and that the natural influences do not show a trend on longer timescales, we must expect increasing global warming in the future.”

      If that’s the case, why hasn’t it happened yet? Why is the trend until now linear? By their logic, it shouldn’t be. It should be accelerating, since CO2 emissions have been increasing throughout the period.

      University of Chicago has an answer for you:

      http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi

      • Yes. And climate sensitivity is defined simplistically as temperature increase per doubling of CO2, which is caused by the logarithmic response to increasing levels of CO2, without going into the physics of that. That’s uncontroversial, so this is perfectly logical and natural, a fact that Skeptical Science fails to mention. And the reason why the climate models predict accelerating temperature rise is positive feedbacks, not the trend in CO2.

        The reason I didn’t mention it is that it doesn’t matter to my argument. Whatever the reason that the temperature trend should accelerate in the future, it should have done so already. And if we take Skeptical Science as gospel (for the sake of the argument), it hasn’t.

      • So to spell it out: If the analysis from Skeptical Science is precisely correct, and we apply normal logic to that result, we get an expected 1.3-1.5 C higher temperature 2100. Since we already have 0.7 over “pre-industrial”, that’s 2-2.2 degrees, hardly overshooting the 2 degree target. Lukewarmers!

        Correct me if I’m wrong.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Dagfinn, the worst part is that at the very start they make the false claim that the 16 yr myth in circulation, is about man’s contribution. It’s not about that, obviously.

        The supposed “myth” is: 16 yrs of no significant trend in temps.
        Plain and simple.

        …but interesting that they unwittingly proved that that none of our increasing contributions changed the trend.

      • Skepticalscience didn’t extrapolate the trend to 2100

        Only strawmen casting skeptics did that.

        They fit a linear trend to their model

        Strawmen casting skeptics shouldn’t take that to mean skepticalscience is saying the warming is exactly linear, or that it will be linear to 2100.

        Simples.

      • By the way I don’t think strawmen casting skeptics who can’t even be bothered to recognize the need to correct global temperatures for ENSO or the solar cycle should have the right to even comment on what skepticalscience has done.

        It’s like kids trying to comment on the adult class.

      •  
        \
        It hasn’t happened because they had no idea about the implications of the need for maximum entropy states, as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

      • Dagfin without going into the physics of that.

        It’s a good idea to go into the physics – then an experienced physicist will see that they ignored the maximum entropy conditions required for thermodynamic equilibrium.

         

      • lolwot: Skeptical Science didn’t just fit a linear trend as a random exercise in trend fitting, they claimed that the trend hasn’t changed in the last 16 years, and that this finding applies to the real world in a significant way. If that were not the case, then their analysis would have only theoretical relevance.

        But what they need is an accelerating trend. If they don’t find one, and don’t give a good reason why the trend should change in the future, then the reasonable expectation is that the linear trend will continue.

      • Doug cotton: I’m not implying that we don’t need to understand the physics. But in this case, the analysis from Skeptical Science is independent of which physics is behind their linear trend which they claim to be anthropogenic. And my argument, taking their analysis at face value and extrapolating from it, is also independent of the physics behind it.

        The whole discussion is bogus precisely because it assumes that you can ignore the physics. Which is why I say ironically that they’ve revolutionized climate science.

      • you are simply barking up the wrong tree

        what SS demonstrated was that recent years are consistent with continued warming.

        Demanding that they go beyond this and prove whether that warming will accelerate by 2100 (and why does it have to?) is a strawman to avoid what they did show.

      • lolwot: “what SS demonstrated was that recent years are consistent with continued warming.” I don’t even know what that means. In fact, I’m not sure that sentence makes sense. “years” (time itself?) being consistent with “warming”?

        I think what they meant was to claim that there had been an actual warming trend and that that trend has remained the same. You seem to imply that they meant something weaker.

      • Sure SS can conclude that recent “lack of warming” (cooling?) is “consistent with warming”.

        That’s SS logic.

        EVERYTHING is “consistent with warming” by definition.

        But outside the very special world of SS, things look a bit different.

        Max

      • SS show that the warming since eg 1970 is pretty much still ongoing.

        A lot of people are imaging global warming has stopped because they aren’t analyzing the data correctly.

        This might put things in perspective. Extrapolate the green line.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1998/trend

      • lolwot

        Don’t be a “DENIER” (like the dudes at SS).

        The “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” has not warmed over the past 10-15 years, as the Spiegel article (as well as James E. Hansen’s latest paper) confirm.

        Get used to it, lolwot.

        And move on to something else.

        Max

      • lolwot, extrpolated:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend

        That green line (the trend) is getting out of reach, don’t you think? I predict it’s gonna remain so, maybe it will be crossed again briefly (the next La Nina) and that’s it. Stay tuned.

      • lolwot

        Is this the trend “extrapolation” you want?

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend

        (It’s the one Hansen and others are talking about.)

        Max

      • http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend

        “That green line (the trend) is getting out of reach, don’t you think?”

        But by the nature of the green line we should expect the data to be sometimes above and sometimes below!

        If it was always above the line would be wrong!!

      • sadly a lot of folk simply don’t understand what the data show. They imagine some epic pause in global warming for 16 years, when the data are actually consistent with continued warming.

        While scientists mull over the decadal noise, layfolk wrongly imagine they are trying to explain that the warming has stopped!

      • And by the way, Tamino’s trendline also points toward a very boring lukewarm future. It’s not enough to indicate “dangerous” warming.

      • For a comparison, the famous alarmist Jørgen Randers has just claimed that temperatures will be 2 degrees higher by 2050. That’s three times faster warming than these leisurely linear trends indicate.

      • 1) Argue that global warming has stopped

        2) when lolwot shows that warming hasn’t stopped, avoid any sort of soul-searching reflection on how the error in #1 was made by silently switching to #3, a different argument.

        3) Argue that the ongoing global warming isn’t alarming

      • lolwot: except i didn’t argue your point 1). On the contrary, I started out assuming (for the sake of the argument) that the analysis from Skeptical Science was right, and showed that it implied a lukewarm future.

        I’ve lost count of your straw men. This is probably the fourth or fifth. The first straw man was the straw man accusation. ;-)

    • The Spiegel article translated by GWPF is excellent, check it out:

      http://www.thegwpf.org/researchers-puzzled-global-warming-standstill/

      • Surprisingly many commenters are not that puzzled.

      • They are shocked, shocked, to find that CO2 is not going on here.
        ============

      • David Springer

        Being an equal opportunity unemployer I tend to eschew GWPF as biased but it’s bias based on hearsay not witness. I was a bit surprised by the article you linked as it seemed fair and balanced. The more dogmatic on both sides can likely find plenty to dislike in it. I was wondering if you found anything at all objectionable.

      • Judith Curry

        The Spiegel article published by GWPF is interesting more for the reaction to the current “standstill”, than to the “standstill”, itself.

        Several “reasons” for the current stall in warming despite unabated human GHG emissions are suggested.

        One (the most logical one IMO) is missing:

        - because the GCMs overestimated the impact of CO2 on our climate (i.e. the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity)

        This shows me that, while the current “lack of warming” is now generally accepted as a fact, there is still denial among the “consensus group” that it could be that the models (which predicted warming) were wrong.

        Max

      • Their superest computers told them that 42 was the number to bet on at the Great Climate Wheel.
        =============

      • It’s tragedy for politicians that China exists, otherwise could patting themselves on the back and declaring that they caused the US CO2 emission to lower and that is why global warming has stopped.

  31. intrepid_wanders

    Here’s a fun one that Judith could comment on concerning the Sun and the stratospheric shake up this year. Jeff Weber of UCAR does not appear to be interested in GHGs or aerosols.

    http://www.npr.org/2013/01/25/170267853/cold-snap-shakes-up-winter-weather-outlook

    From a causality stand-point, he does not sound like he supports AGW->Arctic Ice Loss->Cold NH Winter.

    FLATOW: Well, one last question about this because there is speculation that this weather may be due to the loss of ice during the summertime at the polar region. Is there any evidence for that being the trigger?

    WEBER: No, that has a lot of other dramatic effects on our climate, but for stratospheric warming events, what we’re looking at are very large systems, such as the one that was off of the northeast coast of Japan. Also it’s been correlated to sunspot activity. So that’s kind of a factor that doesn’t affect the troposphere so much, but it does involve some (unintelligible) content action in the stratosphere. So we’re seeing a correlation between a solar activity and then these big, very unstable systems late in the season like we saw off the northeast coast of Japan.

    Second question, is the “(unintelligible)”, heat?

  32. “Wagathon | January 25, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    iit
    it’s the sun stupid”

    Are you saying that there was no heating in 1910-1940 or the sun varied its output coincidently at that time? What is the probability that the solar output would vary in sync with the greatest use of fossil fuel in history. We have no feedback loops to the sun, do you think there are? Did anyone note any other change in the sun’s output in 1940 when the rise ceased?

    • The Sun is the official explanation for why it warmed as much as it did in spite of relatively modest GHG emissions. Read the IPCC AR4.

      • “The Sun is the official explanation for why it warmed as much as it did in spite of relatively modest GHG emissions. Read the IPCC AR4.”

        Then the above questions to Wagathon apply to the IPCC as well.
        Juat another IPCC mistake. In any case the IPCC labeled 1961 as a year of normal temperature, when clearly 1910 was 0.5c colder and closer to the average global temperature which prevailed since 1850. I doubt that the IPCC can produce any independent evidence that the sun was warmer enough to produce a temperature rise of 0.45C betweem 1910 and 1940.

      • “If the earth had a static atmosphere with the same gases it has now, but with little water vapor and no ocean, the average surface temperature of earth would be 67°C (153°F). This is much warmer than our earth. The planet would be so hot because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere help keep heat near the surface, and because there is no convection, and no transport of heat by winds. Adding winds cools the planet a little, but not enough.”

        This confirms the strong warming power of CO2 and confirms manmade global warming.

        CO2 would be left as the primary greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere if water vapor were to be removed, so when they say the cause is greenhouse gases CO2 must be the main one. responsible for Earth’s surface temperature increasing to 67°C (153°F)!

  33. Just because Doug Cotton has no need for an effect, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    • It doesn’t exist because its a illusion created by taking out the Water Cycle.

      Temperature of Earth with atmosphere = 15°C
      Temperature of Earth without any atmosphere = -18°C
      Temperature of Earth with atmosphere but without water = 67°C

      Can you spot the AGWScienceFiction department’s sleight of hand here?

      There is no “greenhouse gas warming of 33°C from -18 to 15°C”

      The mechanism doesn’t exist.

      Without water, the main AGWgreenhouse gas, the temp would 67°C, not -18°C.

      Science fraud. That is why there is never any show and tell for the CAGW/AGW crowd, it’s not possible to produce real world empirical evidence and data to prove an illusion.

      You’ve been conned.

      • Temperature of Earth without any atmosphere = -18°C
        Temperature of Earth with atmosphere but without water = 67°C

        So the second one which has CO2 in the atmosphere is 85C warmer than the case without CO2.

        And you think that’s arguing against the greenhouse effect….

      • “Temperature of Earth with atmosphere but without water = 67°C” ???

        Where have you got that from?

      • lolwot | January 26, 2013 at 5:18 am | Temperature of Earth without any atmosphere = -18°C
        Temperature of Earth with atmosphere but without water = 67°C

        So the second one which has CO2 in the atmosphere is 85C warmer than the case without CO2.

        And you think that’s arguing against the greenhouse effect….

        Good grief, you can’t even show how your AGW “greenhouse gases” are able to raise the temperature of anything the fictional 33°C and now you want to claim that the trace gas carbon dioxide can raise the temperature 100°C!

        How can any of you claiming this possible think you’re capable of scientific reasoning when you have no sense of scale or any understanding of the power to do work?

        None of you has anything of value to say about climate when you claim that visible light from the Sun has the power to heat land and water at the equator to the intensity it is heated which gives us our huge winds and weather systems so hardly surprising that you’d claim supermolecule powers for carbon dioxide – pathetic.

        tempterrain | January 26, 2013 at 6:02 am | “Temperature of Earth with atmosphere but without water = 67°C” ???

        Where have you got that from?

        Standard industry figure in traditional science. The minus 18°C is the Earth without any atmosphere at all, compare with the Moon, and the 67°C is what it would be with the majority of atmosphere in place, which is mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but without water, think deserts.

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

        “Effects on climateThe water cycle is powered from solar energy. 86% of the global evaporation occurs from the oceans, reducing their temperature by evaporative cooling. Without the cooling, the effect of evaporation on the greenhouse effect would lead to a much higher surface temperature of 67 °C (153 °F), and a warmer planet.”

        Not that you’ll find it any more on the link it gives as source…

        When it finally sinks in for some of you that this really is a con based on faking physics you’ll spot more of the changes to the basics created by excising whole processes, giving the properties of one thing to another, taking laws out of context and as here, word play- but what you have now is a world completely imagined, it has not one iota of its matter/energy/ properties and processes in the real physical world.

        These are magic tricks to make you believe you’re hearing real physical descriptions, beginning by changing the traditional concept of the greenhouse atmosphere around Earth which as in a real greenhouse this both heats and cools the Earth, AGW claims it only heats.

        It is the heavy real gas voluminous ocean of our atmosphere AIR practically 100% nitrogen and oxygen which is the traditional greenhouse gas blanket trapping the heat from the Earth, compare with the Moon. It is the water vapour which cools this 67°C down in the Water Cycle. As water vapour is lighter than Air and rises taking away heat from the Earth’s surface and releasing it in the colder heights when it condenses back out to water or ice, coming back to Earth in rain which is carbonic acid, that is, water vapour takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in a continual cycle. You don’t have rain in the your Carbon Cycle.

        You actually don’t have any atmosphere at all, let alone any water cycle..

        Unless you are willing to understand the traditional basic physics here, and it is getting harder to find teachers for the masses, you will continue to believe in a fantasy world. Maybe you’re OK with that.

      • It’s unclear from what you wrote, exactly what you think “doesn’t exist.”

      • The 67C figure is wrong. Absurdly so.

        Do you actually have another source for that figure than wikipedia?

      • David N | January 26, 2013 at 8:52 am | It’s unclear from what you wrote, exactly what you think “doesn’t exist.”

        AGWScienceFiction’s “The Greenhouse Effect” doesn’t exist. Which is the 33°C warming attributed to “ir imbibing greenhouse gases without which the Earth would be minus 18°C”

        Firstly, they have given, fraudulently, that minus 18°C figure to the “the atmosphere minus agw greenhouse gases”, when it is nothing of the sort, it is the temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all – our atmosphere is mainly nitrogen and oxygen.

        So, The Greenhouse Effect 33°C doesn’t exist. It’s an illusion created by science fraud of claiming the Earth would be colder without them.

        Which can be seen more clearly by, secondly, the real Earth without the main AGW greenhouse gas water would be 67°C, not minus 18°C.

        The AGWScienceFiction’s The Greenhouse Effect has taken out the Water Cycle.

        In other words, the real Earth would be 33°C colder minus the whole atmosphere, not minus the AGWSF “greenhouse gases”.

        And. The real atmosphere also does not warm the Earth 33°C from the minus 18°C without it, there is no direct link to such an effect, it doesn’t exist.

        With the whole atmosphere in place which is mainly nitrogen and oxygen but without water the temperature would be 67°C – this is the real greenhouse gas blanket keeping the heat from the surface from escaping too quickly, this is the very heavy ocean of the real gas AIR pulled in by gravity. Weighing 14lbs/sq inch, 1 stone per square inch, 1 ton/sq ft, that’s how heavy it is on your shoulders. That’s the Earth’s thermal blanket, not a piddling amount of trace gas which “thermal blanket” would be practically 100% holes..

        Water vapour is lighter than Air and around 1-4% of the atmosphere, so while it contributes a certain amount to the weight of the whole real gas atmosphere’s thermal gravity blanket without which the Earth would be minus 18°C, it’s main role is in cooling the surface, think deserts.

        It is the thick heavier mass of the practically 100% nitrogen and oxygen which is the blanket keeping the Earth from the -18°C temp it would be without it.

        Without water the Earth would be a very hot desert, 67°C.

        That’s the traditional greenhouse effect of nitrogen and oxygen warming the Earth and water cooling it down to 15°C.

        Just like a real greenhouse which is both heated and cooled to get optimum temperatures for plant growth, that’s where the analogy came from in the first place.

        The “33°C warming” doesn’t exist, neither in the real traditional science greenhouse gases of nitrogen and oxygen warming the planet, nor in the AGWSF “greenhouse gases warming”, the latter fraudulently claiming the Earth would be -18°C without them.

        lolwot | January 26, 2013 at 11:15 am | The 67C figure is wrong. Absurdly so.

        Do you actually have another source for that figure than wikipedia?

        Try thinking it through.

      • Basically Myrrhs Fraud is based on a single erroneous and badly sourced sentence on wikipedia

        and from this he fraudulently throws around the number 67C a lot.

      • Myrrh, thanks for pointing out that the nasa.gov source makes no mention of any 67°C surface temperature. I let Wikipedia know. Maybe it’s you who’s been conned. Hope you can find another source.

        Even if the number is true, I don’t see why it’s necessary to deny the obvious (things with temperatures radiate IR) to make your argument.

      • David N | January 26, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Myrrh, thanks for pointing out that the nasa.gov source makes no mention of any 67°C surface temperature. I let Wikipedia know. Maybe it’s you who’s been conned. Hope you can find another source.

        Leave it be, it stands as a testament to the skullduggery of AGW/CAGW takeover of our science institutions. It used to be on that page, but as we see time and time again, real world physics has been replaced by the agenda driven AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect even at the highest science levels. NASA used to teach that the heat we feel from the Sun is longwave infrared, thermal infrared, now it teaches that this doesn’t get through the atmosphere.

        Even if the number is true, I don’t see why it’s necessary to deny the obvious (things with temperatures radiate IR) to make your argument.

        It’s not easy to show the clever magic tricks behind your Greenhouse Effect, if it was easy to see no one would have been fooled by it.

        Radiated IR from the Earth, upwelling, is insignificant in the scheme of things, that’s why the sleights of hand have eliminated real gas and substituted empty space with the theoretical ideal gas descriptions – you don’t have any atmosphere at all! You go straight from the surface to empty space.

        You have no idea how much has been taken out of the real world to create the imaginary world of AGW’s Greenhouse Effect, because you don’t have traditional physics basics with which to compare.

        It’s probably lost to the general population now.. That’s why you can’t grasp the enormity of the con, the cleverness behind it.

        And so, can’t appreciate just how funny this AGW world is. No atmosphere, no water cycle, no rain in the carbon cycle, supermolecules defying gravity and with no attraction so no rain, and, no heat from the Sun/Sun’s heat can’t get through some unexplained invisible glass like barrier and replaced by visible light heating land and water – it really is a comic cartoon world.

        The deliberate dumbing down of basic science for the masses to promote this AGW fictional Greenhouse Effect has been successful. All I’m hoping to do here is to get some of you to think about it, because the real world physics, natural philosophy, is wonderful in itself and our understanding of it has been a very recent phenomenon in the history of mankind. It’s a shame to lose it so quickly for the general population.

      • “It used to be on that page, but as we see time and time again, real world physics has been replaced by the agenda driven AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect even at the highest science levels.”

        First you appeal to a 67C figure that you admit you have no idea how it was calculated and you cannot reproduce the steps.

        You believe it on faith alone. That isn’t science.

        You appeal to bizarre 2nd gunman style conspiracy theories to cling to your AWOL sources.

        That isn’t science.

        For the final time. Explain exactly how the 67C figure is calculated.

        And don’t say:

        Wikipedia.

      • Myrrh, if I read between all the bitter accusations and conspiracy theories, it seems that you are arguing that evaporation plays a much larger role in cooling the surface than radiation than the general greenhouse effect model claims (about 25%).

        If I might suggest…it would be more persuasive if you produced your proposed alternative energy budget, instead of pounding the table on theoretical temperatures in impossible situations.

      • lolwot | January 26, 2013 at 6:06 pm | “It used to be on that page, but as we see time and time again, real world physics has been replaced by the agenda driven AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect even at the highest science levels.”

        First you appeal to a 67C figure that you admit you have no idea how it was calculated and you cannot reproduce the steps.

        You believe it on faith alone. That isn’t science.

        You appeal to bizarre 2nd gunman style conspiracy theories to cling to your AWOL sources.

        That isn’t science.

        For the final time. Explain exactly how the 67C figure is calculated.

        And don’t say:

        Wikipedia.

        How it’s calculated isn’t relevant to my argument. That it was calculated in traditional science is relevant to my argument.

        I have zilch interest in being distracted by inane posturing about lasers, magnifying lenses or this red herring you’ve introduced because you have no real science to offer in rebuttal to my challenge.

        I am showing the sleights of hand used in this con by giving traditional industry physics of temperatures, I gave the wiki page which gave the traditional figure and gave its source, the Source is not wiki it is NASA.

        From what I’ve been researching I think it was still carried in 2009 and expunged in 2010.

        The last time I heard it mentioned was in a programme about Hawaii a couple of years ago. The geologist from the university showed the water cycle there and said that without water the Earth would be 67°C.

        If you understand the Water Cycle and the properties of water this makes sense; think deserts, think heat capacity, think water vapour lighter than air becoming heated and rising to condense back to liquid water or ice when it reaches the colder heights and releases its heat and so forming clouds and coming back to Earth in rain etc. . The power of water to cool the atmosphere is well understood, evaporation is well understood. Rain is well understood.

        AGWSF’s Greenhouse Effect doesn’t have the Water Cycle. It doesn’t have rain in its Carbon Cycle. All rain is carbonic acid which is water and carbon dioxide joined together by attraction. AGWSF doesn’t have attraction, it has ideal gas elastic collisions… The residence time of water in the atmosphere is 8-10 days, so, carbon dioxide fully part of the water cycle has the same residence time with water.

        Carbon dioxide is being continually washed out of the atmosphere in the Water Cycle.

        That why you don’t have the Water Cycle, that’s why you don’t have rain which is carbonic acid in your Carbon Cycle – because real world physics blows the AGW Greenhouse Effect to smithereens.

        Real world physics proves the AGW The Greenhouse Effect is a con, a science fraud from beginning to end..

        So, shrug, if you’re not interested in exploring the sleights of hand that’s up to you, but I’ve given sufficient information from real world traditional physics to show that the fisics claims you, generic, make a) are fake and b) are impossible.

        Evaporation and the great capacity of water to cool –

        http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevaporation.html

        “In fact, the process of evaporation removes heat from the environment, which is why water evaporating from your skin cools you.”

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

        Typical of the now corrupted science from those who should know better excising rain from the Carbon Cycle: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

        Read it see how they’ve avoided mentioning carbonic acid rain in the cycle after first giving the AGW narrative science fraud that carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere..

        “All of this extra carbon needs to go somewhere. So far, land plants and the ocean have taken up about 55 percent of the extra carbon people have put into the atmosphere while about 45 percent has stayed in the atmosphere. Eventually, the land and oceans will take up most of the extra carbon dioxide, but as much as 20 percent may remain in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.”

        Up to you.

      • It seems lolwot thinks 1 molecule of CO2 in 2,500 could raise surface temperature by 85 degrees. Pretty hot stuff. LOL lolwot. Then water vapour cools it back to 33 degrees above the 255K. But the IPCC wanted WV to have positive feedback, not negative feedback as is implied by the well known fact that the wet adiabatic lapse rate is only about two-third of the dry one.

        The facts are that the force of gravity has to be taken into account when applying the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which requires maximum possible entropy in thermodynamic equilibrium.

        In fact, the redistribution of temperature by gravity tilts the thermal gradient to a point where surface temperature is raised about 50 C degrees, and then water vapour reduces the slope so that it’s only about an extra 33 degrees. But strictly speaking, the 255K is somewhat approximate because they treated the Earth as being flat.

      • Doug Cotton, you were quoting the theory of your friend Myrrh, not lolwot. Nobody believes the 67 C number except Myrrh. Also 255 K comes from a spherical earth, not a flat earth, but there are some “skeptics” using a flat earth to come up with higher forcings and temperatures.

      • Jim D | January 28, 2013 at 12:43 am | Doug Cotton, you were quoting the theory of your friend Myrrh, not lolwot. Nobody believes the 67 C number except Myrrh. Also 255 K comes from a spherical earth, not a flat earth, but there are some “skeptics” using a flat earth to come up with higher forcings and temperatures.

        The 67°C is standard industry figure in traditional science – the properties of water are very well known. Water takes the heat out of the environment – it has a very great heat capacity which means it absorbs great amounts of heat before it shows any change in temperature.

        Water vapour is lighter than the practically 100% heavy blanket of nitrogen and oxygen around us, the real gas fluid ocean of Air. As water evaporates at the surface from the direct thermal infrared heat from the Sun it rises and on reaching the colder heights it releases its stored heat energy up and away and condenses back into liquid water or ice, forms clouds and comes down as rain.

        This is the Water Cycle, it is continuous. That’s why it is called a cycle. The residence time of water in the atmosphere is 8-10 days.

        Carbon dioixide is fully part of that Water Cycle, because, all rain is carbonic acid, because water and carbon dioxide have a great attraction for each other. Water removes all the carbon dioxide around it in the same residence time of 8-10 in the Water Cycle.

        So, there are two ways water cools here, taking out heat at the surface by cooling the immediate envioronment and taking this heat up and away from the surface in the colder heights, heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder.

        Hot air rises cold air sinks. That’s how we get our huge equator to poles winds and dramatic stormy weather, by differential heating at the surface.

        The Water Cycle has been taken out of the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget – deliberately to promote the illusion of their “33°C warming by ir imbibing greenhouse gases” – to hide this 67°C which the temp of the Earth would really be without them.

        to hide this 67°C which the temp of the Earth would really be without them

        That is the scam.

        The 67°C figure is tradition real word physics based on real world properties and processes of real gas molecules under gravity.

        http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceansandclimate.htm

        “Earth with a static atmosphere and no ocean
        If the earth had a static atmosphere with the same gases it has now, but with little water vapor and no ocean, the average surface temperature of earth would be 67°C (153°F). ”

        http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceansandclimate.htm

        AGWSF has tweaked all the physics basics creating the biggest science fraud in history to date. It has created a completely imaginary world with impossible properties of gases, light and heat, etc. Unless one desconstructs all their basic claims one won’t see just how they have accomplished this. This is what also creates more confusion in these arguments, when some who understand what AGWSF have done in in corrupting the basic physics in one area will take for granted corruption in another area in which they are not familiar.

        And deliberately introduced into the education system we have a whole generation who are totally screwed on basic physical properties and proecess in the real world around us. If you really give a dman about science at all and climate science in particular then you should be affronted by what I am trying to tell you, not with me, but with those who introduced this and with those science institutions and universities who continue to teach this fake fisics..

      • Myrrh,

        From the webpage you cited:

        Most of the sunlight absorbed by earth is absorbed at the top of the tropical ocean. The atmosphere does not absorb much sunlight. It is too transparent. Think of a cold, sunny, winter day at your school. All day long, the sun shines on the outside, but the air stays cold. But if you wear a black coat outside and stand out of the wind, the sun will quickly warm up your coat. Sunlight passes through the air and warms the surface of the ocean, just as it warms the surface of your coat. Most of the ocean is a deep navy blue, almost black. It absorbs 98% of the solar radiation when the sun is high in the sky.

        and:

        If the earth had a static atmosphere with the same gases it has now, but with little water vapor and no ocean, the average surface temperature of earth would be 67°C (153°F). This is much warmer than our earth. The planet would be so hot because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere help keep heat near the surface, and because there is no convection, and no transport of heat by winds. Adding winds cools the planet a little, but not enough.

      • … the important bits being:

        Most of the ocean is a deep navy blue, almost black. It absorbs 98% of the solar radiation when the sun is high in the sky.

        and:

        The planet would be so hot because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere help keep heat near the surface

      • David N | January 28, 2013 at 8:13 am | Myrrh,

        From the webpage you cited:

        “Most of the sunlight absorbed by earth is absorbed at the top of the tropical ocean. The atmosphere does not absorb much sunlight. It is too transparent. Think of a cold, sunny, winter day at your school. All day long, the sun shines on the outside, but the air stays cold. But if you wear a black coat outside and stand out of the wind, the sun will quickly warm up your coat. Sunlight passes through the air and warms the surface of the ocean, just as it warms the surface of your coat. Most of the ocean is a deep navy blue, almost black. It absorbs 98% of the solar radiation when the sun is high in the sky.”

        So? Unless you, you, can show that visible light from the Sun heats the land and water of the Earth’s surface you have no heat from the Sun in your world. Because AGWScienceFiction has taken out the direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, and claims that visible light does this heating..

        It’s for you to show visible light from the Sun can physically do this, and until you, and generic, really do this, you live in a world without heat from the Sun – doesn’t that bother you?

        We cannot feel Light. We cannot feel shortwave infrared which is classed as Reflective not Thermal. The great heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, longwave infrared, that is the Sun’s thermal energy in transfer by radiation. It heats matter by moving the molecules into vibration. Water is a great absorber of this direct, beam, heat from the Sun – and so are we as it penetrates several inches into us and heats the water in us, heats our blood and flesh and bone as we absorb it.

        and:

        “If the earth had a static atmosphere with the same gases it has now, but with little water vapor and no ocean, the average surface temperature of earth would be 67°C (153°F). This is much warmer than our earth. The planet would be so hot because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere help keep heat near the surface, and because there is no convection, and no transport of heat by winds. Adding winds cools the planet a little, but not enough.”

        The greenhouse gases in traditional physics from which this figure comes are the practically 100% of our atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen. The traditional greenhouse is these plus water, as in a real world greenhouse designed to obtain optimum growing conditions by both trapping heat and by cooling.

        The heavy voluminous real gas thermal blanket around the Earth of nitrogen and oxygen kept in place by gravity and heated from the surface first heated by the Sun, is the heating part. This thick real greenhouse gas thermal blanket keeps the heat from the Earth from being lost quickly as it is on the Moon without an atmosphere. With this in place but without water (the main AGW greenhouse gas) the temperature would 67°C, as he says, these are the traditional greenhouse gases of our greenhouse gas atmosphere in real world physics.

        So what does he mean here? Is he using “greenhouse gases” in the traditional sense meaning the thick heavy blanket of nitrogen and oxygen, is he confused and actually thinks the trace ir imbibing gases that are left after water is taken out are really capable of raising the Earth’s temperature from minus 18°C it would be without any atmosphere which is practically 100% nitrogen and oxygen, or, is he being ambiguous to get past the pc consensus censors..?

        You decide. I have now read countless explanations of the AGWSF greenhouse effect and most of the time there is just confused thinking of mixing and matching memes, but every now and then I come across, as here, information from real world physics but couched in seemingly ambiguous terms. There are of course also pages as I gave above the NASA page on the Carbon Cycle. This appears to me to be deliberately and cleverly written knowingly taking rain out of the cycle, because, whoever wrote it mentions carbonic acid several times, but only connecting the great absorption of carbon dioxide by water of the ocean. I don’t find it credible that the writer didn’t know that water in the atmosphere is likewise a great absorber of carbon dioxide, that the writer didn’t know that all natural rain is also carbonic acid…

        Oh, and your first quote is from Robert Stewart who wrote the piece and and the second is a quote from George Philander’s book, Our Affair With El Niño, chapter 7: Constructing a Model of Earth’s Climate, page 105.

        You have to bear in mind that AGW fake fisics memes have been in general education for some time now, clear references to traditional physics will be difficult to find. I’ve seen lots of pages doctored. Connolley (sp?) altered thousands of enteries in wiki to take out traditional physics which conflicted with his AGW narrative, for example.

        The NASA quotes I give about the thermal infrared from the Sun being the heat we feel and that we can’t feel shortwave infrared (it’s classed with Light traditionally) was taken off line completely at one time. They gave notice that they would be doing this and I tried to save it on webcite, but it disappeared from there too. There seems to have been something of a kerfuffle at NASA over this, because a few days later it was back on line.. Still with the notice that it would disappear and redirection to a new narrative without the traditional teaching. NASA now has the full on AGWSF which claims that infrared doesn’t get through the atmosphere. If you’re interested I’ll dig out my post where I discovered this was happening.

        Anyway, regardless of any ambiguity in that piece and for whatever reason, it does give the two figures from traditional physics which I’ve given.

        It correctly gives the minus 18°C figures as the Earth without any atmosphere at all, and not as the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect has it, that this is the temperature of the Earth with nitrogen and oxygen in place and only minus their version of greenhouse gases, the ir imbibing ones which is mainly water.

        And it correctly gives the 67°C temperature of the Earth without water but with the rest of the atmosphere in place, the practically 100& oxygen and nitrogen thermal blanket.

        When you know this you can see how silly the idea that a trace gas can be substituted for the heavy weighing down on us fourteen pound on every square inch real the thermal blanket of nitrogen and oxygen ..

        You should be able to see from this the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect illusion of “33°C warming ir imbibing greenhouse gases, mainly water”, there’s no connecting logic from the -18 direct to the 15. And see how this is a clever combination of sleights of hand, changing meanings from real physics etc.

      • Ever the optimist.., perhaps the silence from you is from intense cogitation?

        WUWT has a new post on Connolley’s shenanigans at wiki, this time because the Germans have taken note of it:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/#comment-1212755

        There are other links given in posts to more stories about him, but I think Caleb makes an interesting point, that the Germans in getting to know about this could be quite irate about being taken for yet another ride..

        Lew Skannen, one of several giving their experiences with Connolley the conman corrupting the science and adjusting the climate narrative to his Green agenda, has a suggestion: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/#comment-1212773

        There is no AGW The Greenhouse Effect – science fictions require continual corruption to keep them going, not science facts.

  34. What happened to the December 2012 global mean temperature? I’ve been tracking Hadcrut3 since 2008 (using Tamino’s YouBet methodology, but on 1975-2004, to see if GMST can break through the the bottom of 2*SD from the trend) and this is the first time the temperature has been that low in the 21C without a la-nina influence. In fact one of the things that had struck me about GMST is how quickly it bounced back when la-nina relaxed, and this fact had convinced me that while temperatures might be flat there was also no “pressure” to bring GMST down.

    December 2012 looks anomalous, and given its across all the datasets it isn’t due to methodology. Perhaps it’s connected to el-nino blowing itself out in the autumn–but that looked weird too. Any thoughts?

  35. Bjarne Bisballe

    It is the moon, stupid

    I stumbled over this

    http://ansatte.hials.no/hy/climate/defaultEng.htm

    A collection of papers claiming that the arctic climate is influenced by the moon’s nodal (18,6 year) cycles (the 2006 papers)

    Cyclic tidal waves influenced by the moon cycles varies the vertical stirring of the surface water and it also changes the flow of the sea currents.

    An interesting theory, but I am not the right person to evaluate it.

    Someone here who can?

    • “An interesting theory, but I am not the right person to evaluate it. Someone here who can? ”

      Any pseudo-theory that claims to explains warming, independently of any human influence, will be evaluated positively by most so-called sceptics on this blog. Their scepticism tends to vanish just when it would be most useful to them!

      • Turn it around.

      • OK.

        Their scepticism tends to vanish just when it would be most useful to them! Any pseudo-theory that claims to explains warming, independently of any human influence, will be evaluated positively by most so-called sceptics on this blog.

      • Bjarne Bisballe

        It is definitely not at pseudo-theory and it is not a theory on warming, but a theory on how ocean currents are directed to different local areas in the northern parts of the Atlantic Ocean influenced by small changes in gravity.
        It gives a good explanation about variations in local fishery and the extent of the sea ice, because the various sub-currents have different temperature and different plankton content.

      • tempterrain, you’re right, skeptics are not skeptical of the null hypothesis (no ACO2 effect basically). To miss the mark easy, to hit it difficult.

        It’s the warmists who insist on mechanism if the paradigm is to be shifted.

      • Just looking at the graph there’s a significant possibility that the observed signal is statistically much less significant than thought by the author. The deep dip around 1920 is so strong that it alone can influence the outcome very much. Such a single strong deviation may well dominate the outcome and the observed period be determined by it’s location relative to one or two maximums.

        When the outcome is determined by so few minimums and maximums there isn’t enough evidence for any conclusion about periodicity. The apparent statistical significance involves implicit assumptions about periodicity, but gives little evidence on the validity of these implied assumptions.

    • Interesting temperature series. Once again the 1940s as warm (if not warmer) as the 2000s.

  36. I commented on the other trend on the physical implausibility of the “trapped radiation” and the consensus (radiative) explanation of the atmospheric GHE. I agree with this formulation:

    “Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.

    I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.”

  37. This is a short essay on why the warmists theory, that increasing atmospheric CO2 will automatically lead to increasing global temperatures, is false. It does not require a great knowledge of Physics, Statistics or Mathematics to follow, just an ability to check and understand some basic facts and make logical conclusions from them.

    Let us agree some facts first.

    The warmists always like to state their argument in the form of, increased atmospheric CO2 = increased warmth. However, this is not an accurate representation of the science. What they should say, for accuracy, is that…… ‘Increased CO2 in the atmosphere, leads to an increase in Radiative Forcing on the Earth and an increase in Radiative Forcing leads to increased warming on the Earth’.

    What is is true though, is that only the first part of that latter statement is a proven fact.

    The ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is not a separate forcing, it acts as an amplifier of the radiative forcing effect of the Sun. Take that away and you are not left with the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ forcing you are left with nothing.

    So let us agree to use the correct terminology in our agreed facts and talk about the increased Radiative Forcing (RF) caused by the increased CO2.

    Warmists will say why not jump straight to increased CO2 = increased warmth, as physics demand that this must happen if we push additional energy, via increased RF, into a system and it makes it simpler to understand. I am sure a lot of the cleverer warmist scientists like to do this deliberately, because it deflects attention away from a rather obvious truth, that we will come to later.

    So, is it obvious in physics, that applying increased heat energy to a system, will lead to a long term increase in that systems temperature?

    Well in a non-dynamic system that is absolutely true. If I stick one end of a bar of metal in hot water, the other end will heat up after a time. If I stick the feet of a cadaver in hot water the head will heat up after a time. However, if I stick the feet of a living person in the hot water what happens to the head now?

    Oops, what has happened to the physics? Nothing of course but in a dynamic system, like the human body, the input of heat at one point may trigger dynamic processes that cause no long term heating in the system as a whole. Indeed it is perfectly possible for the human to end up cooler for a time. It all depends on the strength of the triggered feedback processes and whether they are negative or not.

    So we can all agree that increasing energy into one part of a dynamic system does not necessarily lead, automatically, to a general heating of that system.

    Now the Earth’s climate system is a dynamic one, we can all agree on that, changing one process will often lead to a change in a connected process which may be a positive or negative effect.

    So what empirical evidence is there that increasing Radiative Forcing long term on the Earth causes it to warm long term?

    Err… that would be none then!

    We do, however, have irrefutable evidence that the Earth does NOT warm long term in the face of increased RF.

    We actually have a good record of the effect of an increase in Radiative Forcing on the Earth because of the Suns behavior. The Sun has been increasing its output and therefore the RF on the Earth, by about 1% every 100 million years and will continue to do so for billions of years. You could look at the ‘Faint Sun Paradox for starters which shows that three billion years ago liquid water was present on the Earth meaning that temperatures must have been similar to, or warmer than, today’s. It could not have been much colder. So the Earth has not warmed in the face of a 30% increase in RF for 3000 million years. However I do not use these facts, remarkable as they are, as evidence that the Earth does not warm in the face of increased RF, as the Earth was totally different then, different atmosphere, virtually no life etc.

    No, instead let us look at the last 500 million years. If we went back then it would look familiar. The atmosphere was like today’s, life had colonised and exploded across the land, plate tectonics were in full operation etc. We would notice one thing different however. What would that be you might ask?

    http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C01/E4-03-08-02.pdf

    Well since that time the Sun has increased its RF on the Earth by about 5%, (equivalent to about five doublings of CO2) a very significant sum, amounting to about 65 WM2 at the top of the atmosphere.

    So what would we notice that was different back then? Well it was lot hotter then. A lot hotter! The global temperature being about 22C compared to today’s 14-15C.

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

    Since that time there have been about three halvings of CO2 in the atmosphere, leaving a net increase of about two doublings about 27Wm2 at the TOA.

    So for hundreds of millions of years the Earth has been cooling long term in the face of significantly increased RF. This is a fact, not conjecture, real empirical, undeniable evidence.

    So the warmists theory, correctly stated as………….. ‘increasing the RF on the Earth, by emitting more CO2, will automatically lead to a warmer Earth’, is falsified. Fact!

    So what ‘evidence’ do they have to continue with their theory.

    Physics, in the form of ‘increased energy = increased warmth’, is no proof in a dynamic system, as I have demonstrated.

    Empirical evidence is no good, it falsifies the theory.

    No they have the MODELS!. You know, computer models that tell you what you have told them to tell you in the first place, just quicker. These computer models are not like Star Trek, you can’t just ask them a question and expect them to give you the answer. No, you have to tell them what the answer is first, they output what you have input. If you want it to tell you that increasing CO2 means higher temperatures and increasing aerosols means lower temperatures then you have to tell it so and give a parameter for its value.

    So having constructed these models and input the various parameters and adjusted the values to best suit, how accurate are they?

    Well I used to believe what the scientists said about AGW but that was before I looked into the subject myself and realised the Models had to be wrong. Notice, not might be wrong but HAD to be wrong.

    Of course the Models, on the forecast for the 21st century, are currently running well off. However, that is not the reason I know that they are wrong, that is actually a point in their favour!

    What did the Scientists predict, via their Models, for the 21st Century?

    They predicted a massive acceleration in the rate of global temperature rise, averaging about four to five times, the warming seen in the 20th century.

    Of course the alarmist scientists and their followers, now that their Models are currently way off, say that. of course the Models are off, you can’t expect them to match the temperature record on a decadal or even longer period. That is because of natural variation in the Earth’s climatic processes which can mask and even reverse the true climate signal. They have to admit therefore, that this natural variation (weather) can be very strong, it is not only holding back the forecast, massively increased, forcing effect of the 21st Century, it is also absorbing all the vast pipeline heating that was forecast to kick in at the end of the 20th Century.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/plot/wti/from:2001/trend

    You remember the ‘pipeline’ heating don’t you? This was the heating, that the alarmist scientists were saying, at the end of the last Century, that was inevitable, even if we had stopped producing CO2 full stop at the start of this Century. Funny that we don’t hear the alarmists banging on about this ‘pipeline’ heating anymore isn’t it. I wonder why?

    There is no way that these scientists would have said that natural variation could be so large and strong at the end of the last Century. Their theory and models are built on the assumption that it isn’t! However, now it comes to the crunch, they agree it is to save their Models. And you know what? I agree with them.

    The fact that the Models are off so far this century, is not any proof that they are wrong. Why is that?

    Well the Models just output the climate signal, they average out the ENSO induced natural variation, that we see with the PDO cycle for instance. The temperature record has this natural variation ‘weather’ signal added to the climate signal it is also measuring.

    So we are comparing apples and oranges. Whilst the Models and Temperature Records both measure or output the underlying climate signal, the temperature record has an additional cooling or warming signal added to it via ‘weather’.

    Now we can all understand this and the alarmist scientists apparently now agree. The Models, if they are outputting an accurate climate signal, should not, cannot, MUST not match the short to medium term temperature records, for other than those periods when the ‘weather’ signal is neutral.

    So how did I come to immediately realise that the Models are wrong?……………….

    Because the Models, on their hindcast, DO match quite closely, the temperature record of the 20th Century!!!

    Seeing that, as all the readers of this essay and the scientists themselves, must agree that that is impossible for an accurate Model, then it follows that they must be wrong.

    Of course, we know why they do match the 20th century temperature record, they were tuned to do so by their creators. You can see why they did it.

    One, they didn’t think natural variation had large effects on the climate signal.

    Two, they didn’t even know about some of the ENSO effects, e.g. the PDO cycle was not identified until 1996.

    Three, they probably thought nobody would take much notice of models that couldn’t even match the known temperatures.

    This disconnect, between the Models climate signal and the Temperature Records climate plus ‘weather’ signal, should have been even more apparent in the 20th century than the 21st, according to their own theory. According to them, the average forcing effect of increasing CO2 was much lower in that Century than they say it is in the 21st Century. Therefore, it should have been much easier and noticeable for the Earth’s ‘weather’ effects to hold back and reverse the underlying climate signal the Models produce.

    In their hubris they overlooked the fact that an orange doesn’t equal an apple, no matter which way you cut it.

    So 500 million years of empirical Earth history directly disproves the notion that increasing Radiative Forcing must equal a warmer Earth. It is an undeniable fact.

    Also the Models are falsified, not by their 21st Century forecasts but by their 20th Century hindcasts and I defy any alarmist out there to try and stitch them together.

    I think skeptics out there should just stick to and concentrate on these two most obvious facts. No point going esoterical, as Climate Science is in its infancy and we are nowhere near fully understanding the processes that are driving the climate and we can just get sidetracked.

    The facts as stated above are obvious and understandable and blow huge holes below the waterline in the good ship CAGW.

    Perhaps they will try and say that the Earth has changed recently and though it has actually continually cooled long term since life colonised the land, even in the face of a large increase in RF, that things are now different and it will warm in future.

    If so in view of the massive empirical evidence of the past they will have to provide strong evidence of what has caused this past cooling, when this changed to warming exactly, what were the factors involved, what was the strength of these factors etc etc? I don’t fancy their chances because even in quite recent times, in geological terms, the Earth is continuing to cool. In the current ice age, the glacial and inter glacial periods are steadily getting cooler.

    As far as the Models go, they are caught!

    Reality has caught up with them. In defending their forecasts, having to agree that the models outputs are necessarily different to the temperature record and to admit that the ‘weather’ signal can be very significant, then they have completely undermined their hindcasts of the last century.

    To reiterate, an accurate climate model should not, cannot, must not, except for the shortest time, and the very long term, match the temperature records.

    Alan

    • “The warmists always like to state their argument in the form of, increased atmospheric CO2 = increased warmth. However, this is not an accurate representation of the science. What they should say, for accuracy, is that…… ‘Increased CO2 in the atmosphere, leads to an increase in Radiative Forcing on the Earth and an increase in Radiative Forcing leads to increased warming on the Earth’.”

      That is not an accurate representation of the science.

      Aren’t you concerned about accuracy?

      What you should have said, for accuracy, is that increase CO2 in the atmosphere, leads to ln(C / C0) * 5.35 radiative forcing (but you might need to be more even more specific for accuracys sake). The earth generally warms when the net radiative imbalance is positive, but there is also noise!

      • “Noise” (what we are unable to explain with our hypotheses and models)

        Over the past 10-15 years this happened to be as large (or even larger) than what we ARE able to explain.

        It’s a “noisy” world.

        (some scientists refer to this as “uncertainty”)

        Max

    • I am glad you are looking at paleo evidence and forcing. I have always endorsed those. Forcing from doubling CO2 is equivalent to a 1% solar increase and should warm the earth in a similar way. Paleo evidence as recent as the Eocene 50 million years ago shows how warm it gets with a couple of CO2 doublings, and skeptics are just ignoring that. You bring up the fainter sun 500 million years ago. As you know, these periods included the Carboniferous which are now the coal-bearing layers (hence their name), but that carbon was in the carbon cycle back then, so the faint sun was compensated by the large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. These ideas back up the importance of atmospheric composition as being critical to preventing an ice world back then. Without GHGs, assuming the same albedo, the temperature with a 30% fainter sun would be -39 C instead of -18 C, just an ice world. Thanks to GHGs life thrived. It’s all consistent.

      • Look, I know warmists tactics are obfuscation but talk to the facts I have given, not speculation.

        Facts are 500 million years ago the Earth was in its current climatic configuration, similar atmosphere, life across the land, plate tectonics, carbon cycle in place etc.

        Since then there has been the equivalent of approx five doublings of CO2 increase in RF less three halvings of CO2, leaving a net increase of the equivalent of two doublings of CO2.

        Don’t use reduction of CO2 as an excuse as I have already accounted for the reduction. There was nowhere near the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere at that time that you have inferred. Look it up!

        Since that time temperatures have REDUCED by approx 8C.

        Warmists theory is that the Earth MUST warm in the face of increased RF.

        It didn’t, therefore the theory is falsified. Simple.

        Alan

      • “Look, I know warmists tactics are obfuscation but talk to the facts I have given, not speculation.”

        your facts are wrong, recheck them

      • Facts? Facts? All I got is rocks, rocks.
        =========

      • So Lolwot you just come back with BS hoping to distract from the truth. I have given links for temperature and atmospheric composition. Look it up! You just give obfuscation.

        Oh and you and your pals are avoiding the issue that the ‘Models’ must be wrong by the scientists own words.

        Alan

      • Alan Millar, why do you keep saying it was a similar atmosphere 500 million years ago? Our fossil fuels are drawn from the remnants of the carbon cycle in that era and we are restoring them to the atmosphere, which is why the CO2 is increasing. Those geologic layers give plenty of evidence that there was a lot more carbon dioxide in the carbon cycle than in periods since. How do you account for the equilibrium temperature being 21 degrees cooler with the sun 30% fainter when temperatures were clearly not that cold? You seem to have avoided an explanation.

      • For a start a 5% increase in solar output is not 5 doublings of CO2.

      • Jim, what Alan is arguing is that the Sun doesn’t affect global temperature at all, because as his “facts” show over the last 500 years the Sun’s output has increased but the Earth has cooled.

        Therefore those claiming the Sun has an influence on global temperature are frauds.

      • lolwot, OK, that’s an odd theory. How about the Maunder Minimum? What about that we can even see the sunspot cycle in global temperatures? I asked for his theory of how this could be, but I suspect nothing will be forthcoming, except perhaps for some angry bluster.

      • Fraud green tomatoes aren’t just for white people anymore.
        =========

      • Lolwot you seem unable to grasp the most basic of concepts or statements.

        I am not saying that the Sun has no influence on our climate. I am saying that the warmists theory, that increased RF on the Earth automatically leads to a warmer Earth, is false and all available empirical evidence from the Earth’s past proves this to be so.

        How much simpler can the proof be ?

        RF has increased on the Earth over a long period and the Earth has cooled over the same period.

        This is real empirical evidence and all you have to say things are different now are the ‘Models’.

        You have still not commented on my proof that the current models must be wrong. I presume you accept it then.

        Alan

        ,

      • Alan Millar, I don’t think other skeptics would be happy with your line of reasoning because it implies other factors than the sun at work, doesn’t it. The long-term and short-term (50 million years or last century) changes go well with GHG concentrations. That would be your missing factor to explain the long-term cooling.

      • Jim D

        What I said about the inability of Lolwot to grasp basic statements and facts goes for you as well if not more so.

        I have accounted for the reduction in CO, can’t you read my posts?

        Facts are that RF has increased and temperatures have reduced falsifying the warmist theory.

        You only have the ‘Models’ and they are not evidence.

        In any event I have shown that they must be wrong and I assume you agree as you have not tried to disprove it .

        Alan

      • Alan Miller I recommend you go read up on radiative forcing and energy imbalance are in the context of climate.

      • Alan Millar, you have to check your numbers. Doubling CO2 amounts to about 3.7 W/m2 (you seem to be assuming 13 W/m2 because you forgot the factor of 0.25 for the solar forcing averaged over a sphere). It is near 1% of the solar forcing, as you say, but all your numbers are off. A 5% increase would be about 17 W/m2, which becomes 12 W/m2 after removing the albedo reflection, which can be accounted for by 3000 ppm, just to get the pre-industrial temperature, not an unrealistic amount for 500 million years ago, especially if you allow for methane too.

      • “Jim D | January 26, 2013 at 6:39 pm |

        Alan Millar, you have to check your numbers. Doubling CO2 amounts to about 3.7 W/m2 (you seem to be assuming 13 W/m2 because you forgot the factor of 0.25 for the solar forcing averaged over a sphere). It is near 1% of the solar forcing, as you say, but all your numbers are off. A 5% increase would be about 17 W/m2, which becomes 12 W/m2 after removing the albedo reflection, which can be accounted for by 3000 ppm, just to get the pre-industrial temperature, not an unrealistic amount for 500 million years ago, especially if you allow for methane too.”

        Rather than direct sunlight, isn’t CO2 about the longwave IR being
        emitted by the surface?

        No doubt increased solar energy would affect how much is radiated from the surface, why isn’t based upon average skin temperature? Or even average air, if you want.
        Does anyone think the sunlight warms CO2 gas directly?

      • gbaikie, the solar forcing is being compared with CO2 forcing. They are independent forcings of course, and all the significant CO2 effect is in the IR.

      • Jim D | January 26, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
        Alan Millar, you have to check your numbers. Doubling CO2 amounts to about 3.7 W/m2 (you seem to be assuming 13 W/m2 because you forgot the factor of 0.25 for the solar forcing averaged over a sphere). It is near 1% of the solar forcing, as you say, but all your numbers are off. A 5% increase would be about 17 W/m2,

        Jim D

        That statement is proof positive that you have no idea what you are talking about, have no clue about climate science and in general are a bit of an idiot.

        Why are you commenting on a site about climate science when you are clueless?

        A 1% increase in solar output is about 13.6 WM2 at the TOA and about 3.4 WM2 at the surface i.e. about the same as a doubling of CO2. This is an obvious and unchallenged fact amongst anyone who has a clue, which obviously precludes you.

        So I can declare with no possible challenge that all posts by you about climate science should in future be ignored as you are proven clueless by your own statements.

        Alan

      • Alan Millar, your error is equating the solar radiation overhead at noon with a global average. I will leave that as a clue for you to chase up, but it is where the factor of 1/4 comes in.
        As a side note, skeptics are invariably very angry people, it seems. I try to have a reasoned debate and I get this.

      • Alan is just mad, Jim D.

        It’s OK.

        Trust Tony on this one.

      • Jim D | January 26, 2013 at 9:00 pm |
        “Alan Millar, your error is equating the solar radiation overhead at noon with a global average. I will leave that as a clue for you to chase up, but it is where the factor of 1/4 comes in.
        As a side note, skeptics are invariably very angry people, it seems. I try to have a reasoned debate and I get this.”

        You get this because you are clueless and have just repeated a previous clueless statement, which I have already refuted with actual facts.

        The Suns RF at the TOA is about 1366 WM2. A 1% increase in this would be 13.66 WM2 which equates to about 3.5 WM2 at the surface which is equivalent to the approx value of a doubling of CO2.

        Get it? Go and look it up, indeed I would recommend you spend a few years looking things up before commenting again, given your current level of cluelessness.

        What about the proof that the Models are wrong by the way?

        Alan

      • Alan Millar, you are confusing radiative forcing with TSI. They are different by a factor of exactly 4.

      • Question in world with say 5 times the CO2 [2000 ppm]
        how much H2O greenhouse gas is there?

      • gbailkie, the world would be 7 degrees warmer than today, and so H2O vapor would increase by about 60%.

      • “Jim D | January 27, 2013 at 12:16 pm |

        gbailkie, the world would be 7 degrees warmer than today, and so H2O vapor would increase by about 60%.”

        Thank you for that estimate.
        Do you believe this 60% number is one many would agree?
        And if for some other reason average global temperature
        were 7 degrees warmer would be the same number.
        Or does the kind of warming associated with CO2 have
        significant bearing on this?
        There couple ways to look at this question. Methane
        could add this much according greenhouse effect theory.
        But also many accept that location of land masses have
        large effect upon global temperature, and so where
        continents are, and the presence of mountains, etc
        could cause there to be increase in global temperature
        and if such causes [and others] were causing an increase
        in global temperature by 7 degrees, would this also cause
        60% increase in global water vapor.
        And also the 60% increase in global water vapor is part
        of the 7 degrees of warming. Would it not be more than
        1/2 or more of the increase?

        Now, a different question. What does 60% increase in
        global water vapor look like.
        How is distributed around the world?

        For instance one could say it’s increase in tropical water vapor.
        This could just fatter bulge of troposphere at equator. And/or
        also a wider bulge near the tropics.
        Or it could more uniform globally.

        In sense, it’s same question of where one expects most of warming
        to occur.

        At present, what is something like 90% of global water vapor in
        the tropics.
        And tropics covers 40% of surface area of planet Earth and tropics
        lies between “approximately 23° 26′ 16″ (or 23.4378°) N and the Tropic of Capricorn in the southern hemisphere at 23° 26′ 16″ (or 23.4378°) S”- wiki
        And extend latitudes to around 38 degrees north and south then more 1/2 of global surface area. And to 60 degrees around 80% of surface area.
        Surface of earth is 510 million square km. And 40% is 204 million square km.
        If one simply widen the tropical area by 60%, it’s 326.4 million square
        km. Making it well over 1/2 of global surface area- somewhere above 40 degrees latitude.
        If you believe that 90% or less of global vapor is in the tropics, then one has add even more water vapor above 40 degrees latitude.
        But at 90% one still more than doubling the water vapor above 40 degrees. So that’s widening. If one goes up, and so increasing the height of tropical troposphere it could be quite different. It depends
        how high one is thinking it can go.

      • gbaikie, some might say 50% more H2O. It depends whether you take 6% per degree or 7% as I used. 2/3 of the 7 degrees would be from water vapor feedback. I am ignoring what direction cloud feedbacks go as it is not known and considered smaller anyway. I am also ignoring albedo feedbacks due to reduced ice which are positive. The water vapor would be added in proportion to where it is, but that assumes uniform warming. Initially the polar areas and land would warm faster where there is less water vapor, so the water vapor growth would be delayed until the tropical oceans warm. There are a lot of transient effects and 7 degrees is just a global averages, as land and polar areas probably would exceed this.

      • “Jim D | January 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Alan Millar, you are confusing radiative forcing with TSI. They are different by a factor of exactly 4.”

        Look you plank.
        I KNOW that an increase in total forcing at the TOA is 4 times the forcing at the surface. Can you not understand 13.66 WM2 /4 is approx equivalent to the 3.7 WM2 caused by a doubling of CO2.

        Next time you want to post, stop breathing for a bit whilst you think, as you cannot seem to do both at the same time.

        Alan

      • Alana Millar, the global averaged forcing at TOA is 341 W/m2. I think we agree when you remember there is night and that the earth’s surface is not all normal to the solar rays.

      • …oops typo – Alan

    • Steven Mosher

      Models are never falsified. Models are tools used by scientists. They don’t produce evidence they are either consistent with evidence or inconsistent with evidence. When they are inconsistent with evidence we can suspect some combination of the following is true.

      1. the model should be improved.
      2. the evidence should be examined.

      In short, you attempt to have it two ways, first by arguing that models are not evidence and second by arguing that they have been ‘falsified.” What happens when you “falsify’ something that you dont consider to be evidence in the first place? Logically? nothing. On the other hand, if you viewed models as providing evidence, and if a model was inconsistent with other evidence ( like observations ) then it might make sense to talk about a model being “falsified”.

      so, you might want to start over. what is a model and are they important? what can they do? what can’t they do

      • “When [models] are inconsistent with evidence we can suspect some combination of the following is true…

        1. the model should be improved.
        2. the evidence should be examined.”

        Good points. Of course – I know I’m jumping in a little outta context here -there are other possibilities. Models can still have offsetting errors, and thus be consistent with the evidence and still be wrong.

      • Mosher, my experience with models is predominantly in the economics field. I’ve worked mainly with CGE (computable general equilibrium) models, but needed a grasp of others in order to keep up with the economics literature, which I did extensively until ten years ago, not much since.

        I found that the assumptions on which models were based were critical. If different modellers of the same issue came up with wildly different results, it was rarely (though sometimes) due to the modelling process, generally the outcomes reflected the assumptions. My skills in this field were three-fold: being something of a wide-ranging synthesiser rather than a narrow specialist, I could often see problems in the assumptions, pre-run where I was involved, post-run if not. Secondly, I’ve always had a feel for numbers, for ratios, magnitudes and proportions, and I often detected nonsense missed by learned professors. Third, I had a capacity to understand the model outcomes and present them in a way intelligible to non-economists
        .
        So as far as a model “being falsified” is concerned, it depends on your criteria. One criterion would be whether the model is properly specified for the task. If not, can it be corrected, or is it incapable of performing the desired task? Another would be whether the specific modelling work was based on valid assumptions.

        By “evidence,” I assume that you mean the input data. But more important, I think, would be the relationships which are assumed and specified, and surely these can be falsified?

        In my work, the modelling was one element of the decision-making (or advisory) process. It didn’t tell you what to do, but it generally provided a much sounder basis for deciding the merits of alternative options. The ultimate test was whether the model was helpful in understanding issues and determining policy. From my viewpoint, that should also determine an assessment of climate models. Are the underlying relationships properly understood? If not, can the model help to determine them? Is it well-specified for the task? Can it produce results which help our understanding and guide our decision-making?

        And, as Jimmy says, coherent output could mask defects in models, users must be constantly alert.

        In the climate field, I’ve sometimes been able to follow the technical work, but much of it I can’t evaluate. However, I have some capacity to assess the implications for policy.

      • Steven Mosher | January 26, 2013 at 5:50 pm | Reply
        Models are never falsified. Models are tools used by scientists. They don’t produce evidence they are either consistent with evidence or inconsistent with evidence. When they are inconsistent with evidence we can suspect some combination of the following is true.

        1. the model should be improved.
        2. the evidence should be examined.

        In short, you attempt to have it two ways, first by arguing that models are not evidence and second by arguing that they have been ‘falsified.” What happens when you “falsify’ something that you dont consider to be evidence in the first place? Logically? nothing. On the other hand, if you viewed models as providing evidence, and if a model was inconsistent with other evidence ( like observations ) then it might make sense to talk about a model being “falsified”.

        Mosher

        “Models are never falsified”.

        Ha Ha, so you want to confirm that you are clueless as well Mosher.

        So if I sent you a model showing you can win money playing roulettte that coulld never be falsified is that what you are saying Mosher? Or are you just playing semantics?

        Models are not evidence of anything and that is a fact. Or do you want to dispute that Mosher?

        Models can also be disproven, proved to be incorrect, or wrong, or to be proven to be false, or to be falsified. Choose your statement Mosher.

        I have shown a proof that the Climate Models are wrong, incorrect, disproven, falsified.

        So instead of trying to play semantics Mosher refute what I have said or STFU.

        Alan

      • Robert I Ellison

        ‘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.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

        The models are tuned to reproduce observations but the ability to replicate observations is not a validation of model formulation. I can do the same with a ‘black box’ of random relationships. Beyond that models diverge exponentially as a result of sensitive dependence and structural instability as a result of the nonlienear equations at their core.

        ‘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

        I know I have quoted both these before – but am astonished that the argument persists in a fog of ignorance about the essential maths of the complex systems that are climate models.

      • When they are inconsistent with evidence we can suspect some combination of the following is true.

        1. the model should be improved.
        2. the evidence should be examined.

        This is fine except that this hides one of the most common biases of scientists and other users of models. The bias is that both the model and the data are commonly accepted too easily and with too little scrutiny when they do agree.

        It’s correct to note that either the model or the data or both should be reexamined when they disagree, but that reexamination should not be interrupted when an agreement has been reached but continued until all details have been checked. Interrupting at first point of agreement is strongly selfconfirmatory.

        An immediate agreement should not either be taken as a proof of correctness as that’s also selfconfimatory. Due diligence should be applied also in these cases.

      • Alan Millar,

        I am afraid that you are setting a false dilemma when you say:

        > [I]nstead of trying to play semantics Mosher refute what I have said or STFU.

        The simplest refutations of your claim Mosh could provide rest on semantical grounds. Here are two examples.

        Mosh could reply that he does not wish to say that **all** the models are not falsifiable, just those of the kind used by climate scientists. Your Roulette example, while interesting, is not of the same kind at those used by climate modellers. Some of them (e.g. an unlimited Martingale) are even proven to warrant more than fair chances to win. Casinos have to protect themselves against them.

        Mosh could bite the bullet and say that your own example does not satisfy what falsifiability means. Suppose you have your model M and play a game G of Roulette. You lose some chips on the first try. Does it mean you model got falsified? No. You need more tries. How many? Suppose N: how will this N be realistically implementable? Will your M provide you with any warranty that G will be exactly like it predicts? Et cetera. I’m sure you get the idea.

        Mosh could even combine the two, and claim that this is a knock-down argument of your claim.

        Semantics is a formal discipline. The concept of model belongs to semantics. It’s OK for some arguments for or against models to rest on semantical grounds.

        Please don’t be mad.

  38. This:

    “The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas.”

    This is very important, IMO. The Earth’s surface warms the atmosphere by non-radiative modes mostly plus the net IR radiative flux surface-to-atmosphere. The atmosphere is overwhelmed with heat (or energy) due to the relatively high thermal resistance at the space interface (only the so-called GHGs radiate significantly). Atmospheric pressure at the surface is a factor too – state variables of gases are determined by equations of state. All basic thermodynamics and heat transfer.

    • Yes, exactly that! This is what is missing from the AGWScienceFiction’s the Greenhouse Effect – the whole atmosphere has been taken out and replaced by empty space for their “radiation fisics which is so well known..”

      This is the heavy real gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen which actually does act like a thermal blanket trapping the upwelling heat from the Earth preventing it from escaping immediately as it does on Moon without an atmosphere.

      With this in place and minus water the Earth would be 67°C, that’s how efficient it is.

      Kept in place by gravity, but don’t mention that word on WUWT – they think its some new fangled unproven concept.. They don’t have gravity because their molecules are the non-existant ideal gas description, massless hard dots of nothing bouncing off each other at great speeds through empty space miles apart from each other and propelled by nothing more than their own molecular momentum; no attraction, no volume, no weight, no density, no nothing. It’s a fantasy world created out of the basic ideal gas description without volume pre Van der Waals. They have no gravity because they have nothing for gravity to act on

  39. On this open thread, can I address a query to our friend Myrrh?

    Let’s imagine an experiment where we take a one-mile diameter lens with an optical coating filtering out all insolation wavelengths except for those between 400nm (roughly: purple) and 500nm (roughly: green). If the focus of the 400-500nm light was concentrated to a spot 1 foot in diameter and we put your head at that focus, Myrrh, what would happen?
    When we do this, you’re welcome to wear sunglasses if you like.

    • “Let’s imagine an experiment where we take a one-mile diameter lens with an optical coating filtering out all insolation wavelengths except for those between 400nm (roughly: purple) and 500nm (roughly: green). If the focus of the 400-500nm light was concentrated to a spot 1 foot in diameter and we put your head at that focus, Myrrh, what would happen?”

      Creating a one mile diameter lens would be challenging. The largest telescopes in world use mirror segments. Such as the Keck telescope:
      “The primary mirrors of each of the two telescopes are 10 meters (33 ft (396 in)) in diameter, making them the second largest optical telescopes in the world, slightly behind the Gran Telescopio Canarias; however the Gran Canary telescope does not have the capability to use all of its 10.4 meters, thus making the Keck telescopes the largest observable telescope in the world. The telescopes can operate together to form a single astronomical interferometer.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._M._Keck_Observatory

      I had thought Gran Telescopio Canarias did achieve this capability a couple years ago [perhaps I am wrong].
      But anyhow, these are reflective mirrors, as compared to a lens that light passes through. These reflective mirrors can have their weight supported [and by a mechanism of how this weight is supported can correct distortion {bend the mirror}- they are “adjustable”]. Whereas a lens in which light passes thru is obviously not supportable in the middle of lens, requiring the glass of the lens to be able to support it weight over the distance of it’s diameter. Upshot is such lens are limited to about 4 feet in diameter if in Earth’s gravity. Of course if not too concerned about the optical quality- if sole purpose was incinerating Myrrh’s head- then one could use different
      technology approaches- Fresnel lens probably being easiest and cheapest.
      But one could instead not have the lens in gravity- you could put it in orbit.
      And you could bring Myrrh up into space so one doesn’t a huge focal distance [and not terrify earthlings in general- enough will unreasonably terrified without having actual good reason] and have the problems trying point this one-mile diameter lens [and without a danger of incinerating swaths of the countryside]. So this way one have focal distance of mile or so. And bring us to the issue of Chromatic aberration:

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

      And:

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

      “An apochromat, or apochromatic lens (apo), is a photographic or other lens that has better correction of chromatic and spherical aberration than the much more common achromat lenses.”
      “Achromatic lenses are corrected to bring two wavelengths (typically red and blue) into focus in the same plane. Apochromatic lenses are designed to bring three wavelengths (typically red, green, and blue) into focus in the same plane.”

      So you don’t “need optical coating filtering out all insolation wavelengths”
      instead you need design lens so the desired wavelengths are arriving one spot- Myrrh’s head.
      Allowing his head to only be incinerated by the selective colors in some fraction of second- and everything else to be out of focus.

      • Now I’ve heard about letting mosquitoes bite you, and swallowing ulcer causing bugs, but I think even Cap’n Stormfield might balk at this voyage of discovery.
        ============

    • kencoffman (@kencoffman) | January 26, 2013 at 9:13 am | On this open thread, can I address a query to our friend Myrrh?

      I
      Let’s imagine an experiment where we take a one-mile diameter lens with an optical coating filtering out all insolation wavelengths except for those between 400nm (roughly: purple) and 500nm (roughly: green). If the focus of the 400-500nm light was concentrated to a spot 1 foot in diameter and we put your head at that focus, Myrrh, what would happen?
      When we do this, you’re welcome to wear sunglasses if you like.

      Is this the best responses that I can get to my challenge? The Sun is not a laser, there is no lens in the atmosphere around the equator concentrating the Sun’s rays onto the land and water there..

      Visible Sunlight is benign to the eyes. In full production we have glass windows which optimise visible light from the Sun and reflect away the direct thermal infrared from the Sun. In full production we have photovoltaic systems and thermal panels to garner the different properties of the energies from the Sun; the photovoltaic converting shortwave into electricity, the thermal panels utilising the great heat absorption properties of water to capture the direct heat from the Sun, longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared. In full production we have lightbulbs designed to optimise visible light for photosynthesis and take out longwave infrared, which is radiant heat, in horticultural industries. We know what visible light can and cannot do.

      Visible light from the Sun cannot heat matter, it is too small to move the molecules of matter into vibration which is what it takes to heat matter. Visible light is not absorbed at all by water which is a transparent medium for visible, visible light from the Sun cannot be heating the water at the equator to the intensity this is actually being heated. Water doesn’t even absorb visible on the electronic transition level which molecules of nitrogen and oxygen do, which is how light is reflected/scattered and how we get our blue skies.

      You have to at some point admit you don’t know the difference between heat and light …

      Deal with my challenge as it is written, this is about the claims of AGWScienceFiction’s The Greenhouse Effect energy budget which you claim is real world physics.

      We would not get our great equator to poles winds and dramatic weather systems if the land and water at the equator was not heated intensely by the Sun, the Sun actually, physically, heating the land and water just as you actually physically put powerful heat to work to cook your dinner.

      Prove that visible light from the Sun does this heating of land and water at the equator or stop claiming that it does. Your claim, you deal with this. You are supposedly “climate” scientists or interested in the subject.

      So far none of you has demonstated any grasp of basic weather.

      I’m pointing out that these AGWSF claims are fake fisics, explore it for yourselves in answering my challenge. Don’t just repeat memes churned out by the rebuttal meme production department which are irrelevant and only prove you don’t know what you’re talking about.. Get a grip on yourselves.

      • It’s interesting that you think photons in the visible spectrum are not absorbed by land and sea. I guess that’s why we can see right through the planet.

      • David N | January 26, 2013 at 8:24 pm | It’s interesting that you think photons in the visible spectrum are not absorbed by land and sea. I guess that’s why we can see right through the planet.

        I said water is a transparent medium for visible light. Water does not absorb visible light but transmits it through unchanged. This is basic bog standard Optics.

        The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget is immediately by this alone show to be junk science because it claims that visible light from the Sun heats water which is impossible..

        If you have actually studied this subject and paid for the study and have been taught the fake fisics of visible light light heating land and water, then you could demand your money back.. At least confront your teachers and demand they prove it.

      • Actually, there is a very small amount of absorption in the visible spectrum for pure H20. It’s not zero. Perhaps you haven’t considered this, but the oceans are not pure water. You can’t see straight through to the bottom. This is because the oceans are absorbing visible light.

        If you could point to the time when I insulted you, then I suppose I’d have to grant you the right to adopt the tone you’ve taken above.

      • David N | January 26, 2013 at 9:10 pm |
        If you could point to the time when I insulted you, then I suppose I’d have to grant you the right to adopt the tone you’ve taken above.

        Sorry anyway, but I wasn’t taking any “tone” with you, and I don’t know what it is I’ve said that has upset you.

        Actually, there is a very small amount of absorption in the visible spectrum for pure H20. It’s not zero. Perhaps you haven’t considered this, but the oceans are not pure water. You can’t see straight through to the bottom. This is because the oceans are absorbing visible light.

        This certainly irritates me.. The AGWScienceFiction claim is that visible light from the Sun is the actual energy doing all the heating of land and water and it has excluded all actual direct heat from the Sun, radiant heat, thermal infrared, longwave infrared. I do get fed up with this seeming inability to get any grasp of the scale of the claim here. What possible use is your “small absorption in pure H2O” in heating the water at the equator to the intensity it is actually heated which is how we get our huge wind and weather systems? For all practical purposes water is a transparent medium for visible light – the AGWSF claim is falsified just by this alone.

        You can see straight through to the bottom of clear water because water is not absorbing visible light! And you can see what’s at the bottom because what you are seeing is light reflecting back from the objects at the bottom.

        You can see when diving in the ocean because light is not absorbed by the water, there would be no life in the ocean if water absorbed visible light! That there is attenuation for other reasons does not change this.

        Visible light works on the tiny electronic transition level, in the atmosphere it is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen and then spat out again, this is how we get reflection/scattering and our blue sky. In a transparent medium visible light doesn’t even get in to play with the electrons, it can’t get in to the dance and is transmitted through unchanged. There is a slight delay here, as water tries to absorb and visible light tries to join in and can’t and is then passed along, because water is denser than air there are more of these encounters and so light is slowed down more, some fourteen times more than in air.

        But, this is what I mean by sleights of hand, memes of fake fisics are brainwashed through the education system and these are taken so much for granted as if real physics that no one bothers to examine them. All I’m trying to do is get people here to think through the brainwashing. If you want to know about visible light you, generic, would need to go first to the science discipline of Optics, you would not go to Thermodynamics.. Now of course we can add Biology to that since the great amount of work done by so many to understand photosynthesis. Which is the absorption of visible light to chemical energy, not heat energy, in the creation of sugars from water and carbon dioxide.

        The claim of the Greenhouse Effect is that visible light from the Sun converts land and water to heat energy, totally replacing the work done by radiant heat from the Sun in the real world. This is a humongous claim!

        It is also physically absurd.

        In the real world it is physically absurd.

        Repeat as many times at it takes to sink in that this is what I am saying, and so my challenge.

        So, please don’t distract by mentioning conspiracy theories, this is a direct science challenge to you, and generic you.. Prove the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect energy budget claim that visible light heats the land and water intensely at the equator which is how we get our huge equator to poles winds and powerful weather systems, or damn well admit it is junk science.

        And stop teaching it.

      • Your accusation that the conventional energy budget ignores inbound IR from the sun is false. Your claim that the oceans are transparent to visible light is preposterous. The properties of pure water are not the properties of the ocean. At depths greater than 1000 m there is no visible sunlight in the ocean, and yet creatures exist at that depth and below. If you truly believe that visible light does no heating then get yourself a class IV blue laser and aim it at your skin. But please do me the favor of trying it on some scrap paper or plastic first. And wear safety glasses.

        It is not necessary for you to disparage others’ education, or accuse them of being “brainwashed,” or of being members of a vast conspiracy in order to provoke a response. Just keep on posting one incorrect statement after another.

      • “Your claim that the oceans are transparent to visible light is preposterous. The properties of pure water are not the properties of the ocean. ”

        The ocean are the most transparent to blue light and least transparent to red light.
        The oceans are similar to our sky. And are different.
        In terms number of atoms. 10 meters of ocean is most similar to our sky.
        Both are 1 atm of pressure.
        And clear sky when sun at zenith is less transparent than 10 meters of ocean. At 10 meters depth of ocean, the above this does not give you a “blue sky”. One would need to go deeper to get the “blue sky”.
        Or put 10 meters of water on Moon [cover with glass], and the standing bottom and looking up does not give you a blue sky. And at 10 meter depth on the Moon, you receive more solar energy, as compared to on surface of Earth on a clear day.

        The 10 meters of water on the moon would absorb more solar energy than your atmosphere does. If had the bottom of 10 meter deep lunar “pool” of water, painted black. And the water was saltwater like Earth oceans, you would get a solar pond. On Earth a solar pond can reach a highest temperature of the salty water of around 80 C, one the Moon the salty water temperature would over 100 C [above boiling at 1 atm].
        To reach the high temperature of solar ponds on Earth, need a sun which
        reaches a high angle above horizon- summertime and/or lower latitudes.
        And the solar pond needs to be about 10′ depth or less. On the moon since are getting more solar energy, a 10 meter depth pond should still
        be able to reach 100 C.
        If instead the lunar pool bottom being painted black, you had mirror reflecting surface, the solar energy would warm the water coming in and coming out of pool.
        So no matter what color the bottom of the 10 meter deep pool, it would absorb a considerable portion of energy of sunlight- say 70% or more.
        Our sky absorbs hardly any solar energy- whether on the way down to surface or when reflected off the surface. So this is big difference between 10 meters of water and 1 atm of our atmosphere. The 10 meters of water is more transparent yet absorbs more energy, and scatter blue light less. Or our atmosphere is less transparent and scatters
        light to greater extent. And it may be, mostly it scatters light more.
        Now, one might tempted to guess that our atmosphere is mostly just scattering the blue light, if you look through a lot of earth’s atmosphere- from space Earth’s atmosphere glows red:
        Not this [but interesting]:

        http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2012/05/earths-atmosphere-captured-glowing-in-the-dark.html

        Related:
        “But astrophysicists say the most spectacular view of the night is the moon’s eerie red and orange glow — caused by the sun’s indirect light being filtered through Earth’s atmosphere, trying to reach the moon.”

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0812-lunar_eclipse.htm

        Well I can’t find it. But I guess my question is, if we had more atmosphere- say five times more atmosphere, would we have a blue sky?
        I try different tack. In ocean the red light is absorbed- it is absent at say 50 meters depth. And at 100 meters the only dim light which left, is diffused blue light. And with your sky if looking thru a lot of it, the diffused light is is red light.

        Anyways on Earth the most amount of sunlight which is actually absorbed as compared diffusing/scattering is in the Ocean.

      • David N | January 27, 2013 at 10:02 am | Your accusation that the conventional energy budget ignores inbound IR from the sun is false.

        I didn’t say that. I said it excised the beam radiant heat from the Sun, aka thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared, aka Heat.

        In its place it has put Visible light from the Sun, the infrared it includes is shortwave and not heat, and, it only accords this 1% of the energy – most don’t bother with it, sticking with the main claim that it is “Visible Light from the Sun heating land and water”.

        This is the problem, visible light from the Sun can’t do this. Cannot physically do this in the real world. Either prove it can or stop claiming it, because until you, generic AGW/CAGWs who use this fake fisics actually make the effort to show it can you cannot be taken seriously as scientists at all, let alone climate scientists who should have some grasp of the properties and processes of the Sun’s energy. You have to be ready to defend your claims.

        I said it excised radiant heat from the Sun, longwave infrared. There are two versions to account for the Sun’s missing heat, the first says that the atmosphere somehow magically prevents it from entering and the second says the Sun produces so little longwave infrared, which is heat, that effectively none reaches us.

        Thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared aka radiant heat from the Sun is what we feel as heat from the Sun, we cannot feel shortwaves from the Sun. We cannot feel light.

        You, generic, can’t even agree why it is missing and yet insist that Visible light from the Sun is capable of doing and is doing the powerful work of heating land and water which the actual radiant heat from the Sun does in the real world.

        We can feel the powerful radiant heat from the Sun, longwave infrared. We know this is heating the land and water around us just as it is heating us. We cannot feel shortwave infrared, it is not the thermal energy from the Sun:

        As traditionally taught by NASA:

        “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature.

        “Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”

        Your claim that the oceans are transparent to visible light is preposterous. The properties of pure water are not the properties of the ocean. At depths greater than 1000 m there is no visible sunlight in the ocean, and yet creatures exist at that depth and below.

        Water is a transparent medium for visible light, it is transmitted through unchanged. That is simply a fact of the physical world around us, check with Optics. The AGWSF claim is that visible light from the Sun physically heats the water, it has to physically heat the water to get our great winds and weather systems. Visible light from the Sun cannot physically heat water. Why visible light attenuates in the ocean is irrelevant here. The claim is that it physically heats the water of the ocean and it can’t.

        If you truly believe that visible light does no heating then get yourself a class IV blue laser and aim it at your skin.

        I keep getting this nonsensical answer from some. The Sun is not a laser. Nor is there a huge lens around the Earth concentrating the Sun’s rays. What does it take to get you, generic, to step back into the real physical world around us?

        But please do me the favor of trying it on some scrap paper or plastic first. And wear safety glasses.

        Where do you get these, rebuttals? How does that even begin to address my science challenge let alone answer it? You, generic, simply throw these irrelevant ideas at me and walk away from my actual challenge. Visible light from the Sun. This is about the claimed energy budget for the Earth.

        It is not necessary for you to disparage others’ education, or accuse them of being “brainwashed,” or of being members of a vast conspiracy in order to provoke a response. Just keep on posting one incorrect statement after another.

        It’s a matter of fact that this AGWScienceFiction fisics was introduced into the education system to dumb down the masses in order to promote AGW. It’s not a pleasant thought for those on the receiving end of it, I’m very much aware that what I am saying is not comfortable reading, but, you’re adults and interested in science and interested in climate science and if you who are capable of understanding what I’m saying won’t make the effort to deal with this then it will continue to be taught in main stream education. It is effectively book burning for the masses. Some schools still teach the real physics basics here for those specialising in science subjects, but outside of the exam curriculum. It is not taught in traditional physics.

        The problem remains. This is just one aspect of the fake fisics which has been used to create the Greenhouse Effect. I’ve been trying to explain the sleights of hand used here, but it’s difficult to grasp for those without traditional basic physics because it’s subtle, cleverly done so it doesn’t jar.

        You, generic, don’t notice the water cycle is missing, that rain in the carbon cycle is missing, that the whole real gas atmosphere is missing.., because the arguments distract from these things. You could not for one moment accept the meme “carbon dioxide accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years” if you had basic traditional physics under your belt, this is when it becomes obvious because it jars with physical reality.

        Which is why I’ve phrased my science challenge as I have – so anyone seriously attempting to respond will find for themselves that the Greenhouse Effect claim is physically impossible.

      • Myrrh, at this point I am confident that I have effectively refuted your nonsensical claims. Your continual reassertion of them is not argument. The constant ad hominem attacks on my education make you a very unpleasant person to converse with. So, until you make some new incorrect statements, I’ll be moving on.

  40. In the SPM to WG1 of the IPCC’s AR4, we find expressions like “extremely likely” and “very likely” defined on page 3 in terms of numeric probabilities. I am trying to find out what is the scientific basis for these definitions. These expressions are used liberally throughout the SPM to describe the effects of GHGs on the world’s atmosphere.

    It seems to me that the discussion as to whether CAGW exists has become sterile on CE; both sides are merely reiterating well established positions. And as I have observed before, CAGW is a plausible hypothesis, which cannot be proven to be wrong. So I would like to try and shift the focus to the question of scientific likelihood.

    We are currently experiencing SSW. This occurs over the winter pole, though we dont know whether it is associated with the geographic or magnetic pole. Unlike events like ENSO, SSW only cools the earth. We only have data since satellites existed, so we have little idea of the historic values for frequency and intenstiy of this type of event. It is a known unknown. And there are all sorts of other known unknowns, not to mention unknown unknowns.

    Alex Rawls commented on Chaptrer 7 of the first draft of WG1 to AR5. His comments were accepted by the authors of Chap[ter 7, but not by the authors of the SPM; which uses the same sort ofprobabilities found in the AR4. It was for this reason that Alec leaked the whole report; he did not like the probabilites still found in the SPM.

    What I would like to see is a discssion of the scientific basis for the probabilites defined in the SPM of WG1 to AR4. Where do they come from? What are the scientific references? Do they belong in the AR5 in the light of the sort of information that Alec Rawls used?

    Any warmist want to contribute?

  41. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    timg56 posts  “Fan will argue that this does not meet his standard for being a quote”

    Only Humans Can Halt the Worst Wave of Extinction
    Since the Dinosaurs Died

    by E.O. Wilson

    The Baiji is a graceful, freshwater dolphin that once abounded along a thousand miles of the Yangtze River. It may now be the world’s most endangered large animal. Caught in a vise of rising pollution and indiscriminate fishing during the past century, its population fell to only 400 by 1980, to 150 in 1993, and is now below 100. Zoologists doubt the species will survive in the wild for another decade. …

      — virally attributed to Wilson’s The Diversity of Life (1999)

    Timg56, thank you for this fine opportunity to show readers of Climate Etc (and Willis Eschenbach too!) what a *real* quotation looks like.

    The quoted passage is of course so beautifully written that it has “gone viral” (in Willis Eschenbach’s handy phrase). And as wildlife experts all know, the prediction of imminent Baiji extinction has come (soberingly) true.

    And yet:

    •  The above passage does *not* appear in Wilson’s The Diversity of Life.

    •  The full text *does* appear in the Fall 2006 newsletter INformation, which is published by organization “Operation Migration”, where it is said to be reprinted from the on-line journal “The Edge” (no further details given).

    •  The web-site “The Edge” presently holds no trace of the story.

    ——————–
    Verdict  Pending clarification of its origins — and despite its ubiquity on the web — the passage may *NOT* be quoted in attribution to Ed Wilson.
    ——————–

    There is a larger issue too, that originates in the (comically bellicose!) contumelious truculence that is characteristic of denialist sites like WUWT, that is exemplified by contrarians like Willis and Anthony:

    Willis Eschenbach says “Matt is accusing me of being “deceptive”, a polite way of calling me a liar. Matt, I won’t have any truck with a man who calls me a liar. You can either retract it and admit you didn’t do your homework, or you and I are done discussing anything ever. I won’t hold for it.”

    Readers of Climate Etc are invited to read for themselves Ed Wilson’s writings on extinction, and then compare these real writings to WUWT‘s incomplete and/or out-of-context and/or flat-wrong pseudo-quotations from those writings, and then consider the following proposition:

    Proposition  Claimed quotations on denialist climate-change websites are so commonly incomplete and/or out-of-context and/or just-plain-wrong, that carelessness becomes functionally indistinguishable from deception and moreover on the part of readers, accepting careless and/or deceptive editorial practices amounts to a personal choice of willful ignorance.

    Fortunately, here on Climate Etc the public discourse is open and vigorous. Good! And if participating in vigorous discourse requires a thick skin and a robust sense of humor … well THAT is a noble tradition of American discourse, that is commended to all participants in climate-change debates!

    \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}

  42. David Springer

    Topic: Ice Ages

    Note that all previous interglacial periods reached temperature “anomalies” at least close to 3C and the one preceding the extant (Holocene) interglacial reached almost 6C. The only strange thing about the Holocene from this chart is that it’s anomalously cooler than the last several.

  43. Via Dave Roberts, a paper entitled **The Social Cost of Stochastic and Irreversible Climate Change**, by Yongyang Cai, Kenneth L. Judd, Thomas S. Lontzek:

    > There is great uncertainty about the impact of anthropogenic carbon on future economic wellbeing. We use DSICE, a DSGE extension of the DICE2007 model of William Nordhaus, which incorporates beliefs about the uncertain economic impact of possible climate tipping events and uses empirically plausible parameterizations of Epstein-Zin preferences to represent attitudes towards risk. We find that the uncertainty associated with anthropogenic climate change imply carbon taxes much higher than implied by deterministic models. This analysis indicates that the absence of uncertainty in DICE2007 and similar models may result in substantial understatement of the potential benefits of policies to reduce GHG emissions.

    http://papers.nber.org/papers/w18704

    • Perhaps the more than decade of cooling oceans caused the current flu epidemic that is indiscriminate in its killing young and old. There should be a paper. We need federal funds to further investigate the correlation. Society must begin the task of finding those to blame for extended global ocean cooling.

  44. Ben Franklin invented alarmism:

    > Franklin’s political eye was focused, but his scientific eye was attentive too. All was not well in the French countryside, where one of the worst environmental calamities of modern history was just beginning to unfold. That summer was the hottest on record, and a mysterious “dry fog” had settled across Europe. The combination of heat and air pollution was too much for the weak and elderly. Mortality spiked among farm workers and laborers across the continent.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-boslough/ben-franklin-climate-scie_b_2512146.html

    • Ben also “invented” cutting unnecessary expenditures (like waste in climate research):

      “a penny saved is a penny earned”

    • willard,

      One of my favorite Franklin quotes:

      “Clarence, it is better to have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have it.”

      Oops, my bad, that was a Christian Slater line from True Romance. But I bet Ben wished he had said it first.

      • “A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one. “

      • Favorite quotes:

        Life is hard, and then you die.

        What goes around, comes around.

        Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

        Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures.
        — I Corinthians 13:7

        “Senator, don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.” (Very applicable to CAGW.)

        Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
        George Washington

        “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests”.
        – Patrick Henry –

        and the newest one –

        “The Mk67 fragmentation grenade – when “F*ck You” simply isn’t getting the point across.

  45. A new FREE paper…

    The Social Cost of Forecasting Human-Caused Irreversible Climate Change

    Issued in January 2013

    Stochastic techniques are used to show that the government-funded manufacturing of fear about the impact of anthropogenic carbon will depress future economic wellbeing as a result of the misallocation of scarce resources and penalizing those who live in the real world by showering preferences on those who pull strings in the metaworld to support hysterical Liberal attitudes about an impending doomsday. An examination of the models that Western academia uses to incorporate the Left’s inchoate and nihilistic beliefs about the uncertainty of weather impacts and blaming capitalism for possible climate tipping events is shown using empirically plausible parameterizations to be on a par with the Salem Witch Trials and represents a preference for imaginary realities common among who are constitutionally incapable of taking care of themselves or providing value to others. We find that the attitudes toward risk demonstrated by those imbued with uncertainty associated with anthropogenic climate change imply that a desire for more and more carbon taxes is directly correlated with those who are determined Marxists despite the fact that socio-communistic economies have been shown to be the sowers of millions of deaths. This analysis indicates that the absence of understanding that when it comes to both global warming—it’s the Sun, stupid—may result in substantial understatement of the potential benefits of recognizing that a growing lack of respect for life, liberty and property is rotting America from the inside-out.

  46. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Dennis asks  “I’m trying to keep up here, is it [an extinction] spasm or an [an extinction] wave?”

    That is a good question Dennis! And Ed Wilson’s answer is simple:

    The sober archaeology of vanished species has taught the following lessons:

       •  The noble savage never existed.
       •  Eden occupied was a slaughterhouse.
       •  Paradise found is paradise lost.

    Humanity has so far played the role of planetary killer, concerned only with its short-term survival. We have cut much of the heart out of biodiversity. The conservation ethic, whether expressed as taboo, totemism, or science, has generally come too late and too little to save the most vulnerable life forms. [But] we know more about the problem now; […] it is not too late. Perhaps we will act in time.

    Now isn’t that more clear than WUWT‘s bizarrely incomplete and/or out-of-context and/or flat-wrong pseudo-quotations of Ed Wilson’s works? Or Willis Eschenbach’s contumeliously truculent (and comedically bellicose!) tergiversation?

    It is the economic implications of Wilson’s writings that are perhaps most unpalatable to operations like WUWT and the Heartland Institute. For Ed Wilson’s solid science brilliantly illuminates Garrett Hardin’s economic analysis upon the Tragedy of the Commons. Hardin’s conclusions can be summarized Wilson-style as follows:

       •  Rational markets never existed.
       •  Unregulated markets slaughter free citizenship.
       •  Capitalism globalized is capitalism degraded.

    Is it any wonder that scientists deplore the ‘Kochtopus’ … and are concerned that free discourse may become an endangered species?

    Opinions differ in this regard (needless to say), and perhaps it is unsurprising that this week Anthony Watts/WUWT is defending the ‘Kochtopus’ with via the same style of contumeliously truculent (and comedically bellicose!) tergiversation that Willis Eschenbach/WUWT has been deploying against Ed Wilson!

    As ordinary citizens increasingly appreciate that Ed Wilson is talking plain ecological sense, they concomitantly appreciate that James Hansen is talking plain scientific common sense, and appreciate that Garrett Hardin is talking plain economic common sense, and even appreciate that Wendell Berry is talking plain old American Yankee common sense.

    For sure, the ‘Kochtopus’ doesn’t favor that kind of discourse, 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}

    • Your Pan Am flight 101, is now ready for boarding on Con-course 00, your Big Green Weight Watcher tour of diet camps in North Korea, should leave at almost any time now.

      As Always Fly Safe & Same

    • Fan, that is the Wilson quote you choose? What are you trying to demonstrate, that he is a rational scientist or a religious fanatic? You see, the foundation of the the eco religion is that humans are evil, this is the foundation of most religions. The difference is in what you need to do to wash away your sins and become holy. People like Wilson and Hanson are prophets of this religion and you are a disciple.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Ed Wilson asserts “The sober archaeology of vanished species has taught the following lessons:

        • The noble savage never existed.
        • Eden occupied was a slaughterhouse.
        • Paradise found is paradise lost.

        Humanity has so far played the role of planetary killer, concerned only with its short-term survival.”

        Dennis asks “Fan, that is the Wilson quote you choose? What are you trying to demonstrate, that he is a rational scientist or a religious fanatic?”

        The quotation demonstrates that Ed Wilson knows ecological history.

        It’s true that dogmatic libertarians, in particular, seek to deny the plain lesson of history: unregulated markets fail catastrophically.

        But that doesn’t change the sobering lesson of history, does it? What is your next question, Dennis? \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}

  47. “That’s the rationale for a provision in the Affordable Care Act – “Obamacare” to its detractors – that starting next year allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

    The new law doesn’t allow insurers to charge more for people who are overweight, however.

    It’s tricky to play the insurance game with overweight people, because science is still sorting things out. While obesity is clearly linked with serious health problems and early death, the evidence is not as clear about people who are just overweight.

    That said, public health officials shouldn’t shy away from tough anti-obesity efforts, said Callahan, the bioethicist. Callahan caused a public stir this week with a paper that called for a more aggressive public health campaign that tries to shame and stigmatize overeaters the way past public health campaigns have shamed and stigmatized smokers.

    National obesity rates are essentially static, and public health campaigns that gently try to educate people about the benefits of exercise and healthy eating just aren’t working, Callahan argued. We need to get obese people to change their behavior. If they are angry or hurt by it, so be it, he said.

    “Emotions are what really count in this world,” he said.

    ##################

    just wow.

  48. Out here in CA, we are trying to decide if our mitigation plan (i.e. our 33%RES) for reducing CO2 levels from the electrical energy generation, transmission and distribution processes should continue to include net metering. A recent paper by Crossborder Energy entitled “Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of Net Energy Metering” concludes that the costs are more then the benefits. There paper notes two previous studies that say the opposite.

    It appears that PG&E billing processes (or at least their cost allocations) could use some improvement-

    “PG&E’s reported manual billing costs per NEM customer ($29.34 per month) were about ten times larger than SCE’s reported billing costs ($2.34 to $3.03 per month); even PG&E’s “automatic” billing costs ($15.55 per month) were five times higher than SCE’s costs.3″

    http://www.seia.org/news/study-solar-net-metering-provide-over-92-million-benefits-california-ratepayers

    I have to admit I never understood why I received a complete (10 to 20 pages of detailed cost allocations) breakdown of the cost allocations PG&E uses as part of what we used to call the details that loaded up into standard costs for my monthly net metering bill back 2006 and 2007. They stopped sending this degree of detail back in 2009 or so. Currently the billing info I get is down to 1 doubled side printed page. If they could only figure out how to print my name and address on that doubled sided page they could eliminate one sheet of paper that has nothing on it but our name and mailing address………..

    PG&E held off installing smart meters for NEM customers for a few years. I didn’t get my SMART meter until about a week ago. I assume they have figured out how to automatically transfer the electronic data that is being sent to them from the meter to the billing department to improve their costs of providing me a bill.

  49. Is there any value in this blog? I can’t seem to find any.

    • Open threads allow frequent commenters a venue to let off steam and comment on a wide range of topics. Occasionally someone introduces a new article that is worth reading and provides material for a future topical post. Threads like this help keep comments on the topical threads on topic

    • P-prapdla no.
      =========

    • Mr. Donald Rapp, I am not one bit surprised…

      “Is there any value in this blog? I can’t seem to find any.”

      you, are the eighth commenter to say so.

    • if not this then what, that?

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Donald Rapp posts “Is there any value in this blog? I can’t seem to find any.”

      LOL … my evil alter ego Fan of *LESS* Discourse agrees entirely, Donald! Let’s shut down all this messy public debate.

      And while we’re at it, let’s slur the scientists, stop the research, fire the professors, and jail the liberals!

      `Cuz hey, then at last everyone will live in a world that’s safe for denialism, right Donald?

      \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}

    • Donald, you write “Is there any value in this blog?”

      I can only speak personally, but I have learned a lot over the years by participating in this delightful blog our hostess has provided. Specificly, I think I have found two questions which most warmists refuse to answer. These are

      1. Is there any empirical data that proves that as you add CO2 to the atmosphere, from current levels, in causes global temperatures to rise?

      2. Is there any scientific basis for the IPCC to claim in the SPM to WGI of AR4, that it is very likely (>90% probability), that adding CO2 to the atmopshere affects global temperatures?

      • Jim.

        It’s not that “warmists” refuse to answer, it’s that you don’t accept their answers as answers.

        There are certainly tens of cases where you have got answers to that question stating where the empirical data is, but when you choose to dismiss all those, you succeed in maintaining your belief that the question hasn’t been answered. People who have answered the question do genuinely believe that the answer is in affirmative, i.e. there is a lot of empirical data that provides evidence on the warming influence of CO2 on the Earth system. The evidence is plentiful and strong but you set requirements that the data does not satisfy. That way you keep on dismissing what science tells. That’s the way of keeping on disbelieving evidence how ever strong it really is. (There are also other words for that, but I have been told that it’s improper to say directly what is the nature of your approach.)

      • > There are also other words for that, but I have been told that it’s improper to say directly what is the nature of your approach.

        Mosh will appreciate this example of indefinite description.

        Tony won’t be mad. That’s OK too.

      • Pekka, you write “It’s not that “warmists” refuse to answer, it’s that you don’t accept their answers as answers.”

        Fair enough. If you are claiming that the answer to my first question is yes, then where is the empirical data that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels increases global temperatures? I am not interested in any other empirical data; just that specific data.

      • Steven Mosher

        1. Is there any empirical data that proves that as you add CO2 to the atmosphere, from current levels, in causes global temperatures to rise?

        2. Is there any scientific basis for the IPCC to claim in the SPM to WGI of AR4, that it is very likely (>90% probability), that adding CO2 to the atmopshere affects global temperatures?

        ###########################

        here is me refusing to answer. If people think this looks like an answer then they can conclude that Jim Cripwell is wrong when he asserts that no one will answer.

        1. Yes there is empirical evidence that adding C02 will cause temperature to rise. That evidence, like all evidence, does not amount to a logical proof, but it is, nevertheless, evidence. In 1896 Arrhenius working on foundations set by Tyndall, predicted that if you raise the level of C02 in the atmosphere that temperature would go up. Note: he could have predicted that temperature would go down or that C02 would have no effect. He predicted up.

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

        Since that time, C02 has gone up. Since that time temperature has gone up. This is evidence for his theory. If he had predicted the opposite it would be evidence against his theory. Now, no theory is proved by evidence for it. But this is clearly evidence FOR the theory. It is not evidence against the theory. To be sure there are other Possible explanations for the warming. It could be ln(leprechans). It could be leprechauns and C02 it could be undiscovered causes. That is why it is evidence FOR and not proof. Proof happens in math and logic, where we can show that a answer is necessarily true. In science we just get evidence for and evidence against. And to be sure there are other bits of evidence against that co exist with the evidence for. So we look to the weight of evidence. But Jim is wrong in two regards. Wrong that no one answers his question and wrong that there is NO evidence. There clearly is evidence.

        Question 2. The answer is also yes. There is evidence. The claims about 90% certainty, however, are not really scientific claims. They are statistical claims about which we could have interesting arguments, however, it is more likely that C02 causes warming rather than cooling. We have no evidence that it causes cooling. No theory that predicts it will cause cooling. Again, Jim is wrong that no one will answer his questions. Many of us have answered his questions in quite a bit more detail than this. But for here an now I keep the answer simple so that people can judge whether evidence has been given. Note, evidence is not proof. Note, Jim may object that the evidence does not convince him. Yes, the glove did not fit, but the glove was offered into evidence.

      • Jim,
        You have been told tens of times. If you haven’t accepted that before, why would repeating all one more time make any difference. You must know what I’m talking about. Don’t pretend that you don’t.

      • Pekka, you write “You must know what I’m talking about. ”

        I have no idea what you are talking about. All I want is a reference, or whatever, which provides the empirical data which proves that when you add CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels it causes global temperatures to rise. You seem to claim that this data exists. Fair enough. Where is it?

      • John Carpenter

        A problem I see with Jim asking the same question(s) over and over to the same people is, when will he learn that if he has not gotten the answer (or the one he is looking for) up to this point, he will ever get it here?

        If I ask the same question to the same set of people every day or so and the same result occurs, i.e. not getting the answer I want (or am looking for)….. How long does it take before I ask myself… Hmmmm, maybe I’m asking the wrong question or maybe I cant get my answer here or maybe I don’t understand the answers I have gotten? How long before conclude I will have to go somewhere else my answer?

        Unless the ‘answer’ to his question is really not his motivation for asking the question but rather is just a way of turning it into a statement he wants to make about what he wants to believe. This is no longer a question about science or how science is done… That discussion has been had ad nausium with him and so many here. No, It’s a statement of what he wants others to believe and nothing more. It’s useless to even waste time on that one anymore folks. Move on.

      • Steven, you write “That evidence, like all evidence, does not amount to a logical proof, but it is, nevertheless, evidence.”

        Let us take this one question at a time; climate sensitivity. I asked for proof, and you say there is evidence, but it does not amount to a logical proof. I agree that there is evidence; CAGW is a plausible hypothesis, as I have observed several times. But if the evidence does not amount to a logical proof, then why is the answer to my first question “yes” and not “no”? Surely, if there in no proof, then the data that proves that adding CO2 to the atmopshere from current levels causes global temperatures to rise does not exist. Or where is my logic wrong?

      • Steven, you also write “The answer is also yes. There is evidence. The claims about 90% certainty, however, are not really scientific claims. They are statistical claims about which we could have interesting arguments, however, it is more likely that C02 causes warming rather than cooling.”

        We seem to have a language problem. You say the answer is “yes”, that there is scientific evidence, but then you say they are not really scientific claims. However, assuming you are claiming there is some sort of logical reason for the statements of “extremely likely”, and “very likely” in the SPM, where in the AR4 are these reasons to be found?

      • John, you write “How long before conclude I will have to go somewhere else my answer?”

        You clearly have not read before my reasons for asking these questions, which I have made very clear. I believe the claims of certainty which the IPCC uses in the SPM to AR4, cannot be justified. I am trying to get the warmists to agree with me, which is not easy. The way I am trying to do this is to ask the same question(s) over and over again, with the hope that one day, the wamists will have to agree that the logical answer can only be “no”. This is not easy. It is very difficult to do the equivalent of cross examining a witness on a blog, where the person concerned can simply ignore the question, and not give an answer. Once I can esatablish that the answer to my question(s) is “no”, then I may be able to have a successful discussion on the IPCC statements.

        Is the tactic I am using a good and effective one? I have no idea. We will have to see the extent to which it is successful.

      • Jim Cripwell, says “1. Is there any empirical data that proves that as you add CO2 to the atmosphere, from current levels, in causes global temperatures to rise?”

        The answer has two parts. First we don’t know whether you think doubling the CO2 changes the forcing, which is a radiative physics issue. Having established that, can you connect a forcing change to a temperature change, for which we can use volcanoes, the LIA or Ice Ages as evidence.

      • > I have no idea what you are talking about.

        Perhaps Jim Cripwell forgot about NG’s answer:

        In other words, those of John Nielsen-Gammon, trends are not the only evidence:

        A flat trend over any time period only shows that other forcings or natural processes are canceling the warming effect of Tyndall gases over such a period. There are lots of time-varying forcings and natural processes with a variety of periods: ENSO (2-7 years plus longer-term variations), solar (11 years plus longer-term variations), PDO (50-70 years), for example. Any of those could be strong enough to cancel the Tyndall gas effect during half its phase. We know for certain that ENSO is more than strong enough to do that, but yet, over the long haul, the magnitude of global warming has recently exceeded the magnitude of ENSO variability. So, in addition to a flat trend over some period of years, I’d want evidence that it was not merely a temporary flat trend. In the absence of such evidence, I’d settle for a trend longer than half a PDO cycle, or 35 years or so. With such evidence, the trend could be as short as a year, because I’d be swayed not by the trend but by the evidence.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/9411951921

        Perhaps Jim Cripwell should stop by John Nielsen-Gammon’s blog and try his signal processing tricks.

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-249567

        See also the discussion that follows.

        ***

        John,

        Perhaps you’d like to read back this **Curious Case of Jim Cripwell**, starring Isaac Held:

        > Would you mind if I go post your comment and Jim’s question on Isaac Held’s blog?

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-249965

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-251006

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/10/communicating-uncertainties-in-natural-hazards-research/#comment-252368

        This might very well be the last time I mention the name “Jim Cripwell”.

      • Steven Mosher

        Jim: “Let us take this one question at a time; climate sensitivity. I asked for proof,”

        Jim asked for a square circle and is confused when no one produces one.

        There is no proof in science. There is proof in logic. There is proof in math.In science there is no proof.

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

        http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

        “Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

        In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.”

        “So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.”
        ― Richard P. Feynman”

        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/

      • “In 1896 Arrhenius working on foundations set by Tyndall, predicted that if you raise the level of C02 in the atmosphere that temperature would go up. Note: he could have predicted that temperature would go down or that C02 would have no effect. He predicted up.”

        Wiki:
        “”If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.”

        Of course carbonic acid is not CO2. Carbonic acid is H2CO3.
        Perhaps it is a safe guess to say Arrhenius was mistaken.

        But actual H2CO3 has been isolated:
        ” It is now known that carbonic acid is indeed present in drinks, though at very, very low concentrations. Until recently, the molecule has resisted all attempts at isolation and direct detection. However, a few scientists have been able to produce carbonic acid in the solid state. It is also assumed to be present in cirrus clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and in space.”
        Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-carbonic-acid-isolated-gas-phase.html#jCp

        And of course CO2 as gas is also in solution in liquid water [and as a gas would quite easy find in drinks:)].

        But, it’s a good guess, he actually meant CO2.
        Though CO2 is not an acid. And he wrote a paper two regarding ions and acids.

        “Hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid, but remains as CO2 molecules not affecting the pH. ”

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

        Now, we are all pretty sure that doubling or halving CO2 levels does not increase or decease average temperature by 4 C.
        But your point is he guessed right that CO2 causes warming rather than cooling.
        And guess was based moonlight being absorbed by CO2. And he was interested in finding out what caused Ice Ages, and considered the CO2
        levels was the cause [which is not the causal factor].

        The only really empirical proof involved appears to be concerning
        this:
        “About 1900, Arrhenius became involved in setting up the Nobel Institutes and the Nobel Prizes. He was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1901. For the rest of his life, he would be a member of the Nobel Committee on Physics and a de facto member of the Nobel Committee on Chemistry. He used his positions to arrange prizes for his friends (Jacobus van’t Hoff, Wilhelm Ostwald, Theodore Richards) and to attempt to deny them to his enemies (Paul Ehrlich, Walther Nernst, Dmitri Mendeleev). In 1901 Arrhenius was elected to the Swedish Academy of Sciences, against strong opposition. In 1903 he became the first Swede to be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry. In 1905, upon the founding of the Nobel Institute for Physical Research at Stockholm, he was appointed rector of the institute, the position where he remained until retirement in 1927. ”

        So, prizes and recognition would awarded to followers of his belief.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Mosher said

        “There is no proof in science.”

        What about all yer crap that “science” as you are now using it, doesn’t exist ?

      • Steven Mosher

        Good to go
        ““So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.”
        ― Richard P. Feynman”

        #########
        well, sometime science is believing in the ignorance of experts.
        Sometimes its believing in the ignorance of commentators like yourself.

      • John Carpenter

        “I am trying to get the warmists to agree with me, which is not easy. The way I am trying to do this is to ask the same question(s) over and over again, with the hope that one day, the wamists will have to agree that the logical answer can only be “no”. This is not easy.”

        Jim, that is a task only second to Sisyphus and one that you should think about shelving. The body of climate understanding most of those you are trying to convince otherwise is pretty substantial and unlikely to change. It is not a question of logic, it is a question of scientific understanding, so you will never find a ‘warmist’ find your answer of ‘no’ as the only logical answer. You need to offer alternative explanations to what is observed.

        Willard, that example was one of my favorites as I followed that discussion as it unfolded. Precious, truly precious. Perhaps one of your best interventions here ever.

      • Steven, you write “There is no proof in science.”

        You are getting very philosophical. There exists an inverse square law of attraction between electric charges of opposite signs. The last time I heard, which is decades ago, they had empircial evidence that the exponent of 2 was, in fact, 2. followed by 15 zeros. At that time, they had not established that the 16th place of decimals was, in fact, zero. Maybe by this time they have. This is what I regard as “proof” that the inverse square law really does have an exponent of 2.

        This is the sort of proof I am looking for that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global temperature to rise. So far as I can see, it does not exist.

      • > There exists an inverse square law of attraction between electric charges of opposite signs.

        Emphasis added.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Mosher, you changed the subject.

        Existence of science. Before, you said it didn’t exist.

      • gbaikie | January 26, 2013 at 7:05 pm said: ”But actual H2CO3 has been isolated:” It is now known that carbonic acid is indeed present in drinks, though at very, very low concentrations. Until recently, the molecule has resisted all attempts at isolation and direct detection”

        gbaikie my friend. you like to sound mysterious with your research / discoveries…. even about the carbonic acid…?

        #1: your blood in the vines is different colour than in the arteries; because is loaded with carbonic acid. That’s how CO2 is carried to your lungs -> so you can exhail it, for your vocal cords to use that CO2, to badmouth CO2! Carbonic acid is almost not acidic

        #2: rainwater is carbonic acid – water vapor uses CO2, to condensate and turn into rain; otherwise stays as humidity in the air. Rainwater pH is seven (7) NEUTRAL!!! CO2 is a rainmaker / life-giver.

        Carbonic acid makes the trees / crops to grow better / and become more prolific.and productive. b] the seawater will never become acidic c] carbonic acid is food for the coral, algae and seaweed – no seaweed / algae = no herbivore critters = wouldn’t be any carnivore. find to blame some other gas, not CO2, not carbonic acid!!! c] the swindlers confuse carbonic acid with sulfuric acid, that damaged few trees from overdosing in east Germany many years ago. Can you remember this: carbonic acid is in your blood / sulfuric acid is in your car battery – they are different If you don’t believe me; CO2 is in the champagne and coca cola – instead of drinking those, have some battery acid instead

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Mosher.

        Even were you to argue that

        “It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely.”
        …and it’s less likely that science exists…

        hahahahah!

        it still doesn’t answer why you just were treating it as though it does.

      • gbaikie | January 26, 2013 at 7:05 pm | “In 1896 Arrhenius working on foundations set by Tyndall, predicted that if you raise the level of C02 in the atmosphere that temperature would go up. Note: he could have predicted that temperature would go down or that C02 would have no effect. He predicted up.”

        Gosh, Mosh was right, he refused to give an answer..

        Where does Arrhenius provide the answers to the specific question asked by Jim Cripwell? And anyway, Arrhenius got Fourier wrong and imagined a non-existant atmosphere..: http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

        “Moreover, when Arrhenius (1896, p. 255) added the radiative transfer between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere to the conductive transfer between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, he effectively duplicated the radiative transfer quantity, because it was already included in the conductive transfer quantity (“M”). This quantity is representative of net heat flow in accordance with Fourier’s Law which, further, does not distinguish between kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer across a thermal contact.

        “Not only did Arrhenius duplicate heat, thereby invoking an energy creation mechanism to equip carbon dioxide with a power source it does not have, he propagated an erroneous explanation of how greenhouses work, which he falsely attributed to Fourier. Moreover, Arrhenius used this erroneous explanation as an alternative focal point for his “Hothouse Effect”. With respect to the “Greenhouse Effect”, as it later became known, this misdirection proved most effective in drawing scrutiny away from the weakest proposition of the idea – as attested by its consequent Concise Oxford Dictionary definition. It is upon this litany of error and misdirection that the “Greenhouse Effect” and the implicitly “anthropogenic” nature of global warming and climate change is based.”

        So, AGW/CAGWs giving Arrhenius as their argument from authority is avoiding the question.

        Of course carbonic acid is not CO2. Carbonic acid is H2CO3.
        Perhaps it is a safe guess to say Arrhenius was mistaken.

        But actual H2CO3 has been isolated:
        ” It is now known that carbonic acid is indeed present in drinks, though at very, very low concentrations. Until recently, the molecule has resisted all attempts at isolation and direct detection. However, a few scientists have been able to produce carbonic acid in the solid state. It is also assumed to be present in cirrus clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and in space.”
        Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-carbonic-acid-isolated-gas-phase.html#jCp

        All rain is carbonic acid. Perhaps he actually meant carbonic acid? But who knows, because as I given the quote from Timothy Casey, Arrhenius got into a huge muddle because he didn’t understand Fourier et al, so has nothing of value to say in the subject.

        http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-carbonic-acid.htm

        “Carbonic acid is a weak acid that is created when carbon dioxide (CO2) is dissolved in water (H2O), resulting in the chemical formula H2CO3. When the acid dissociates, or gives up a hydrogen ion, the resulting molecule is called a bicarbonate ion. Carbonic acid appears frequently in the natural world. It can be found in sodas, champagne, and blood. The acid even appears in rain.
        ..
        “Carbonic acid even appears as a normal occurrence in rain. As rainwater falls through the air, it absorbs carbon dioxide, producing carbonic acid. Thus, when it reaches the ground, it has a pH of about 5.5. This should not be confused with acid rain which is caused when emissions, such as sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, from burning fossil fuels rises to the air. As it falls, rain absorbs these components, producing acids which can make the pH in rain fall to as little as two.”

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/context_chemistry/acidrainrev1.shtml

        “Carbon dioxide in the air can dissolve in rain water to form carbonic acid, H2CO3.

        CO2 + H2O H2CO3

        Carbonic acid is a weak acid. It partially ionises to form hydrogen ions.

        H2CO3 H+ + HCO3-

        The hydrogen ions from carbonic acid give natural rain water a slightly acid pH value of 5.6.”

        And for amusement, here’s a typical university indepth gobbledegook on the Carbon Cycle, excising rain..

        http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/CarbonCycleBackground.pdf

        “Because we can’t deal with that level of complexity, scientists often describe the carbon cycle by lumping similar objects or environments into simpler groups (forest, grassland, atmosphere, ocean) and focusing only on the processes that are most important at the global scale (Figure 2). As you might imagine, part of the trick is understanding just what those processes are.”

        Grin, or rather, part of the trick is hiding that rain exists in the carbon cycle. They’ve managed that very nicely, don’t you think?

      • Ah, sorry gbaikie, missed close italics on your quote.

        Of course carbonic acid is not CO2. Carbonic acid is H2CO3.
        Perhaps it is a safe guess to say Arrhenius was mistaken.

        But actual H2CO3 has been isolated:
        ” It is now known that carbonic acid is indeed present in drinks, though at very, very low concentrations. Until recently, the molecule has resisted all attempts at isolation and direct detection. However, a few scientists have been able to produce carbonic acid in the solid state. It is also assumed to be present in cirrus clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and in space.”
        Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-carbonic-acid-isolated-gas-phase.html#jCp

        All rain is carbonic acid. Perhaps he actually meant carbonic acid? But who knows, because as I given the quote from Timothy Casey, Arrhenius got into a huge muddle because he didn’t understand Fourier et al, so has nothing of value to say in the subject.

        http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-carbonic-acid.htm

        “Carbonic acid is a weak acid that is created when carbon dioxide (CO2) is dissolved in water (H2O), resulting in the chemical formula H2CO3. When the acid dissociates, or gives up a hydrogen ion, the resulting molecule is called a bicarbonate ion. Carbonic acid appears frequently in the natural world. It can be found in sodas, champagne, and blood. The acid even appears in rain.
        ..
        “Carbonic acid even appears as a normal occurrence in rain. As rainwater falls through the air, it absorbs carbon dioxide, producing carbonic acid. Thus, when it reaches the ground, it has a pH of about 5.5. This should not be confused with acid rain which is caused when emissions, such as sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, from burning fossil fuels rises to the air. As it falls, rain absorbs these components, producing acids which can make the pH in rain fall to as little as two.”

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/context_chemistry/acidrainrev1.shtml

        “Carbon dioxide in the air can dissolve in rain water to form carbonic acid, H2CO3.

        CO2 + H2O H2CO3

        Carbonic acid is a weak acid. It partially ionises to form hydrogen ions.

        H2CO3 H+ + HCO3-

        The hydrogen ions from carbonic acid give natural rain water a slightly acid pH value of 5.6.”

        And for amusement, here’s a typical university indepth gobbledegook on the Carbon Cycle, excising rain..

        http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/CarbonCycleBackground.pdf

        “Because we can’t deal with that level of complexity, scientists often describe the carbon cycle by lumping similar objects or environments into simpler groups (forest, grassland, atmosphere, ocean) and focusing only on the processes that are most important at the global scale (Figure 2). As you might imagine, part of the trick is understanding just what those processes are.”

        Grin, or rather, part of the trick is hiding that rain exists in the carbon cycle. They’ve managed that very nicely, don’t you think?

      • Good to go.

        Ah i see what you are talking about. yes, science does not exist. Science is a word we apply to a particular style of behavior. In that style of behavior one does not prove things. In the behavior called math, there is proof. You need to stop thinking about science as a thing ( thats the point of saying it doesnt exist– )

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Seven Mosher | January 26, 2013 at 10:26 pm |
        said:

        “Ah i see what you are talking about. yes, science does not exist. Science is a word we apply to a particular style of behavior. In that style of behavior one does not prove things. In the behavior called math, there is proof. You need to stop thinking about science as a thing ( thats the point of saying it doesnt exist– )”

        Steven,
        This is inconsistent with what you were saying before,
        Before, you told people who were trying to establish a standard for behaviour in science, that they could not say science does this or that, because it does not exist.
        Then you said science is only what scientists do.

        Now however, you are saying scientists do do “this” but not “that”.

      • Jim, do you know what a “law” is?
        Do you believe things that are not laws of science?
        Can a law be wrong?
        Here is a clue. Climate sensitivity is not a law, its a parameter.
        Do you know the moon is more than a mile away from the earth without proving how far away it is to 16 decimal places.

        In your everyday life, you act on belief in almost everything you do. You don’t require truth to 16 decimals places to say that something is true, or that something is known. you could, but you don’t. You live and act on many beliefs that are not “proven” to the standard you hold out here. Vast amounts of science is not known to the high degree of accuracy that laws are known to. Yet you rely on it.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Mosher.
        First science does not exist.
        Then science is what scientists do.
        Then scientists do this but not that.

        Therefore science is doing “this” but not “that”
        Which is what you were telling people they could not say.

      • So, is it just a coincidence that a seminary dropout lifetime Leftist politician decended from a life of priivilege — and probably one of the most painfully obvious Western hypocrites of our since andy of the Kennedys — Al {Jazeera) Gore, — just also happens to believe in the unprovable hypothesis of AGW Theory, and… with the IPCC and Obama was awarded the Nobel for doing all anyone ever could do to stab America in the back?

      • Actually it was my idea for Jim Cripwell to put his questions to Issac Held or SoD. Willard picked it up and ran with it.

      • JCH’s right: he’s the one who chased Jim on the boards to get the puck. I was only standing in front of the net, as usual.

        Sorry for not mentioning, JCH.

        Hope you’re not mad. That would be OK, though. Thus spake Tony.

      • Rob | January 26, 2013 at 8:28 pm said: ” Arrhenius’s prediction that if you raise CO2, temperature will increase. However, neither he nor you can quantify that rise without a true understanding of the dose response. You see Steve, if I need 1 mg of propanalol to lower your resting heart rate by 20 beets/minute and I administer 1 microgram, nothing happens. If on the other hand, I give you 100 mg ( for the sake of argument this is not a lethal dose), I still lower you heart rate by 20 beats/minute ”

        Rob, Arrhenius ”predicted” it wrong, because of ignorant aprouch. Today’s ”predictors” are using confusion.

        you want the truth: #1: oxygen & nitrogen are regulating the ”OVERALL” temp to be always the same; if one place gets warmer than normal -> other place MUST get colder than normal. That’s what the correct physics say.

        when ”overall the troposphere get hotter than normal -> O&&N (troposphere) instantly expands -> releases more heat and equalizes in a jiffy!

        #2: oxygen &nitrogen are 998999ppm in the atmosphere V CO2 that’s only 260-400ppm.
        NOW LETS SEE YOUR TIPPING POINT: if you put on the one end of the scale 998999 kilos V on the other end 300-400kg; how many more kilos you need to get to the tipping point?! b: if you have an elephant on one side of the scale V 380 flies on the other side; how many more flies is needed to the tipping point Rob?!

        P.s. CO2 intercepts some sunlight high up (where cooling is much more efficient) ”during the day”= a bit cooler on the ground – then at night; because proportion in difference in temp between the ground and upper atmosphere is LESS, it slows cooling, at night! Those two factors cancel each other Mosher is shirtless scared from my real proofs, admission that he knows that he is wrong, Rob, are you scared from solid proofs? physics / arithmetic are the most reliable sciences. Arrhenius’s prediction was for the ”Flatearthers” who think that is sunlight 24h on every spot on the planet. have some truth Rob:

        http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/

    • Donald’s mad:

      > Is there any value in this blog?

      That’s OK.

    • Steven Mosher

      Depends on what you want. If you want the wrong things you will derive no value from it. If you change your wants, you will derive value. The choice is yours. If you cannot find any value, then you cannot find any value. That fact entails nothing. I find no value in your comment. That is not a criticism, just a fact. Other’s, do find value in your comment. They get to do that. That fact too entails nothing.

      • Perhaps Donald wants some material for his next book. That would not be unprecedented. Have I just said “unprecendented”?

      • Steve, you are right of course about what you say about Arrhenius’s prediction that if you raise CO2, temperature will increase. However, neither he nor you can quantify that rise without a true understanding of the dose response. You see Steve, if I need 1 mg of propanalol to lower your resting heart rate by 20 beets/minute and I administer 1 microgram, nothing happens. If on the other hand, I give you 100 mg ( for the sake of argument this is not a lethal dose), I still lower you heart rate by 20 beats/minute (pharmacologists back off, it is just a hypothetical). Most things in life have a dose response curve, and the point is, you, or Arrhenius have no idea where you are on the CO2/ temp curve. Are we at the bottom of the curve, at the inflection point, or the ceiling where no matter how much more you add, you’ve reached saturation and nothing further happens. If you could answer that Steve,you would have empirical evidence. At the moment no can answer where we are on the empirical dose response curve.

      • Steven Mosher

        “However, neither he nor you can quantify that rise without a true understanding of the dose response.”

        Untrue. First there is no such thing as the true understanding of the dose response. You are making the same mistake at a different level. You can from first principles calculate the first order response. That is roughly 1.2C per doubling. You can also limit the higher order response from below by looking at paleo data ( response required to get out of a snowball earth ) and you can also limit the response from above by using paleo data. Simply you can bound the relation.

        Also, I can quantify the rise in many ways, that is not the problem. the problem is quantifying it to a useable error bounds. All quantification has error, with the response to c02 that error bound happens to be large. That fact does not mean that quantification is not possible. Look, I know you are somewhere between 2 and 8 feet tall. That’s useful for some purposes and less useful for other purposes.

      • Steve Mosher, ” You are making the same mistake at a different level. You can from first principles calculate the first order response”
        steve, pharmacological dose response curves are not calculated, they are derived empirically. In theory I do not disagree with you, but you you misinterpreted. Repeat, there is no empirical evidence that show increased CO2 results in elevated temperature. If there was , you could tell me where we are on the dose response curve – and you can’t. To use paleo comparisons is a little like doing forensic pharmacological experiments- fraught with tremendous uncertainty and without validation.

      • We are currently at 33 degrees K on that response curve.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Repeat, there is no empirical evidence that show increased CO2 results in elevated temperature.”

        Sure there is. Lets just start with the first order estimate of the response curve. The first order estimate is the estimate of the response to the doubling, absent feedbacks.
        That estimate is made by using radiative transfer equations. You should understand that the physics of how radiation moves through the atmosphere is well understood. We build missiles and radars and satellites based on this physics. This physics tells us that doubling c02 will get us 1.2C of warming. To test this physics field experiments are performed. This wasnt done for climate science in the begining it was done for defense work. when I worked with this data it was classifed. Now, its freely available.

      • Steve, I will try one more time to convince you that you have know empiric evidence, on a global scale, that indicates increased CO2 results in increased temp. Remember, I am not arguing with the basic Tyndall effect.

        Allow me to give an example in medicine. If I wish to agonize one of your alpha adrenergic receptors, I can give you a certain dose of epinephrine that I know from empiric evidence will cause a particular pharmacological response. Since the body knows it can’t be over stimulated with an alpha-adrenergic agonist (because bad things might ensue), a biochemical process will be activated to phosphorylate the alpha receptor so that no matter how much more epi I give there will be no further response.

        Your evidence is theoretical, or at least like an in vitro experiment. The example I gave is in vivo, allowing negative feedback. Think of the earth as an in vivo process. Your example of 1.2 degrees of warming/doubling is an in vitro equivalent, devoid of complex feedbacks. I wouldn”t be as certain as you appear to be.

      • Steven Mosher

        Sorry Rob, we will have to disagree on what constitutes evidence and what constitutes empirical evidence especially in observational sciences as opposed to lab sciences. And thanks for showing what we knew. That analogies from other types of science show that there are other types of science.

  50. Another bunch of researchers discovered the importance of investing in the word “uncertainty”. Here’s the abstract of **Decision making under uncertainty: bridging the gap between end user needs and climate science capability**:

    This study addresses the recognised gap between what climate science can currently provide and what end users of that information require in order to make robust adaptation decisions about their climate related risks. It identifies five key contributing factors to the gap: (i) uncertainty in climate science; (ii) cognitive bias and challenges of interdisciplinary research; (iii) (mis)understanding and (mis)use of key terminology; (iv) communication (or lack of); and (v) non-climatic influences.

    The study aims to bridge this gap between end user needs and science capability by bringing together decision makers and climate scientists to develop a dialogue and improve understanding about what climate information is required and what information climate science can currently provide and can be expected to provide over the next five to ten years. Aspects of climate science that are likely to remain highly uncertain are also identified.

    Link:

    http://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/attached_files_publications/Verdon-Kidd-FINAL-WEB.pdf

    Source:

    http://zunia.org/node/324047

    INTEGRITY ™ — It’s all about Communicatin’

    • Robert I Ellison

      Kiems and Verdon-Kidd (relatively recently married obviously) are part of a group that evolved under Stewart Franks at the University of Newcastle. I don’t know of Austin at all. This group developed some central ideas on Australian hydrology that originated in the 1980’s with fluvial geomorphologists Robin Warner and Wayne Erskine. This for instance – Quantifying Drought Risk in a Nonstationary Climate – Danielle C. Verdon-Kidd and Anthony S. Kiem. These ideas seem hardly to have hardly penetrated beyond a select group of hydrologists.

      This is compared to the attribution of decadal changes in rainfall to anthropogenic global warming as here – http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Marine–Atmospheric-Research/Fewer-rain-storms-across-southern-Australia.aspx

      So there are 2 competing memes – decadal variability that is quite natural and decadal variability that is assumed to be caused by warming (and the Asian haze) that is further assumed to be anthropogenic and is promoted by our leading scientific and hydrological organisations. And just how is the typical layperson to decide between a meme that is championed by media, organisations dedicated to promoting global warming and institutions who are constrained to produce politically determined outcomes against an idea struggling to emerge from academia. One side claims certainty and the other stresses uncertainty. Although I would suggest that there is quite lot of certainty in hydrological regime theory. A wicked dilemma indeed.

      For me it is quite evident that these decadal variabilities influence not merely Australain rainfall but global hydrology and surface and ocean temperatures. It is apparent also that these variabilities extend to the centennial and millenial scales. Here is a millennial reconstrustion of ENSO for the Law Ice Dome.

      from

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim

      and is based on teleconnections between the Southern Annular Mode and ENSO. As well as the multi-decadal varibability we are familiar with – it shows a medieval dry period and centuries of La Nina dominance and a modern dry period just when global temperature starts rising. Interesting aye? There is no causality implied here – just a measure of global climate variabiity.

    • This paper is worth putting up as a separate thread. There is a lot to ponder over!

  51. A researcher switched his whitecoat for a white coat and a bow tie:

    http://www.orsc.edu.cn/~liu/

    His book entitled Uncertainty Theory is on its fourth edition:

    http://orsc.edu.cn/liu/ut.pdf

    Here’s the program.

    First, Uncertainty Theory.

    Second, Uncertain Programming.

    Third, Uncertain Statistics.

    Fourth, Uncertain Risk Analysis.

    Fifth, Uncertain Set.

    Sixth, Uncertain Logic.

    Seventh, Uncertain Inference.

    Eighth, Uncertain Processes.

    Ninth, Uncertain Calculus.

    Tenth, Uncertain Differential Equation.

    Eleventh, Uncertain Finance.

    Twelfth, Chance Theory.

    Notice the FAQ in Appendix. A neat idea.

    • Willard, another gem (although it is very tough to get the past the preface). You are definitely earning your place at the table today :)

    • Steven Mosher

      nice photo. Makes me think of ice cream.. which makes me think about Psy and Hyuna who makes me think of fans emoticons

      • Steve,

        How you can get from hot Korean women to fan is beyond me. I’m married to one and I can assure you thoughts of fan are not within a million mile radius when I think about my wife.

        Although thinking about it further, I can see how thinking about a 13 year old (Korean or otherwise) might bring to mind fan’s favorite artiface.

      • Robert I Ellison

        It is a reference to cutesy little bubbe pop.

    • I was immediately discouraged from reading it after checking Appendices C.6 and C.7 which are intended to explain why we need such a thing. Painful misrepresentation of how probability would be applied to represent a belief.

    • Scott Basinger

      Crazy hard math.

  52. For our beloved Aussies, here’s an episode of **Coverville** dedicated to Australia Day:

    http://coverville.com/archives/podcast/coverville-932-this-day-in-covers-1983/

  53. Revkin has an excellent article on climate sensitivity, with extensive statement from Retto Knutti:

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/weaker-global-warming-seen-in-study-promoted-by-norways-research-council/

  54. An etymological argument bringing together Hannah Arendt and Milton Friedman:

    Crises and disasters are of particular interest to politics that seek to transform embedded institutions and practices, whether radical or reformist. They bring underlying processes and patterns to the surface and shake the foundations of the status quo, offering a view of how things might be reconstructed differently — and the chance to do so. Lenin’s exhortation to revolution in “The Crisis Has Matured,” Rahm Emanuel’s admonition never to let a crisis go to waste, and Milton Friedman’s observation that only crisis creates change may have been in service of wildly different aims, but their strategies have much in common. These crises are typically seen as human-instigated — financial collapses and wars and so on — but the always-dubious distinction between “natural” and “manmade” disasters (is a bread riot a natural disaster?) is increasingly obsolete. Kairos means “weather” as well as “opportunity.” And at a time when catastrophe is predicted for one socioecological system after another, when transformative change seems necessary for human survival, a theory of rapid change has obvious appeal.

    http://jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-flood-next-time/

    Our emphasis.

    **Jacobin** has the wicked combination: a nice name an a beautiful typography.

    • cf Mancur Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations, 1982, for a clear exposition of societal rigidity and causes of transformative change. I used to have this and several related papers, don’t know if I can retrieve any.

      • Thanks, Faustino. The thesis of his 1965 book seems like a no-brainer to me:

        In his first book, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (1965), he theorized that “only a separate and ‘selective’ incentive will stimulate a rational individual in a latent group to act in a group-oriented way”; that is, members of a large group will not act in the group’s common interest unless motivated by personal gains (economic, social, etc.). He specifically distinguishes between large and small groups, the latter of which can act simply on a shared objective. Large groups, however, will not form or work towards a shared objective unless individual members are sufficiently motivated.

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

        I note, though, that **The Rise and Decline of Nations** has not even been cited 7005 times. Gray lichurchur, I say!

      • Robert I Ellison

        More modern theory of the commons involves informed cooperation amongst stakeholders. See for instance the work of the late Elinor Ostrom.

        This video ‘The Commons of Kitafuji’ embodies these principles that seem foreign to the typical pissant progressive – aye wee willie winky

  55. I’ve not seen this article discussed nowhere, but I might have missed it and I’ve not checked:

    > For more than a decade, the target of keeping global warming below 2 °C has been a key focus of the international climate debate. In response, the scientific community has published a number of scenario studies that estimate the costs of achieving such a target. Producing these estimates remains a challenge, particularly because of relatively well known, but poorly quantified, uncertainties, and owing to limited integration of scientific knowledge across disciplines. The integrated assessment community, on the one hand, has extensively assessed the influence of technological and socio-economic uncertainties on low-carbon scenarios and associated costs. The climate modelling community, on the other hand, has spent years improving its understanding of the geophysical response of the Earth system to emissions of greenhouse gases. This geophysical response remains a key uncertainty in the cost of mitigation scenarios but has been integrated with assessments of other uncertainties in only a rudimentary manner, that is, for equilibrium conditions. Here we bridge this gap between the two research communities by generating distributions of the costs associated with limiting transient global temperature increase to below specific values, taking into account uncertainties in four factors: geophysical, technological, social and political. We find that political choices that delay mitigation have the largest effect on the cost–risk distribution, followed by geophysical uncertainties, social factors influencing future energy demand and, lastly, technological uncertainties surrounding the availability of greenhouse gas mitigation options. Our information on temperature risk and mitigation costs provides crucial information for policy-making, because it clarifies the relative importance of mitigation costs, energy demand and the timing of global action in reducing the risk of exceeding a global temperature increase of 2 °C, or other limits such as 3 °C or 1.5 °C, across a wide range of scenarios.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7430/abs/nature11787.html

    Our emphasis.

    **Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation**, by Joeri Rogelj, David L. McCollum, Andy Reisinger, Malte Meinshausen & Keywan Riahi.

    Only 30 euros for this article. Tough to estimate the cost per page, as we don’t have an immediate access to the number of pages.

    Nature does not deserve that push.

    • @ willard (@nevaudit) | January 26, 2013 at 6:14 pm

      I looked at the Rogelj et al article in Nature. The following excerpt from the paper tells about problems in making such an analysis quantitatively meaningful:

      In certain instances, however, the lack of mitigation options (such as renewable technologies, nuclear power or limited biomass and afforestation potential) could require substantially higher carbon prices to keep this target viable. At the limit is CCS: the complete elimination of this mitigation option—either for technological reasons or as a result of social and political concerns—would put the 2 C objective (with more than 66% probability) out of reach in our model, no matter how high the carbon price.

      We see that the results are highly dependent on the use of CCS technology. That tells something about their model. It tells that they don’t allow any other solutions to reach a level that would be sufficient. Going one step further this tells that every model that claims to calculate costs of mitigation is totally dependent on assumptions that cannot be really justified.

      Furthermore every analysis that involves major reductions in CO2 emissions assumes that such a reduction can be achieved maintaining a smooth continuity of the economic system where techno-economic costs represent well full economic costs. Such an assumption is extremely naive. We have a recent example from banking crisis. The related techno-economic costs were close to zero but the economic losses very large. These losses were caused by disruption in the normal operation of the economy.

      Any approach based on high CO2 price induces changes in economy that have a gross effect hugely larger that the direct techno-economic costs. How large losses are induced by those huge changes depends on the rate of change but it depends also on innumerable other factors. These impossible-to-estimate losses apply equally to the economic consequences of mitigation measures as they do to the consequences of climate change.

      The difficulty does not mean that the need to take mitigating factors would necessarily be less, the change may as well go in the other direction. What we can conclude instead, is that doing meaningful long term economic comparisons is beyond the capabilities of every economist. More robust approaches must be used. Long term effects must be included in some way but in a way that doesn’t lose all it’s power when all the complications are taken into consideration. All quantitative economic comparisons must be restricted to a relatively short period (a couple of decades at maximum). Robust semiquantitative methods are probably best for longer term as purely qualitative approaches as also almost worthless as policy guidelines.

      • Thanks, Pekka.

        I’m not sure what warrants you to say this:

        > Going one step further this tells that every model that claims to calculate costs of mitigation is totally dependent on assumptions that cannot be really justified.

        Could you break this down a bit for me?

        Seems to me that these models can only provide guesstimates.

        ***

        More generally, I’m not sure how your comment respond to the claim I emphasized. Here it is again:

        > We find that political choices that delay mitigation have the largest effect on the cost–risk distribution, followed by geophysical uncertainties, social factors influencing future energy demand and, lastly, technological uncertainties surrounding the availability of greenhouse gas mitigation options.

        Would you care to expand?

        No, not in a gaseous way.

      • Willard,

        On the first point. My reference to “one step further” cannot be supported by a single study like this one but this study is a good example of the problem. I have studied for years similar to those used at IIASA where this work was mainly done as far as can judge from the short paper. My statement takes into account the earlier experience as well.

        Estimating technology development is perhaps the most serious impediment in trying to get trustworthy quantitative results out of these models. As long as it’s not known whether some input assumptions are even possible, how could it be possible to estimate the cost (impossible means infinite cost and that cannot be excluded). Therefore technology optimists find that mitigation will be easy and low cost in the future while technology pessimists get totally different results. It’s not possible to tell who is closer to the truth.

        The timing of mitigation measures is certainly an important factor, but the timing is not a matter of free choice. In order to get good results major changes are needed, while only minor changes can really be implemented even with best will. The only sure way of reducing strongly the emissions is to drive economy to deep depression where people cannot afford to consume much fossil fuels.

        If major mitigation is to be achieved without serious economic consequences better solutions are needed than presently available. From the point of view of final outcome it doesn’t matter whether a little is done today or 20 years in future. What matters is the timing of measures that really do reduce the emissions. Therefore the most important factor is the technology development and perhaps also societal development. Early implementation is in some cases very useful for technology development while it’s just waste of resources in other cases. If the best brains are used in implementing ineffective early solutions rather than in research that’s important for something much more effective later on, then the net outcome of policies that emphasize early deployment may be negative.

        My view is that some European countries, most notably Germany, have fallen in this trap. They are using excessive resources in activities of very little actual value.

      • Thank you for your clarifications, Pekka.

    • If aggressive greenhouse gas mitigation steps are not undertaken immediately on a global scale, we will have a continuation of the relentless global warming we now see…(oops!)

  56. A group of toxicologists (Wayne G. Landis, Judi L. Durda, Marjorie L. Brooks, Peter M. Chapman, Charles A. Menzie, Ralph G. Stahl Jr, and Jennifer L. Staube) discovered the importance of communication:

    > Changes to sources, stressors, habitats, and geographic ranges; toxicological effects; end points; and uncertainty estimation require significant changes in the implementation of ecological risk assessment (ERA). Because of the lack of analog systems and circumstances in historically studied sites, there is a likelihood of type III error. As a first step, the authors propose a decision key to aid managers and risk assessors in determining when and to what extent climate change should be incorporated. Next, when global climate change is an important factor, the authors recommend seven critical changes to ERA. […] Good communication is essential for making risk-related information understandable and useful for managers and stakeholders to implement a successful risk-assessment and decision-making process.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2047/full

    INTEGRITY ™ — In Five Steps Less

    The article is accessible: Go Team!

    • Chief,

      Of course you need to know a bit about probabilities to play poker. What I said is that this is not enough. You don’t know what your opponent has, so any kind of decent decision has to take into accounts stuff like reads, play styles, energy management, pot politics, etc. And even if you have made the most splendid model of the game state, you can lose.

      You can lose and still be right. In the long run, you’ll win by making this call most of the times. (I say “most of the times” because you need to mix it up a bit, but never mind that for the moment.) So one can be wrong in the sense of having one’s strategy defeated by reality, and one can be wrong in the sense of not having maximized the information one had. There are other meanings of “wrong”, but these two should suffice for now.

      The difference between poker and climate is that we don’t get to deal hundreds of hands per week. The one we’re playing right now can be our last. So we better take the right decision.

      ***

      Speaking of simplicity, here’s what Knutti said in the op-ed I quoted earlier:

      Although it may seem far-fetched at first, the problem of climate projection is in fact similar in many respects to the garden party situation discussed above. […]

      He does admit that there are differences (like any analogy), but elsewhere, there is this bit that seems to be written just for you:

      Some argue that structural problems are too big compared to the observational uncertainty, implying that all models are so wrong that we cannot even attach likelihoods to models (Stainforth et al. 2007). I would not go that far. All models can be shown to be inaccurate to some degree if we use enough data to evaluate them. But this may not matter in some cases, and is expected because a model is only an approximate description of the real system. We construct airplanes with computer models without being able to properly simulate turbulence, yet the airplanes fly as expected. So a model serves its purpose if it makes a useful and reliable prediction, even if its structure is simple. In fact the beauty of a model often is its simplicity, and the fact that we can understand it and relate it to the behavior of more complex models (Held 2005). Structural problems that are similar across many models however place a limit on the confidence we obtain from robustness. Some model results are perfectly robust… yet wrong.

      Knutti goes a bit too far by saying that a model needs to make a prediction, but at least this should be enough to argue that poker games with only jokers are not the only game in town.

      Which is good, since a poker variant with only jokers renders the game quite trivial.

  57. Just in:

    Nicolas Stern admits he was wrong:

    The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are “on track for something like four “. Had he known the way the situation would evolve, he says, “I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davo

    Yes, but Knutti, I can hear some of Denizens say.

    Go Team!

    • Robert I Ellison

      Stern was obviously wrong in the first instance – there is little cause to think he is right in the second.

      • Not right, only Sterner.

      • Chief,

        If being “wrong” entails one can’t be trusted, I hope you do live among lots of omniscient Saint Bruces.

        I’m not sure in which way Stern was wrong. Here’s a thought experiment to settle this. Suppose I tell you I have very, very good chances my next Poker hand just after having raised. I know the pot is 15k, so I say:

        > I will win 15k.

        But my opponent absurdly tries to bulldoze me and goes all in.

        I therefore win a lot more than that.

        In what sense do you think I was “wrong”?

      • Suppose I tell you I have very, very good chances to win my next Poker hand just after having raised.

      • Robert I Ellison

        If being wrong were a crime – we’d all be hanged – wee willie.

        ‘The metaphoric fallacy to a deductive inference (MFDI) is an example
        of incorrect reasoning along the lines of the false analogy
        fallacy. The structure of the MFDI proceeds from analogously relating
        two metaphors and then claiming that a property (quality or
        function) from one compared predicate of the analogy is contained
        by the other predicate. That is, the predication is treated as being
        transitive across an analogy between metaphors. The essential
        problem is not simply covered by claims that arguing from analogies
        is weak, but that the MFDI proceeds from informal semantical
        (metaphorical) claims to a supposedly formally deductive and necessary
        inference. We charge that such an inference is invalid.’ Brian Lightbody and Michael Berman. Informal Logic, Vol. 30,
        No. 2, (2010), pp. 185-193.

        I charge – too – that such an inference is invalid.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Oh yeah – go space cadets.

      • Nice cite, Chief, but I’m not sure how a Gedankenexperiment is a metaphor or a mix of two.

      • Robert I Ellison

        The so-called thought experiment allows only for winning the bet. An unbiased thought experiment would allow for the possibility of losing. I will let you work out the metaphors.

      • That was the next step, Chief.

        Let’s try the more direct way: I don’t think Stern was saying that his calculations were incorrect, but that, in retrospect and considering the new game state, they might have been a bit too optimistic.

        Twas a figure of speech, really.

      • Robert I Ellison

        ‘If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of
        near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system,specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature. Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal-scale
        climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system [Palmer et al., 2008]. Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well
        outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’ Swanson and Tsonis – Has the climate recently shifted?

        Palmer by the way champions probabalistic forecasts as the only feasible way forward given the nature of the nonlinear equations at the core of climate models. Stern shows no signs of understanding the new game of climate chance.

        ‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?

        Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.’

        Simplistic. optimistic, pessimistic or realistic. Which are you wee wilie?

      • Robert I Ellison
      • Come on, Chief. Not Tsonis again! I don’t deserve this. Perhaps you’re just mad. In that case, it’s OK.

        Let’s fire up G Scholar, then. Cited 33 times. A first hit gives me an op-ed from Knutti, entitled **The End of Model Democracy?**. There’s even an analogy:

        > Imagine you are hosting a garden party tomorrow and you are trying to decide whether or not to put up a tent against the rain. You read the weather forecast in the newspaper and you ask the farmer next door, and you look at the sky (knowing that persistence is often not a bad weather forecast). So you get three predictions, but how would you aggregate them? Would you average them with equal weight? You might trust the forecast model more (or less) than the farmer, not because you understand how either of them generates their prediction, but because of your past experience in similar situations. But why seek advice from more than one source in the first place?

        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-010-9800-2?LI=true

        Please don’t tell Bruce. We know how he despisesGedankenexperimenten. That makes him mad. Not that it would not be OK for him to be mad, Chief.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Wee Willie,

        One is advised to consult the Lorenzian Meteorological Office.

        ‘‘Predictions of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain; our observations of weather and climate are uncertain and incomplete, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, we should think of weather and climate prediction in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t), where X denotes some climatic variable and t denotes time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space…

        To illustrate the more practical implications of the fact that ρ(X,t) depends on initial state, I want to reinterpret Figure 1.2 by introducing you to Charlie, a builder by profession, and a golfing colleague of mine! Charlie, like many members of my golf club, takes great pleasure in telling me when (he thinks) the weather forecast has gone wrong. This is mostly done in good humour, but on one particular occasion Charlie was in a black mood. ‘I have only four words to say to you,’ he announced, ‘How do I sue?’ I looked puzzled. He continued: ‘The forecast was for a night-time minimum temperature of five degrees. I laid three thousand square yards of concrete. There was a frost. It’s all ruined. I repeat – how do I sue?’..

        If only Charlie was conversant with Lorenz (1963) I could have used Figure 1.2 to illustrate how in future he will be able to make much more informed decisions about when, and when not, to lay concrete!’ http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780511223006&ss=exc

        This is the same idea as James McWilliams and Anastasios Tsonis in the previous quotes. I just thought that Tsonis puts it in English and not in the language of mathematical complexity. It seems likely that you are not merely incapable of understanding but actively resistant to ideas current in the field and expressed by eminently quaified people. Go space cadet.

      • Chief,

        The Poker example shows what an uncertain prediction looks like. Making such predictions is essential for humans to simulate Poker strategies. Hell, even machines use such modelling technique!

        I offer you an example of a playing field where most of the predictions are uncertain and you reply: yes, but analogies suck, which still begs for an argument, and then Yes, but Tsonis.

        As if you’ve never told us about Tsonis before.

        As if I was arguing that there are certain predictions.

        As if climate modelling was about making predictions in the first place.

        As if I needed my analogy to convey the idea that Stern was not recanting his previous work.

        Since Tony think this is OK, I believe I might get mad right now.

        ***

        No, Bruce, I won’t give you that pleasure. I will simply remind you that the belle of the week has been using an analogy in an op-ed. You seem to have forgotten to chastise him.

        We’re not playing Poker, Chief. We don’t have the same number of cards in our hands. So far, you’ve not shown me much.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Come now Wee Willie Winky,

        Predictions of a probabilistic nature are relatively simple in a game of poker. Predictions of climate are orders of magnitude more uncertain. This is the result of relative complexity in the dictionary sense and dynamical complexity in the sense of theoretical physics. The essential tools of poker are the simple maths of probability. The essential tools of climate prediction are the nonlinear partial differential equations of fluid motion. These are intrinsically chaotic. I have quoted this from Slingo and Palmer (2011) previously as well.

        ‘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

        You were arguing that Stern had a good poker hand – but in essence there is no way to tell this until and unless the trajectory of all possible solutions has been explored in systematically designed model families.

        ‘No, Bruce, I won’t give you that pleasure. I will simply remind you that the belle of the week has been using an analogy in an op-ed. You seem to have forgotten to chastise him.’

        The usual cryptic nonsense. But the real question remains unanswered – at least by you. Simplistic, optimistic, pessimistic or realistic? Shall I hazard an answer for you Wee Willie? So far you are playing old maid with half a deck.

      • > You were arguing that Stern had a good poker hand.

        No, I was not.

        I had a good poker hand.

        And this I, in a GedankenExperiment, means the one who entertains it.

        Which could mean you, if you stopped antagonizing for a change.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Wee Willie,

        The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are “on track for something like four “. Had he known the way the situation would evolve, he says, “I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise.”

        This is the ‘poker hand’ we are discussing. My point is that there is no way of determining probability in any meaningful way – as yet. Palmer, McWilliams, Hurrell and many others – including Knutti – .suggest ways forward.

        ‘The extreme efficiency of the zonally averaged climate model also allows to calculate ensemble simulations of several thousand members. This approach has recently been used to demonstrate a strategy of how probabilistic forecasts of climate change over the next century can be obtained. The idea is to run a model many times with different parameter combinations and then used observations to constrain the ensemble, i.e. give those model versions more weight that agree well with observations. Technically, these are Bayesian methods, and the result of this procedure is a probability density function of future warming given the observations of the past century.’ http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/knutti/research.html

        Although I would suggest that initialising models and then running computations is a more theoretically correct method. Nonetheless – there remain fundamental theoretical problems to the realisation of probabilistic forecasts.

        ‘Finally, Lorenz’s theory of the atmosphere (and ocean) as a chaotic system raises fundamental, but unanswered questions about how much the uncertainties in climate-change projections can be reduced. In 1969, Lorenz [30] wrote: ‘Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known. It may then still not be possible to express these principles as mathematical equations which can be solved by digital computers. We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer. We must therefore express the pertinent statistical properties of turbulent eddies as functions of the larger-scale motions. We do not yet know how to do this, nor have we proven that the desired functions exist’. Thirty years later, this problem remains unsolved, and may possibly be unsolvable.’ Slingo and Palmer op. cit.

        And…

        ‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’ McWilliams op. cit.

        A million dollars in one of seven Clay Millennium Prizes for Mathematics awaits the further elucidation of the Navier- Stokes partial differential equations of fluid motion.

        ‘Waves follow our boat as we meander across the lake, and turbulent air currents follow our flight in a modern jet. Mathematicians and physicists believe that an explanation for and the prediction of both the breeze and the turbulence can be found through an understanding of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. Although these equations were written down in the 19th Century, our understanding of them remains minimal. The challenge is to make substantial progress toward a mathematical theory which will unlock the secrets hidden in the Navier-Stokes equations.’

        The fact remains that the shift to a global cool mode that occurred after 1998 means that the world is not warming perhaps for a decade or three at least. As my quote earlier on the instrumental hydrological record suggests – it is now apparent that the record is too short to capture the full multidecadal to millennial variability of the climate system. It is now apparent that the potential exists for decadal variability to segue into Bond Event Zero. Or even into – shudder – abrupt glacial cooling in as little as a decade.

        My point remains that Stern’s probability assessments – and his understanding of the climate system – are utterly simplistic. Tsonis – it seems to me – is far closer to the mark with unquanitifed risks at both far ends of the warming/cooling spectrum. It is – in other words – a game of poker in which all the cards are jokers wild. Including you and me Wee Willi Winky.

        Robert I Ellison
        Chief Hydrologist

      • Chief,

        Your position rests on this gem:

        > [A]ll forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.

        This has never been disputed. Not only this has never been disputed, but I’ve offered you a way to see how absurd it would be to dispute it. Your “deterministic this” and “chaotic that” are pure sloganeering.

        If you think that the essential tools to play poker can be reduced to basic probabilities, please do not go play online. Or if you do, please tell me where and when. Most chessplayers around here now play poker. There is always a need for more shrimps in their ocean.

      • Captain Kangaroo

        Oh please wee willie,
        The principle of poker is to maximise return when drawing low probability hands and minimising losses when drawing high probability hands. The probabilities are easily memorized – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability – or calculated for different versions of the game. Nate Silver is in Australia at the moment for a poker tournament. I heard him on the car radio talking about a feel for the probabilities. If you want to bluff – you need patience to consistently play the percentages and unpredictably deviate. So you can take your silly little poker snark and play with someone else.

        Here is the Slingo and Palmer quote – in full – again. ‘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.’ Uncertainty in weather and climate prediction – Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer

        I have shown by reference to leaders in the field of climate modelling that the opportunistic ensemble of the IPCC consists of single solutions from a family of feasible solutions. The ensemble consists of solutions chosen on the basis of a posteriori solution behaviour (McWilliams 2007). The crude interpretation – of which I am fond – is that they pull it out of their arses. The so-called probability of Stern is a mere interpretation of the spread of the models. McWilliams has labeled that simplistic.

        Probabilistic forecasts on the other hand refer to evaluations of the model phase space based on systematically designed model families – as described by Knutti in the quote above. This is not something that we have seen to date as is obvious in any of the extensive science I have quoted.

        The problem with space cadets is that they pretend to intellectual and moral superiority – and respond to challenges of their limited appreciation of science with outrage, insults and claims of demagoguery. They seem also to be invariably very stupid. You seem able to reduce the respected scientists I have quoted extensively to accusations of sloganeering. By all means read the papers in question and frame a narrative includes poker but excludes dynamical complexity. But really I think you have crossed over from respectful discourse to moronic denial of the science that doesn’t fit your groupthink memes. It was bound to happen – aye Wee Willie?

      • Robert I Ellison

        Who was that masked man?

      • Robert Ellison, yes, does anyone doubt that decadal prediction is a difficult problem, or why else are you putting up quotes about it?

      • WP begins its wrecking madness. Let’s hope it’s at the right place, this time:

        ***

        Chief,

        Of course you need to know a bit about probabilities to play poker. What I said is that this is not enough. You don’t know what your opponent has, so any kind of decent decision has to take into accounts stuff like reads, play styles, energy management, pot politics, etc. And even if you have made the most splendid model of the game state, you can lose.

        You can lose and still be right. In the long run, you’ll win by making this call most of the times. (I say “most of the times” because you need to mix it up a bit, but never mind that for the moment.) So one can be wrong in the sense of having one’s strategy defeated by reality, and one can be wrong in the sense of not having maximized the information one had. There are other meanings of “wrong”, but these two should suffice for now.

        The difference between poker and climate is that we don’t get to deal hundreds of hands per week. The one we’re playing right now can be our last. So we better take the right decision.

        ***

        Speaking of simplicity, here’s what Knutti said in the op-ed I quoted earlier:

        Although it may seem far-fetched at first, the problem of climate projection is in fact similar in many respects to the garden party situation discussed above. […]

        He does admit that there are differences (like any analogy), but elsewhere, there is this bit that seems to be written just for you:

        Some argue that structural problems are too big compared to the observational uncertainty, implying that all models are so wrong that we cannot even attach likelihoods to models (Stainforth et al. 2007). I would not go that far. All models can be shown to be inaccurate to some degree if we use enough data to evaluate them. But this may not matter in some cases, and is expected because a model is only an approximate description of the real system. We construct airplanes with computer models without being able to properly simulate turbulence, yet the airplanes fly as expected. So a model serves its purpose if it makes a useful and reliable prediction, even if its structure is simple. In fact the beauty of a model often is its simplicity, and the fact that we can understand it and relate it to the behavior of more complex models (Held 2005). Structural problems that are similar across many models however place a limit on the confidence we obtain from robustness. Some model results are perfectly robust… yet wrong.

        Knutti goes a bit too far by saying that a model needs to make a prediction, but at least this should be enough to argue that poker games with only jokers are not the only game in town.

        Which is good, since a poker variant with only jokers renders the game quite trivial.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Wee Willie,
        You persist in an analogy and call it a thought experiment. To someone less courteous – the descriptors facile and pretentious might come to mind. So let’s drop the philosophy of poker and move to something more relevant.
        I did mention Charlie – and there is some expectation that you would actually glance at the links as it seems relevant to the garden party as well. So here it is in full.
        ‘To illustrate the more practical implications of the fact that ρ(X,t) depends on initial state, I want to reinterpret Figure 1.2 by introducing you to Charlie, a builder by profession, and a golfing colleague of mine! Charlie, like many members of my golf club, takes great pleasure in telling me when (he thinks) the weather forecast has gone wrong. This is mostly done in good humour, but on one particular occasion Charlie was in a black mood. ‘I have only four words to say to you,’ he announced, ‘How do I sue?’ I looked puzzled. He continued: ‘The forecast was for a night-time minimum temperature of five degrees. I laid three thousand square yards of concrete. There was a frost. It’s all ruined. I repeat – how do I sue?’
        If only Charlie was conversant with Lorenz (1963) I could have used Figure 1.2 to illustrate how in future he will be able to make much more informed decisions about when, and when not, to lay concrete! Suppose the Lorenz equations represent part of an imaginary world inhabited by builders, builders’ customers, weather forecasters and lawyers. In this Lorenz world, the weather forecasters are sued if the forecasts are wrong! The weather in the Lorenz world is determined by the Lorenz (1963) equations where all states on the right-hand lobe of the attractor are ‘frosty’ states, and all states on the left-hand lobe of the attractor are ‘frost-free’ states. In this imaginary world, Charlie is planning to lay a large amount of concrete in a couple of days’ time. Should he order the ready-mix concrete lorries to the site? He contacts the Lorenzian Meteorological Office for advice. On the basis of the ensemble forecasts in the top left of Figure 1.2 he clearly should not – all members of the ensemble predict frosty weather. On the basis of the ensemble forecasts in the bottom left of Figure 1.2 he also should not – in this case it is almost impossible to predict whether it will be frosty or not. Since the cost of buying and laying concrete is significant, it is not worth going ahead when the risk of frost is so large.
        How about the situation shown in the top right of Figure 1.2 If we took the patronising but not uncommon view that Charlie, as a member of the general public, would only be confused by a probability forecast, then we might decide to collapse the ensemble into a consensus (i.e. ensemble-mean) prediction. The ensemble-mean forecast indicates that frost will not occur. Perhaps this is equivalent to the real-world situation that got Charlie so upset. Lorenzian forecasters, however, will be cautious about issuing a deterministic forecast based on the ensemble mean, because, in the Lorenz world, Charlie can sue!
        Alternatively, the forecasters could tell Charlie not to lay concrete if there is even the slightest risk of frost. But Charlie will not thank them for that either. He cannot wait forever to lay concrete since he has fixed costs, and if he doesn’t complete this job, he may miss out on other jobs. Maybe Charlie will never be able to sue, but neither will he bother obtaining the forecasts from the Lorenzian Meterorological Office.
        Suppose Charlie’s fixed costs are C, and that he loses L by laying concrete when a frost occurs. Then a logical decision strategy would be to lay concrete when the ensemble-based estimate of the probability of frost is less than C/L. The meteorologists don’t know Charlie’s C/L, so the best they can do is provide him with the full probability forecast, and allow him to decide whether or not to lay concrete.
        Clearly the probability forecast will only be of value to Charlie if he saves money using these ensemble forecasts. This notion of ‘potential economic value’ (Murphy, 1977; Richardson, this volume) is conceptually quite different from the notion of skill (in the meteorological sense of the word), since value cannot be assessed by analysing meteorological variables alone; value depends also on the user’s economic parameters.
        The fact that potential economic value does not depend solely on meteorology means that we cannot use meteorological skill scores alone if we want to assess whether one forecast system is more valuable than another (e.g. to Charlie). This is relevant to the question of whether it would be better to utilise computer resources to increase ensemble size or increase model resolution. As discussed in Palmer (2002), the answer to this question depends on C/L. For users with small C/L, more value may accrue from an increase in ensemble size (since decisions depend on whether or not relatively small probability thresholds have been reached), whilst for larger C/L more value may accrue from the better representation of weather provided by a higher-resolution model.
        In the Lorenz world, Charlie never sues the forecasters for ‘wrong’ forecasts. When the forecast is uncertain, the forecasters say so, and with precise and reliable estimates of uncertainty. Charlie makes his decisions based on these forecasts and if he makes the wrong decisions, only he, and lady luck, are to blame!’

        This is one form of weather forecasting. Climate models project over much longer timeframes. As we have said about the nature of nonlinear equations – these exponentially diverge over time as a result of sensitive dependence and structural instability. ‘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…

        The emphasis is mine and is the key to understanding why forecasts are necessarily probabilistic in ways that have not yet been implemented. There are multiple solutions possible within the limits of feasible inputs and the topology of the Lorenz attractors have not been determined rigorously. Solutions diverge from reality on decadal scales as we know and they continue to diverge over the full range of the solution space to an extent that is unknown and remains unexplored in any systematic way.

        You dismiss chaos as sloganeering and Jim retains a touching faith that is utterly misplaced but stubborn. But the models are known without a doubt to be chaotic in the Lorenzian sense. It has been known for decades. It is not a matter of all models being wrong but that there are multiple solutions for all models without there being a way for assigning probabilities to any particular solution or for choosing one solution over another on any rational basis.

        Jokers wild was a metaphor of course – and suffers from the limitations of metaphors that is similar to the problem of arguing from analogy. But suppose the value of the jokers changed unpredictably – and indeed while a hand was in play. That would make it interesting.

      • Chief,

        Here’s Charlie’s question:

        > The forecast was for a night-time minimum temperature of five degrees. I laid three thousand square yards of concrete. There was a frost. It’s all ruined. I repeat – how do I sue?

        I’m afraid that if he got his forecast by watching TV, he can’t. Let’s hope weather channels protect themselves against such case. Perhaps Charlie could hire a weather gig like Judy’s company and tell that he wishes to pay a premium to insure himself against possible outcomes. But let’s suppose, as Palmer does, that only in the Lorenz world can Charlie sue, and that only in such world are predictions not judged by their skills but by what Palmer calls potential economic value.

        I have not seen where Palmer specifies that value. If that value is also chaotic, I wonder how it can help improve the decision. Not that this matters, since in the end all Palmer does is to shift the burden on Charlie’s shoulders:

        > In the Lorenz world, Charlie never sues the forecasters for ‘wrong’ forecasts. When the forecast is uncertain, the forecasters say so, and with precise and reliable estimates of uncertainty. Charlie makes his decisions based on these forecasts and if he makes the wrong decisions, only he, and lady luck, are to blame!

        I don’t think that Palmer would say that forecasts can be certain. This might explain why his very next section starts with:

        > Essentially, there are three reasons why forecasts are uncertain […]

        I don’t think anyone believes that weather forecasts ever been certain. So I’d like to have an example of a certain forecast, in the Lorenz world or not. Is there one in the Stern review?

        If not, Charlie has no bite against Stern, at least if Palmer’s new way of presenting subjective forecasts justifies you saying:

        > The emphasis is mine and is the key to understanding why forecasts are necessarily probabilistic in ways that have not yet been implemented.

        For I don’t think that Stern would contradict Palmer’s definition of predictability in a Lorenz world:

        > [C]onsidered more pragmatically, the forecast probability distribution in (b) can be considered predictable if the prediction that it is unlikely that X will exceed Xcrit can influence decision-makers.

        http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/48824/excerpt/9780521848824_excerpt.pdf

        Stern’s quote shows him saying something along the same lines. I’m not sure he would so far as to define predictability along the same line as Palmer’s, which leads to the interesting idea that a forecast relies on its influence on the decision-makers. This is interesting, as it transforms weather predictions into a game, and as such is subject to Goodhart’s law:

        > When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

        Courtesy of WebHubTelescope.

        A card game where the value of cards change unpredictably becomes a strange dice game. Strange, but duller than craps.

        ***

        In a nutshell, here’s where we are:

        (1) You’re basically asking that we turn forecasts into a game.

        (2) You’re telling me that the poker example is not to the point.

        I do hope for your that the chaotic properties of your system will help you get out of this one. From my point of view, your chances look slim. But I’m not offering any Lorenzian prediction on this one.

        There is no potential economic value anyway.

        ***

        I do hope that this comment will convey some feeling that I can follow this discussion a bit better than the disrespect I’ve endured so far presumes.

        I do also hope that in the future you will call me willard. I search for “willard” on the page to see if somebody replied. I won’t search for any other affectionate terms, and will slow down a bit, since the week-end has ended. If you don’t like “Chief”, I will call you Robert.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Wee Willie Winky,

        I am not sure that constraining chance to webby expectations improves the game at all. Pick a card – any card, The value of the card face down can be represented by a rather lame probability distribution function. There is a chance that it is a four and the same chance that it is a king. The true value is a random outcome. With models there are also multiple outcomes possible due to chaos – there is no single deterministic solution – it might be a negative 10 or a 42.

        There is in fact a family of potential solutions that emerge from uncertainities in inputs feeding into the nonlinear Navier-Stokes equations.

        ‘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…

        Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence. ‘ James McWilliams

        So the unanswered question remains – are you simplistic, optimis