Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways?

by Judith Curry

Well, if you judge ‘sides’ by what climate scientists have to say about the science, it is getting difficult to tell.

Kevin Trenberth was interviewed on NPR last nite, the ‘balance’ for my interview.    I found several statements in this story to be interesting in terms of trying to delineate my ‘skeptical’ perspective from Trenberth’s ‘consensus’ perspective.

The ‘pause’

From Trenberth’s NPR interview:

So will the oceans come to our rescue?

“That’s a good question, and the answer is maybe partly yes, but maybe partly no,” he says.

The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record.

Trenberth says since then, the ocean has mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes.

“They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,” he says.

20 years!!!  From his statement it is not quite clear what the starting date is for the 20 years: whether it is now and 20 MORE years, or whether it started in 1998 with 20 years presumably taking us to 2018.  In any event, this is definitely not what the consensus said in the 2007 AR4 report, and based upon what I have seen of the AR5, this is not what I would expect the AR5 to say.

A reminder of what I said on this topic in my Congressional testimony:

When considering possible physical reasons for the plateau since 1998, it is instructive to consider the previous mid-century plateau in global average surface temperature. The IPCC AR4 explained this previous plateau in the following way: “the cooling effects of sulphate aerosols may account for some of the lack of observational warming between 1950 and 1970, despite increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.”

With regards to multi-decadal natural internal variability, the IPCC considers this issue primarily in context of detection of an anthropogenic warming signal above the background ‘noise’ of natural variability. The IPCC’s attribution of the late 20th century warming has focused on external radiative forcing, and no explicit estimate of the contribution of natural internal variability to the warming was made. A recent paper by Tung and Zhou suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century. They argue that a natural multidecadal oscillation of an average period of 70 years with significant amplitude of 0.3–0.4°C is superimposed on the secular warming trend, which accounts for 40% of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Tung and Zhou identify this oscillation with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), although recent research suggests a more complex multidecadal signal propagating through a network of synchronized climate indices. Tung and Zhou argue that not taking the AMO into account in predictions of future warming under various forcing scenarios may run the risk of over-estimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the AMO is likely in its down phase.

 If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two, with a resumption of warming at some point during mid-century. The amount of warming from greenhouse gases depends both on the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted as well as the climate sensitivity to the greenhouse gases, both of which are associated with substantial uncertainties.
.
JC summary:  So what is the disagreement between mine and Trenberth’s perspective?  It’s mainly one of confidence:  Trenberth seems to think that he understands what is going on in the ocean, whereas I regard all this as an hypothesis that is associated with substantial uncertainties in the data and understanding of the mechanisms of vertical heat transport in the ocean.    The most significant difference is that I think this issue of ocean heat sequestration implies lower climate sensitivity to CO2, which Trenberth does not seem to consider. Trenberth and Curry agree with each other moreso than with the IPCC consensus (at least the AR4)
.
Extreme weather events
.
Trenberth has been outspoken on linking extreme weather events to climate change.  Excerpt from Trenberth’s NPR interview:
.

Consider Hurricane Sandy. Trenberth figures the storm was maybe 5 or 10 percent more powerful as a result of global warming. And sea level is 8 inches higher than it was a century ago. That doesn’t seem that dramatic, but he argues that made a huge and costly difference.

“I reckon that without climate change, we would not have exceeded thresholds that caused the flooding of the subways in Manhattan and the tunnels from Manhattan to New Jersey and to Brooklyn.”

Excerpts from my testimony:
.
Trenberth has argued that climate change is affecting all weather now, because the background conditions have changed as a result human-caused global warming. I don’t disagree with this statement; however there is no prima facie reason to think that global warming will make most extreme weather events more frequent or more severe.
.
Attempts to attribute individual extreme weather events, or collections of extreme weather events, may be fundamentally ill-posed in the context of the complex, chaotic climate system. In addition to the substantial difficulties and problems associated with attributing changes in the average climate to natural variability versus anthropogenic forcing, attribution of extreme weather events is further complicated by their rarity and their dependence on weather regimes and internal multi-decadal oscillations that are simulated poorly by climate models. 
.

Preliminary damage estimates rank Hurricane Sandy as the 2nd costliest Atlantic hurricane, only behind Hurricane Katrina. When Sandy made landfall, it had been categorized as a post-tropical cyclone with winds equivalent to a Category 1 hurricane. Sandy’s 13 foot storm surge arose from a combination of a very large horizontal extent of the storm plus high tide conditions. 

The current elevated hurricane activity in the North Atlantic is associated with the warm phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which could continue for another decade or two. The recent transition to the cool phase of the Pacific Oscillation is associated with a greater frequency of La Nina events, which are associated with elevated hurricane activity and a preference for Atlantic landfalls (relative to Gulf landfalls).

JC summary:  My position on extreme weather events and climate change is much more consistent with IPCC consensus as expressed by the SREX, than is Trenberth’s position.  While Trenberth is quick to acknowledge the role of the multi-decadal oscillations in ocean heat storage, he neglects to consider that these same oscillations have a dominant control on the hemispheric weather patterns that influence extreme weather events.

Scientists engaging in policy/politics

From my NPR interview:

“All we can do is be as objective as we can about the evidence and help the politicians evaluate proposed solutions,” she says. If that means doing nothing, “I can’t say myself that that isn’t the best solution.”

And this is where Curry parts company most clearly with her peers. For example, the leading scientific organization for earth scientists, the American Geophysical Union, says in a position statement that climate change “requires urgent action.” It concludes that despite some uncertainties, there’s no scenario where climate change will be inconsequential.

“I don’t know how concerned I should be about it — on what time scale that might happen, whether that’s 100 or 200 years, what societies will be like, what other things are going on with the natural climate,” Curry says. “I just don’t know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don’t know.”

By now, of course, Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy.

“But in terms of telling other people what to do, I don’t have any big answers.”

From Kevin Trenberth’s NPR interview:

Over the decades that he has been working on climate change, the role of scientists has gradually expanded. Prominent scientists like him are trying to reduce the risk of global disruption by pushing society to act. These are frustrating times.

“This is very much in the role of the politicians who are supposed to do what’s in the interests of everybody as a whole,” Trenberth says. “And I’m not so sure many politicians understand their role in this.”

But wading into this policy debate, Trenberth argues that the United States could and should lead the world toward a less dangerous trend.

“If you play the right kind of role, then other countries will follow,” he says.

JC summary:  KT and JC obviously disagree substantially on the role of scientists in public debates about policy.  KT aligns himself with the consensus in terms of ‘urgent action is needed.’  I stay out of making specific policy recommendations or urging action, saying that i don’t think this the role of scientists and that personally I don’t have any good solutions to this wicked problem.   The bizarre thing is that Harris labels me as straying from science and being deep into the politics and in bed with the Republicans.

JC conclusions

I think that Richard Harris missed the real story here:  the  changing social dynamics of scientists in the climate change debate.  What actually differentiates academic scientists in this public debate?  It doesn’t seem to be the science.

Virtually all academic climate scientists are within the 97% consensus regarding the infrared emission of the carbon dioxide molecule and the warming effect on the planet.  This includes ‘skeptics’ such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, etc.

The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as 1C and as high as 6C cannot be judged as irrational.

‘Consensus’ scientists are busy investigating the pause cause, using arguments that have been skeptical talking points for several decades.

Few scientists are skeptical of the basic analyses and confidence levels put forward by the IPCC SREX regarding observationally-based assessments of linkages between AGW and extreme weather.

Trenberth has strayed from scientific arguments of the consensus; this seems to be ok if it is more alarming than the consensus.

So . . .  what is the differentiator?  Why is there such hostility between the two ‘sides’, even though there is little at this point to discriminate the two sides in terms of science?  Why have I been thrown off the ‘consensus’ island?  Here are my ideas on the differentiators, and they are social (not scientific).  I use myself as an example here, since I don’t want to get into talking about or labeling other climate scientists in this regard.

1.  Fear and loathing of skeptics, particularly Steve McIntyre (read the Climategate emails for evidence of this).  McIntyre is symbolic of attacks against consensus science, and a number of scientists have taken this very personally.  My engagement with Steve McIntyre was probably the impetus for my getting tossed off the island, which was very visible with the publication of my post-Climagate essay ‘On the credibility of climate research‘ on McIntyre’s blog.

2.  Allegiance to the ‘consensus’ and the social contract between the scientists, institutions and policy makers that has been very beneficial to the field of climate scientists.  I have raised concerns about the consensus approach in my uncertainty monster paper and my paper no consensus on consensus.  I have also raised concerns about the social contract aspect.

3.  The selling of the merchant of doubt and war on science memes, which made uncertainty and doubt dirty words.  My uncertainty monster flew directly in the face of this.

4.  Expectation of climate scientists to support CO2 mitigation policies.  My position is that scientists should stay away from such advocacy unless they understand the policy process and advocate in a responsible way (as per the AAAS workshop guidelines.)

5.  Others?

All of this is amplified by the consensus police and denial warriors  surrounding the scientific community, including bloggers, the media, NGOs, politicians.

So I have committed 4 major ‘social’ faux pas against the the consensus.  Maybe there are others.  Tamsin Edwards has arguably scored on three of these; her continued stated loyalty to the consensus seems to have kept her on the island.

Or maybe things are changing?  The whole issue of uncertainty seems to be growing in importance.  Skeptics are increasingly getting their papers published (including some that have emerged from the skeptical blogosphere).  The policy debate has broadened far beyond CO2 mitigation, although climate scientists don’t seem to understand this.  Unfortunately, the ostracism of scientists that do not socially support the consensus continues.  And the insistence on scientists supporting urgent action on CO2 mitigation continues unabated.

I realize that I am treading into the area of social psychology here, I am throwing these ideas out there in the hopes that some social scientists will pick up on this issue and investigate so that we can better understand the dynamics here, where the tribal differences on a scientific topic are not driven so much by scientific differences but by social issues.  I would also like to hear more anecdotes in this regard from other scientists.  I am concerned that the social psychology of the allegiance to consensus is getting in the way of moving climate science forward and providing useful information and analyses to support decision making by policy makers.

1,148 responses to “Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways?

  1. The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as 1C and as high as 6C cannot be judged as irrational.

    I would judge them both irrational for a scientist, as I would any value in-between. “We don’t know” simply isn’t consistent with “beliefs

    • AK you picked on the point I was going to make. If we dont know what the value of the climate sensitivity is, but we believe it is positive, then the correct limits are not 1 to 6 C, but 0 to 6 C.

      • I was actually referring to “beliefs” in any one value. A PDF of some shape might be appropriate, although IMO a scientific attitude would still preclude any sort of “belief”. Personally, I’d say the current evidence probably supports a PDF with a small tail crossing 0, but I certainly wouldn’t apply the word “belief” to such a conclusion.

      • Dotcomming third eyes and crossing beliefs.
        ===============

    • JC…” Why is there such hostility between the two ‘sides’, even though there is little at this point to discriminate the two sides in terms of science? Why have I been thrown off the ‘consensus’ island?”

      My assessment is that because you host a blog, whereon MANY of the conservatives ‘deniers’ post many reasons that support their (denying) arguments, many in the ‘consensus’ camp believe that you are also an AGW ‘denier’. And, the deniers who post here think ‘any enemy of my enemy is my friend’.

      Taking you at your word, that you and the ‘consensus’ have little disagreement, I would point out that testifying before Congress (which is majority Republican, known for their anti-AGW position) puts you into the denier camp, just by appearing.

      While we can agree that no climate model can possibly predict (accurately) what the weather will be at any particular place on July 1, 2020, because these models all agree that our globe is getting warmer, it is our politicians who must do ‘something’. That ‘something’ is passing legislation, no matter how draconian, to slow and stop GHG emissions.

      I find it commendable that you believe that scientists should not get into the political arena; but if the scientists can clearly see that our worldly nest is getting fouled, who is going to scream and wave their arms to call attention to it?? I submit that with 97% consensus, and with IPCC releasing a report which indicates that the consensus are more confident in their assessment, taking action to slow and stop global warming is becoming more critical with each day.

      • Robert Austin

        “but if the scientists can clearly see that our worldly nest is getting fouled,”

        But are these advocating scientists clearly seeing or do they need a good dose of humility? Trenberth clearly believes he sees more clearly than even the alleged consensus as represented by the IPCC and blithely steps out on a limb with his claims in the knowledge that he will be retired by the time he will be shown to be fool or sage.

      • Hank Zentgraf

        Walter, rather than climate scientists “screaming and waving their arms to avoid fouling the nest”, why not put a massive effort into solving the climate sensitivity issue? My position as a sceptic is centered around the broad issue of feedbacks + or – and the value 0 or 6. There is plenty of tax payer money flushing through the climate science community to adequately address this issue. Reorganize it and get the answer. Until then I have little confidence in the assessments of the consensus!
        I am ready to join but I need to see the work first.

      • The “97%” consensus is a propaganda figment created by the alarmists, one that has been debunked several times over, even by observers not in the skeptical camp.

        The purported 95% confidence level in the upcoming IPCC report is probably more a reflection of so called “bureaucratic science” where the confirmation bias grows ever stronger, than anything else. At that confidence level, we are dealing with established dogma, no longer with science.

        As JC has pointed out time and again -and which is the main reason she’s been punted off the island- is that if anything, we are in fact starting to realize -but necessarily acknowledge- how little we know and understand about our climate.

        Keep in mind that Trenberth is a cardinal in the IPCC church, and he that he is straying into the realm of alchemy to keep the dogma alive. Most recently stating that while the temperatures have flat lined there are plenty of other “signs” that the earth is warming, and that these “signs” are “abundantly clear”. Not just alchemy as in oceans warming at -700m, but getting very close the shamanism, indeed.

      • In other words Walter, the folks you speak of ( along with yourself) are not capable of discernment.

        If things aren’t put in nice, simple, tidy little boxes for you, you have trouble comprehending them. Which explains the simplistic, shallow assessment you’ve provided.

      • Walter,

        I’m curious about your “no matter how draconian” comment. As I don’t believe you are stupid or an idiot, I am left with two conclusions. Either you can’t or won’t evaluate an issue beyond its simplest terms, or you fall into the category of true believer. (I can see where the two may overlap.)

        Your no matter how draconian would put you into the latter category. It is a statement which places you out at the extreme. One analogy which comes to mind is the one where the doctor is congratulated on a successful operation and told it was too bad the patient died. Can you please explain why you should not be seen as an extremist after uttering such an extreme opinion?

        Perhaps we should stick with a simpler question and have you show why using the 97% figure and calling people deniers doesn’t flush your credibility down the tubes.

      • In one paragraph you criticize her for testifying before Congress. In the very next paragraph you say that politicians must pass legislation. You don’t see that the first action is a prerequisite for the second?

      • Matthew R Marler

        Walter Carlson: I would point out that testifying before Congress (which is majority Republican, known for their anti-AGW position) puts you into the denier camp, just by appearing.

        The Senate (which is majority Democratic) is irresponsible for not asking her to testify.

        While we can agree that no climate model can possibly predict (accurately) what the weather will be at any particular place on July 1, 2020, because these models all agree that our globe is getting warmer, it is our politicians who must do ‘something’.

        What the models “agree on”, if by that you take their mean, is wrong — at least up to now. It becomes more critical year by year to avoid taking action based on them.

      • My comments were written for Judith Curry, but since several have posted comments, I will try to respond to them:

        Robert Austin: “But are these advocating scientists clearly seeing or do they need a good dose of humility?” This suggests that you disagree with the 97 %, et al. I think, therefore, that you are a ‘denier’, and no amount of scientific evidence can persuade you otherwise.

        Hank Zentgraf: ” My position as a sceptic is centered around the broad issue of feedbacks + or – and the value 0 or 6.” I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And, let me say, that on this blog, I have found many mysterious statements from ‘deniers’ that seem to only obfuscate the discussion.

        tetris: “The “97%” consensus is a propaganda figment created by the alarmists…” if you say so. However, when all worldwide meteorological and climatological organizations (including AGU and UCS) make clear statements that AGW is unarguable, I see no reason to disagree. Obviously, the deniosphere does.

        timg56-first comment is an insult, I am ignoring it. Second comment: “I’m curious about your “no matter how draconian” comment.” I haven’t thought through just how urgent politicial action is needed; obviously, IPCC’s AR4 has been ignored in US, China, Russia, and elsewhere, so our politicians may have to take more severe action to slow/stop AGW. One thing I would advocate is legislation to push modular nuclear power plants. Nuclear power has propelled US aircraft carriers and submarines. This same, or newer, technology could be mandated and funded.

        Bill Woods…I don’t see my statements as criticizing Mrs. Curry for testifying, only that it causes an association with the deniosophere.

        Mathew Marler: “What the models “agree on”, if by that you take their mean, is wrong — at least up to now. It becomes more critical year by year to avoid taking action based on them.” I find it amazing that AR4 synthesized results from 18 climate models used around the world and found that doubling CO2 would increase average world temperature about the same amount (3.6F to 8.1F) as Arrhenius, with hand calculations (8F). However, Arrhenius calculated it would take 3,000 year, not one or two centuries.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Walter Carlson: I find it amazing that AR4 synthesized results from 18 climate models used around the world and found that doubling CO2 would increase average world temperature about the same amount (3.6F to 8.1F) as Arrhenius, with hand calculations (8F).

        You addressed “agreement” whereas I addressed “accuracy”. The AR4 ignored a good deal of information that has been acquired since the time of Arrhenius, so it isn’t that informative that they got a comparable result.

      • You’re also selectively forgetting the rest of the story. That Arrhenius’ estimate was immediately criticized by Knut Angstrom as way too high. Angstrom was closer to what the most current estimates is.

        Also, Arrhenius calculated his absurdly high coefficient without any feedback. The IPCC’s high end estimates include huge amounts of feedback.

        Arrhenius’ estimate means exactly bupkis.

      • Mathew, you did not use the word ‘accuracy’ and I don’t read minds. If you insist on nitpicking, we can’t have a meaningful discussion.

        Harold…you forget that Arrhenius work was done more than a century ago; even back then, the level of CO2 was of concern. His idea was way ahead of the rest of the scientific community. Only ‘bupkis’ to the denier mentality !!

      • “ …but if the scientists can clearly see that our worldly nest is getting fouled, who is going to scream and wave their arms to call attention to it??” They have screamed and they have arm-waived, but it hasn’t been getting much traction. And when that happened they became bitter and screamed “denier!” at anyone who disagreed with them, which cost them even more traction. Scientists are supposed to be rational: when stuck in a hole stop digging it deeper if nothing else. Many of them still haven’t noticed that we live in a democracy, not a technocracy, and that most people don’t have a secret yearning to be governed by scientists. Science and those who practice it are largely regarded as a social utility, largely bought and paid for with public monies. This seems to be too unflattering a concept for many who practice science to accept.

      • Walter,

        My apology for being insulting, though I will stand by the part about it being a rather simplistic analysis. You assign a value judgement based on which political party is asking questions. You broadly categorize people using a term some find insulting and make reference to the 97% figure which is a public relations artifact that has no real value except to sell a particular spin.

        As to your response to the question on “no matter how draconian”, you pretty much side step it, with an “I haven’t really thought about it”.

        However you scored major points with me on the part of the response about one recommendation you would put forth. I voted each time for a candidate to the House whose platform I was in disagreement with on more than half of the items. But because the two issues he was mosted interested in, education and business, were two I also believe strongly in and agreed with him on, I had no problem supporting the candidate from the other party.

        I recommend you quit with the name calling and instead focus on finding areas of agreement. You don’t have to agree 100% with the other person or even 50%, so long as you can find something of importance to you both that you can agree on. For me, whatever your opinions and belief might be on climate change, I have no problem fully suporting you on what direction we should be taking in terms of lectircal generation.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Walter Carlson: Mathew, you did not use the word ‘accuracy’ and I don’t read minds. If you insist on nitpicking, we can’t have a meaningful discussion.

        My bad — I usually refer to “accuracy/inaccuracy” of models and calculations. I am tending toward “wrong” as good enough in this case for “too inaccurate to be relied upon for policy”.

      • Ok, another response attempt:
        Mathew: I understand, sometimes I misstate what I’m trying to say (I think we all do, occasionally). But we will have to continue to disagree in the matter of ‘models'; I’m a geologist, not a climatologist. However, when several climatologists have stated that various models come to close agreement, and they put forth a range of temperatures that would be associated with a specific CO2 level, I have to rely on their expertise.

        timg, et al…It seems that you find the term ‘denier’ insulting. I’m sorry, I thought it was a descriptor, not a negative name. However, many, here, challenge the 97%, which I see as having more credibility than the 3%. Also, I find more supportive indications of AGW, than just climatologists and meteorologists. Example: a NPS Park Ranger, in Joshua Tree National Park told me that in the last decade, these cacti have been found further north than ever before-an indication that the climate has warmed. There are many other reported instances of rising temperatures: whales further north, coral bleaching, etc.

        Glacial coring, over the past three decades have repeatedly shown high correlation between CO2 measurements and temperature, going back thousands of years. That and other studies I’ve read have given me cause for great concern that our world is warming because greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) are rising and, without measures to reduce CO2 levels, MANY unforeseen and unfortunate things may happen that are very bad for the world. Obviously, many here don’t see things the same way; Among scientists, disagreement can be a good thing, IF the reasons for the disagreement are treated as reasons to continue research. Nevertheless, I believe that politicians could take steps (i.e .pass legislation) to, for example, hasten building a renewable energy infrastructure that will be needed to power the air conditioners that a warmer world will need.

      • Walter,

      • Matthew R Marler

        Walter Carlson: However, when several climatologists have stated that various models come to close agreement, and they put forth a range of temperatures that would be associated with a specific CO2 level, I have to rely on their expertise.

        We can explore this again when next Prof Curry has another thread about comparing models to data. The models agree amongst each other, they just have not provided accurate forecasts of the actual temperature trends that they ought to have predicted accurately. This thread has too many posts already.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Walter Carlson, I thought that you might not want to wait for a future thread devoted to model-data comparisons, so I found one that you might like:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/temperature-models-vs-temperature-reality-in-the-lower-troposphere/

        If you go the the WUWT web site and search on “model versus data” you’ll be able to read through a lot of these. Don’t rest content with WUWT, follow the links to the original data sources.

      • Mathew…thank you for the link. I went to the article and checked the comments. What I found in the comments confirms my thinking that Watts has a group of deniers following him who have no appreciation of the time and effort that goes into climatology models. In their book ‘The White Planet’, Jouzel, Lorius and Raynaud compare their findings with models and report good agreement. While Watts is concerned with the accuracy of data, his response to BEST results (promising to accept them before being published, then disavowing them after) shows me that he and his blog are more concerned with negating scientific effort, than finding scientific accuracy. Now I need to find data v model reports.

      • “no appreciation of the time and effort that goes into climatology models”

        This does bring a tear to the eye. No one appreciates the time and effort I put into my Space Cheerleaders Do The Asteroid Belt: Sensual Short Stories either. ;)

        Andrew

      • Matthew…as I mentioned I’m a geologist, not a climatologist. Also, not a modeler. However, I googled about climate model accuracy and found that while models have done, according to the articles, a good job of predicting climate big picture, it is small picture, such as El Nino Southern Oscillations that have been less well predicted. My take on this is that discussion on model predictions should proceed, BUT, past analyses of models have shown that generally, they give good results. That is, I believe the predictions are good enough for politicians to take legislative action and I believe they should.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Walter Carlson: What I found in the comments confirms my thinking that Watts has a group of deniers following him who have no appreciation of the time and effort that goes into climatology models.

        Those considerations are irrelevant to the issue of the accuracy of the models.

        I overstated somewhat the degree to which the models agree among themselves: as you can see, some of the models are only a little off, whereas others are way off.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Walter Carlson: I googled about climate model accuracy and found that while models have done, according to the articles, a good job of predicting climate big picture, it is small picture,

        As you saw from the data and models that I linked to, and there are many such for various attributes of climate, they have not even predicted the aggregate global mean accurately.

      • Walter,

        I find it interesting that geology is your background. It has been my experience that the geologists I know (and a couple I know very well) tend to be rather critical of climate science. I attribute that to their experience with models verse the real world.

        I don’t argue that climate is changing. Neither do I argue against there being little to no human contribution. I do question the surity of how big a percentage that human impact is and my willingness to believe it is considerably above 50% is checked by some of the other claims I hear.

        10 to 30 to 300 ft of sea level rise, species extinctions, tens of millions of climate refugees, war, famine, plague, hell, all of the 4 horsemen, plus their extending families galloping towards us. That is just not credible without at least some evidence to back it up. Even small things, such as Dr Trenberth’s moving hot spot and all of the claims about extreme weather. For years the climate science community repeated stated that weather is not climate. Yet now it seems all we hear about from them is about the weather. When a person is not a subject matter expert, they have to rely on the experts. And in order to do so, they have to have some sense of the credibility of those experts. What I am seeing is credibility running full speed out the door.

        BTW – the denier label doesn’t bother me. I am not denying anything. Even if I was, it wouldn’t bother me. I was about 6 or so when my folks taught me the lesson about name calling as something to ignore.

      • TimG56…regarding correlation between atmospheric CO2 and AGW. MY take on it is: a) humans have been mining coal (think of cubic miles) and petroleum (think of billions of barrels) and burning them most heavily within the last 50-70 years; b) humans have been growing in massive numbers (over 7 billion) and using coal to fire steel manufacturing plants (also, mostly within the last 50-70 years); c) in their book ‘The White Planet’, glaciologists Jouzel, Lorius and Raynaud describe coring Greenland Ice Sheet and West Antarctic Ice Sheet and correlating analyses by several countries in these projects-they show close correlation between CO2 and temperature measurements.(these cores begin with very recent and go back nearly a million years and NO CO2 levels have approached those of today). I’m sure there are those on this blog who find something here to disagree with, however, having read this and several other books on AGW, i’m convinced that there is a very limited time available for humanity to recognize the long-term significance of this threat and take measures to mitigate it.

    • So Trenberth thinks “climate change” made Sandy 5% to 10% worse. I have two comments.

      1. I disagree. I think it made it 6.732% worse, or maybe 2.573% worse. None of the four guesses means anything.

      2. Substitue “witchcraft” for “climate change” and it does not fundamentally change the meaning. Without strong evidence, simply repeating “climate change” as a cause also means nothing.

    • How does Kevin Trenberth know that climate change caused by man or otherwise didn’t make hurricane Sandy 5 to 10% less bad?

    • Steven Mosher

      Ak.
      I dont know how tall you are. But I
      believe you are between 1 and 10 feet tall. I Believe that if i plan on you being 6 feet tall i wont be too far off.
      In fact we know very little and manage quite well with mere belief

      • I believe that the apollo command module we are returning from the moon in will enter the earths atmosphere between 0 and 90 degrees. Of course, too shallow an angle and we might not be captured by earths gravity and well skip off into space, and to steep and well burn up whilst being crushed by the g-forces.

        Belief may be adequate a lot of the time, especially when the decisions are non-critical, but it is irrational to rely on them when they are not. I would have thought constraining climate sensitivity on more than a “belief”, in this case synonymous with “educated guess”, would be a case of the latter.

      • Leonard Weinstein

        Steven,
        We are probably getting close to the end of the Holocene based on previous cycle lengths. In addition, we are entering a low solar activity cycle that may be as bad as cycles associated with the LIA. In addition, the measured global heating has paused, or may be already heading down. Does it seem reasonable, based on these, to combat HEATING with these pieces of evidence? Cooling is much worse in effects (less crops, cold homes of poor cause many more deaths than hot). The belief you refer to may lead to making a bad situation worse. Unless we know much more, the best activity is to prepare to handle any emergency, not try to redirect climate. If the trend of cooling occurs, I would consider the activities of those pushing climate mitigation as criminal, as they would have pushed all of society in the wrong direction, and also made science less accepted by the majority of people.

      • @Steven Mosher…

        The cases aren’t parallel, as you know.

  2. Theo Goodwin

    Your post is brilliant. Trenberth will understand his own statements better after reading your post. Harris will understand what he has done better after reading your post. Your post is an excellent summary of what has happened among scientists in the “climate wars.” Thank you so very much for your excellent work in behalf of science.

    • Theo, very well put. But will Trenberth or Harris see this? Perhaps Judith should e-mail them.

    • Your post assumes Trenberth and Harris are open minded. I don’t know either one of them to agree with this assumption.

    • Unfortunately neither Trenberth nor Harris will see this post or the comments here. Even if JC e-mailed them to both. They would not be able to read beyond the first paragraph, if that.

      The reason is found in behavioral psychology and is known as “cognitive dissonance”. Cognitive dissonance -the effects of which are very real to those who experience it but which they may not recognize, and likewise to those who observe the ones experiencing it- occurs when ever more empirical data/facts compound to ever more contradict one’s world view and convictions.

      The individual’s inability to acknowledge and accept those facts for what they are -verifiable facts- leads to a defense mechanism known as confirmation bias, where only those pieces of information that fit their world view/conviction are treated as real. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are the polar opposite of the skeptical thinking and mindset required for proper “ol’ fashioned’ Popperian science.

      Try asking the Catholic Church for an reasonable and verifiable explanation for the immaculate conception or the Trinity -which as an institution it can not because these constitute core tenets of the faith- or convince a devout Muslim of the fact that not only God is capable of making perfect things, but that man has learned to do so as well [e.g. C60], which he can’t because it is a core tenet of his faith and accepting that would constitute blasphemy.

      Trenberth -with his alchemy-like musings about “missing heat” hiding at -700m, and his hallucinations about “abundantly clear signs” of [man-made] global warming [some of which according to him apparently are to be found in the upcoming IPCC report] in the absence of rising temperatures, is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance at work. Likewise, Harris’ more or less politely giving short thrift to JC and providing Trenberth with ample space to propagate his gibberish, says as much about how cognitive dissonance plays havoc with his integrity as a reporting journalist as it does about the NPR’s institutional cognitive dissonance which makes it a poodle mouthpiece for the alarmist credo in the US.

  3. Grant A. Brown

    You hit the nail on the head. You don’t have to understand climate science, you only have to appreciate the sociology of science, to know who is credible and who is not in this field. The climate scaremongers have been shooting themselves in the feet for a long time now.

  4. We have terrestrial temperatures for the past 100+ years.
    We have upper air temperatures since the 1930s.
    We got walloped by the 1983 El Nino and decided the ocean was worth sampling beyond the surface.

    So let’s see what NOAA says about the ocean.

    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

    “To date, we have explored less than five percent of the ocean. The ocean is the lifeblood of Earth, covering more than 70 percent of the planet’s surface, driving weather, regulating temperature, and ultimately supporting all living organisms. Throughout history, the ocean has
    been a vital source of sustenance, transport, commerce, growth, and inspiration.

    Yet for all of our reliance on the ocean, 95 percent of this realm remains unexplored, unseen by human eyes.”

    “You can observe a lot by just just watching.” Y. Berra

    Mother Nature deals from any part of the deck she wishes and always bats last.

    The ocean is the critical link in this planet’s climate and always will be.

  5. You’ve posted on this both directly and indirectly many times, but whereas climate is a matter of science, climate debate is much more a social phenomena.

  6. Professor Myles Allen – at the Oxford Union debate with Professor Lindzen:

    Myles (at 32:20)

    ” I think we should emphasise the enormous amount we all agree on…”

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361311721241956.html

    The interviewer was very aggressive to Lindzen and Myles stated how appalled he was by this at the Bishop Hill blog the next day

    (and a lot was edited out, including me, asking where the interviewer had got his 97% of scientists agree statistic from)

  7. “Trenberth seems to think that he understands what is going on in the ocean..”

    Yes, it does seem that way. But on what basis? It’s a beautifully compelling example of motivated reasoning. WHen will the MSM/left wing media begin to understand that the when interviewing the same old cast of climate characters they are speaking with people whose reputations depend on their being right about climate change. One does not have to be a scientist to understand human nature.

    • Walter Carlson, If you agree with incorporating modular atomic boilers in the energy mix then basically you are on a team here; for whatever your personal reasons for getting to the conclusion. Worrying about why is not as important as how to do it.

      • Indeed-how to get US and/or world politicians to develop legislation that would move the first world countries toward reducing CO2 emissions?? That is the big question !! My thinking is that with each summer getting warmer, the solution to more electrical power with less CO2 emissions should include nuclear reactors. Technology has advanced to the ability to design and build modular nuclear power pants. Those who fear meltdowns, such as Fukishima, have ignored that aircraft carriers have bweeb nuclear powered for decades. Why can’t that technology be applied to cities with smaller populations?? Installing two of these plants, for a city of 80,000-100,000 would allow the cities to own their own plants and lessen the need for stretching copper cables all across the US.

      • Walter

        Imo, one of the major reasons that the technology you describe is not being used in developing countries is that the currently nuclear countries do not like the idea of nuclear material becoming available across the globe. The argument is that it will increase the probability that the technology and the waste materials can be used for undesirable purposes. Why do you think large commercial ships are not nuclear powered? Same answer.

      • Rob,

        on why large commercial ships are not nuclear powered.

        I’d have to do some digging, but I believe it has to do with life cycle costs.

        Even the Navy has eliminated ship classes it previous utilized nuclear propulsion in. Now only carriers and submarines are nuclear.

  8. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Judith Curry asks (a very good question) “What is the differentiator? Why is there such hostility between the two ‘sides’, even though there is little at this point to discriminate the two sides in terms of science?”

    That is a excellent question, Judith Curry!

    The strongest rancor arises not between scientist-and-skeptic, but between scientist-and-denialist:

    ▷  Practicing scientists fear-and-loathe the willful ignorance and suppressive abuse that is associated to denialist demagoguery. Because willful ignorance and suppressive are the mortal enemies to the free inquiry that is the foundation of good science.

    ▷  Practicing ideologues fear-and-loathe the evidence-based judgments and open discourse that is associated to good scientific practice (thank you for this outstanding reference, Judith Curry!) Because evidence-based judgments and open public discourse are mortal enemies to the ideological purity that demagogues seek to sustain.

    Conclusion When strong skepticism rationally confronts strong climate-change science, the result is plenty of interesting public discourse, but not much rancor, and all parties benefits. Whereas when ideology-driven denialist demagogues abusively attack the weaker elements of climate-change science, plenty of rancorous heat gets generated, but not much scientific light!

    \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}

    • k scott denison

      Fan, here is an example of true demagogues/religious zealots:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/24/day-of-the-ungreens-dreaming-up-scary-language-to-convince-people-global-warming-is-really-just-like-a-scary-movie/#more-92269

      Basically a “how to” book,for spreading propaganda. Seen anything similar on the skeptical side?

      • A classic, courtesy of Pat Michaels:

        > Make an argument that you can get killed on and you kill us all.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/4027562164

      • Steven Mosher

        Pat michaels is wrong.

        skeptics can make horrible arguments all day long. some zombies never die

      • Mosher, pissing on people and telling them its raining isn’t a viable method for gaining trust or for ones chances of becoming an authority figure.

        Whenever a patient is given a diagnosis for a terminal disease, the spend the week before visiting the specialist on the internet, doing all the background the can.
        They visit the specialist, who 20 years ago would have have far more asystematic information, and bargain for their lives.
        The oncologists tell me it is far better dealing with patients of today, who have spent days googling, reading trials announcements and medical textbooks, than it was before they had access to information and mis-information; at least now the patients already know the statistics and the timeline.
        With ‘Climate Science’ we have a new field that only exists because of computing power; all the reconstructions and models can only exist thanks to number crunching. The problem is that many non-scientists can do the same sort of number crunching and have access to the same data. It is not like members of the public grow cancer cells and design their own drugs; but anyone can reanalyze climate data and statistical methods.
        Many of the climate scientists hate that ‘anyone’ can second guess them and think this is demeaning to their profession, which is something medics have always had to live with.
        And now to my point, as I really do have one.
        Hospitals routinely give surveys to patients and ask them to rate their care, including what they think of their Doctor or Surgeon. Time after time departments get the same results for individuals, based on patient derived data. The ‘best’ doctors/surgeons are not the ones with the best outcomes, or who have the least complications or who even have the most senior positions; the ‘best’ doctors/surgeons are those who talk to the patient, those who visit the patient in pre-OP just before they go under, the ones who visit post-OP as the patient awakes AND those who pop-in for 10 minutes on Saturday and Sunday. If you doctor appears to care about you, talks to you, reassures you, you will rate the doctor as ‘Excellent’, no matter what happens to your treatment.
        ‘Climate Scientists’ should take note that even brilliant surgeons who come across as condescending, arrogant, jerks do not prosper.

      • Steven Mosher

        thought of you doc

      • > The ‘best’ doctors/surgeons are not the ones with the best outcomes, or who have the least complications or who even have the most senior positions; the ‘best’ doctors/surgeons are those who talk to the patient, those who visit the patient in pre-OP just before they go under, the ones who visit post-OP as the patient awakes AND those who pop-in for 10 minutes on Saturday and Sunday.

        Thank you, Doc.

      • Mosher,

        You have to practice your head shots.

        (Which goes against the tenet of aiming for center mass.)

      • Thank you Fan:
        Hansen-style climate change science.

        “Climate sensitivity depends on the initial climate state (1), but potentially (2) can be accurately inferred (3) from precise paleoclimate data.” – Hansen et al 2012-2013. Numbers added by myself.

        1) Unsure as to what the initial climate state is, so perhaps we assume one.
        2) Potentially.
        3) Can be inferred, though the math is above me, it looked like using algebra, solving for one unknown, but that may describe the early work, if I am accurate, which I may not be. But what is looked to me like is, they had some data and plugged the CO2 in as the unknown variable. Based upon the long time understanding of it as a greenhouse gas, and its rising and falling with temperature.

        Using qualification in the accounting sense, they have conservatively set things up by avoiding absolutes, at least in the one sentence above. They are describing their assumptions.

        However, the more the qualifications there are, the less strong the conclusion would be. The strength of the first part (above) reflects on the strength of the second part (Conclusions).

        I applaud Hansen et al for taking this conservative approach. But I have a hard time reconciling how much has followed from the core assumptions. How so much of our lives are tied what I quoted above. I would assume Hansen is an authority on Sensitivity. I keep reading, in this case, words signed off on, and I can’t see sufficient strength with it, based on the qualifications.

        Qualification in the accounting sense means with reservations. An unqualified opinion means, without reservations. For example, here are my qualifications, a list of things that prevent me from endorsing these statements at the highest level. I apologize if this seems backwards.

    • “”Whereas when ideology-driven denialist demagogues abusively attack the weaker elements of climate-change science, “”

      A fan…. Admitting there are weaker elements of “climate-changescience”????….

      I would say that might very well be a flicker of scientific light right there! :-)

      OK. I’m taunting a bit. Not usually my style. And I do apologize. But you did leave that bad curve ball right over the plate, and someone had to swing at it.

      Since you did bring it up though…. I’m currious. What do you classily as the weaker elements of climate science?

      Respectfully

      Mike Alexander

      • Well the Powermad Carbon(C) of CatastrophicAGW has become the pusillanimous carbon(still C) plant food. It’s elemental, my dear WattSun.
        ====================

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        LOL… every scientist knows aphorisms like “wrong theories never die, but the theorists who believe them eventually do”

        “Pais’s theory is far crazier than Ehrenhaft’s,” Goldstein asked Siegert. “Why do we call Pais a physicist and Ehrenhaft a nut?” Siegert thought a moment. “Because,” he said firmly, “Ehrenhaft *believes* his theory.”

        That is why another aphorism is “death-by-death, science advances.”

        \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

        Mike Alexander asks “What do you classily as the weaker elements of climate science?”

        Thank you for asking, Mike Alexander:

        The Strongest Climate Science  derives from thermodynamic considerations associated to conservation of energy and increase of entropy, augmented by radiation transport theory, calculated by slide-rule, and affirmed by paleo-evidence and by sustained observation of global energy imbalance. In summary, Hansen-style climate change science.

        Less-Strong Climate Science  Massive computer models, in particular, models that attempt to model decadal-scale dynamics. In summary, IPCC-style climate-change science.

        Relatively Weak Climate Science  Purely statistical models that presuppose the existence of “cycles” (commonly solar cycles and/or ocean-current cycles); also ad hoc models that ascribe climate-change to (e.g.) fluctuations in cosmic ray intensity. In summary, speculative climate-change science.

        \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}

      • It seems likely that both Ehrenhaft and Millikan observed phenomena that indicated a fractional charge; Ehrenhaft honestly reported his and Millikan didn’t.
        The Stanford Search For Isolated Fractionally Charged Particles group has been doing oil-drop experiments for a long while and they have noted that electron transfer between droplets, whilst rare, occurs and produces apparent fractional charges.
        Do not forget Millikan deliberately excluded data points to reduce his error from >2% to 0.5%.

        http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/mps/FCS/FCS_rslt.htm

        BTW Ehrenhaft was right on the use of metallic colloids in Magnetolysis.

      • Fan:
        “The Strongest Climate Science…”
        Please Fan. Tell me my looking at the oceans is not in vain.

      • Don’t get kim started on the importance of water.

        I think termites are important. If it weren’t for them little pests we would be butt-deep in dead wood.

        Mold is good too. And bacteria. All good.

      • Latimer Alder

        @jim d

        Direct me please to the data that shows the oceans warmed by nearly a degree over the last century. It certainly seems odd, since that is more than the atmosphere did.

        And if a 1C rise only produces 8 inches of sealevel expansion, we can safely write off sea-level rise as just a minor inconvenience.

        Doesn’t leave much to scare us with. Better plant growth? Perhaps John Wyndham’s thriller The Day of the Triffids was a prophecy, not fiction?

      • Matthew R Marler

        a fan of *MORE* discourse: The Strongest Climate Science derives from thermodynamic considerations associated to conservation of energy and increase of entropy, augmented by radiation transport theory, calculated by slide-rule, and affirmed by paleo-evidence and by sustained observation of global energy imbalance.

        These arguments are full of holes as well, especially if they ignore the thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium. Ignoring non-radiative transport, clouds, and the UV radiation takes them farther from the truth. then there are the liabilities in the observation of global energy imbalance imbalance, which is non-constant and non-uniform.

        The parts that you call “weak” were generally presented as “strong” until they had been disputed. Even today, some people believe the GCMs are strong evidence.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      The WUWT/Watts site provides plenty of examples of “ideology-driven denialist demagoguery that abusively attacks the cherry-picked weaker elements of climate-change science”. It’s striking that the WUWT/Watts sites consistently refrains from engaging with the scientific reasoning and evidence of works like (for example) the multi-author multi-disciplinary 130-reference Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature

      Conclusion  No lasting benefit, to anyone, comes of flimsy willfully ignorant denialist demagoguery that exclusively cherry-picks and abusively criticizes the weakest elements of climate-change science.

      That’s plain common-sense, right k scott denison?

      \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}

      • k scott denison

        Really? So there’s a manual on how to spread skeptical propaganda on WUWT. Funny, I’ve missed it somehow. Can you please supply a link as it seems you must have read it.

      • Latimer Alder

        @A Fan etc

        ‘The WUWT /Watts site provides plenty of examples of
        ‘“ideology-driven denialist demagoguery that abusively attacks the cherry-picked weaker elements of climate-change science”’

        It does? OK. Please can you illustrate your point with, say, three recent examples. I’d be particularly interested in seeing your commentary on the ‘ideology-driven denialist demagoguery’ that you can identify. It sounds like a lot of fun.

        But you also raise an interesting point. Do the ‘weaker elements of climate-change science’ not deserve scrutiny? Why should they not be exposed as crap if crap is what they are? Surely that is the way that science progresses? Or is crap only to be exposed by approved climate crapologists, not by independent bloggers? Does one need a licence? And where should I apply?

      • > So there’s a manual on how to spread skeptical propaganda on WUWT.

        In the words of Ron Broberg:

        Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

        http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

        Mann
        Jones
        Schmidt
        Trenberth

        Do you get it now?

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/24472458681

        A pity top Fortune execs missed that training.

        By serendipity some get daily practice.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse
        FOMD asserts “The WUWT /Watts site provides plenty of examples of ‘ideology-driven denialist demagoguery that abusively attacks the cherry-picked weaker elements of climate-change science’”

        Latimer Alder asks (politely) “[FOMD], please can you illustrate your point with, say, three recent examples.”

        Thank you for your politely-phrased request, Latimer Alder!

        The lovely lass “Sou” regularly pillories Watts/WUWT on her abuse-exposing website “HotWhopper”:

        ▷  The UnGreens at WUWT – communicating with science deniers

        ▷  Spot the difference. Anthony Watts can’t!

        ▷  The negative bias of Anthony Watts, Hockey Sticks and the Dunning-Kruger Effect

        There are dozens more, that no doubt you will find illuminating, Latimer Alder! Sou’s HowWhopper website is highly recommended to Climate Etc readers!

        And just remember, Latimer Alder … Klingons never bluff!

        \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

        You approvingly give three examples of watts being wrong, mostly centred on a curious blog that promotes the hockey stick and it’s spaghetti derivatives as being fine examples of science

        Here is my own graph using these derivatives

        Taking a fifty year smoothing of data released by bits of wood unsurprisingly provide a curious static climate unknown in the real world where annual and decadal temperature is far more variable .

        Tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Tonyb asserts “You approvingly give three examples of watts being wrong, mostly centred on a curious blog …”

        According to the blog’s author “Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera”, her motivation is definite:

        “I started this blog to shine a spotlight on misogyny and the rejection of climate science. (Yes, they do seem to go hand-in-hand to some extent.)”

        Some recent examples:

        ▷  WUWT Policy Violation by a Clueless Female Eco-Nut

        ▷  A contrarian teddy bears’ picnic at WUWT – do science deniers believe in lizard men, too? (Yes, close enough anyway!)

        ▷  Wondering Willis as a concerned climate scientist (showing his sexism)

        Gosh-golly … Sou sure hasn’t encountered much difficulty in finding examples of misogyny on WUWT, eh TonyB? Why do you think that might be?

        \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

        Are you a closet ball room dancer? You have beautifully sidestepped the subject by introducing something completely unrelated to what was being discussed.
        Tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        willard

        “Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. ”

        ya dont attack, CRU, IPCC, or NOAA.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        TonyB, there’s nothing “curious” about websites that thoroughly expose Watts/WUWT (and similar websites) as devoted to ideology-driven denialist demagoguery that abusively attacks the cherry-picked weaker elements of climate-change science.

        Are you entirely certain that you didn’t mean to type “laudable”?

        \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}

      • Berényi Péter

        “It’s striking that the WUWT/Watts sites consistently refrains from engaging with the scientific reasoning and evidence of works like (for example) the multi-author multi-disciplinary 130-reference Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature

        It is striking that you fail to see it was not a peer reviewed scientific paper, but a policy advocation piece, with plenty of references to stances taken by relegious organizations.

        National Religious Coalition on Creation Care. LOL

      • Fan,

        Do you see any irony in Miss Sou’s statement about denying climate science and misogyny in comparison to Dr Curry’s experience in the field of climate research?

        In the event you do, you can earn bonus points in you can somehow tie it to Dr Hansen.

      • Matthew R Marler

        a fan of *MORE* discourse: . It’s striking that the WUWT/Watts sites consistently refrains from engaging with the scientific reasoning and evidence of works like (for example) the multi-author multi-disciplinary 130-reference Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature

        You misrepresent WUWT.

        Avoiding one work hardly constitutes “consistenty refrains from engaging with the scientific reasoning.” WUWT persistently quotes from peer-reviewed literature, accurately quotes climate scientists’ public comments and editorials, links to important curated data sets, and invites scientists to engage in the disputes.

      • Fan- from your link “This situation raises profound moral issues as young people, future generations, and nature, with no possibility of protecting their future well-being, will bear the principal consequences of actions and inactions of today’s adults. ”

        What do you tell the millions of the current generation that are dying from cold(due to high energy prices), lack of food from unaffordable food costs(due to corn going for fuel instead of stomachs), loss of habitat in the tropics(palm oil plantations for biodiesel), lost opportunities from sale of carbon credits(benefiting the rich politicians and the poor not at all), poisonous pollution from solar cell factories, soot from coal plants(China and India). and on and on.

        and “can push the climate system beyond tipping points”. Where? Yes there are climate tipping points. The ice core and geologic records are clear. The climate has tipped from glaciation to something like the current milieu and back approximately every 120,000 years- regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        People are dying today because of efforts to control the climate. Which is more important? The people dying for sure now, or the ones who might die in the future?

    • Fan
      You routinely overlook that 97% of climate “science” is just politically-funded and motivated demagoguery, serving chiefly to ramp up taxes and politics generally.
      That’s what the clash between skeptics and and climate ‘scientists’ is all about.

  9. The longer I watch the climate wars, the more I think that at its heart it all goes back to Mann vs McIntyre.

    The failure to admit at the start that McIntyre was right and Mann was wrong was the critical error. The attempts to cover up that mistake, rather than admitting it, have led to a farrago of increasingly unconvincing special pleading. Anyone who points out that the Emperor Mann has no clothes, or who even suggests that his clothing might be less than exquisite, has to be expelled and anathematised, but as long as you genuflect before the Hockey Stick minor deviation is still permitted by the consensus police.

    Does climate science want to regain its credibility and start being treated like a proper science again? Well of course it has to call off the witch hunt by the consensus police. But it also has to admit that McIntyre was right and Mann was wrong. And at the moment I simply can’t see how that’s going to happen.

    • Yes, and no. The M&M debacle marked an important isthmus, but the ikonic Crook’t Stick was necessary for the ‘Cause’, and still is. Trace the ‘Cause’ for the origin of incredibility.
      ===========

      • Exactly

        It has been my conjecture for some time that the “team” realized long ago that future climate states were not predictable…….in the sense that the public would demand for such an issue. The team then needed a marketing tool, and that is all the hockey stick was ever meant to be.

    • I’ve never seen Jonathan Jones comment on Nick’s analysis:

      http://moyhu.blogspot.ca/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html

      The Auditor himself has been quite parcimonious in his throwing of W under the auditing bus.

      Yes, but genuflexion,

    • Steven Mosher

      It doesnt matter whether McIntyre was right or wrong on the science.

      Mann’s mistake, and Steig after him, was challenging McIntyre to do his own damn science and get it published. Mann lost that challenge, as did Steig. Mann’s other mistake was withholding data. even after he released it all, even after other analysis which vaguely supports his work, none of that mattered because he destroyed the brand of climate science. And finally, he destroyed the leverage we used to have by playing the oil shill card on mcIntyre when it wasnt true.

      you read the climategate mails and ask yourself who made mann the head of communications and PR for climate science? nobody, he just took the role and screwed the brand into the ground.

      • Steve, you seem to be more interested in Mann’s personality than his work. I think you have to give him some credit as a scientists, even if you don’t like him. He won as award for his science.

        But I’m no better than you when it comes to judging people. I don’t like McIntyre’s personality. I find him petty, tedious, and boring. I call him McIntyrsome. I may not be fair, but that’s how I feel.

      • you read the climategate mails and ask yourself who made mann the head of communications and PR for climate science? nobody, he just took the role and screwed the brand into the ground.

        No, the people who screwed it into the ground are the 97% of so-called climate scientists who said nothing about what he was doing, thereby messaging the public being that fraud is part and parcel of consensus climate science.

      • Max_OK | August 24, 2013 at 7:04 pm |
        I don’t like McIntyre’s personality. I find him petty, tedious, and boring.
        >>
        So exposing major, deliberate deception is petty tedious and boring to you.

        I don’t think so. Your real problem is you want the deceptions to succeed.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        I’m pretty sure whatever awards Michael Mann may have won weren’t because of any scientific prowess. Calling his work subpar is being kind.

      • Steven Mosher

        max OK

      • Eeyore Rifkin

        I’d hate to see Mann scapegoated because there are thousands of others worthy of opprobrium. The big story is a follow the money story. The scientists are just so many pawns, patsies, fall guys, dupes. You can spin it as a Sophoclean tragedy and awe at the damage science has done to itself. Truth be told, however, it plays just as well as farce.

      • Max (self-awarded) ‘okay’
        Actions/ evidence are the meat;n potato. Awards? Joseph
        Stalin, fer example received many awards, The Order of
        Lenin (3 times,) lots of Medals fer the Defence of many
        things and Hero of this’n that from his team. Would you
        trust that man?
        jest a serf.

      • Steven, good one !

      • Memphis, McIntyre exposed himself as a biased nitpicker.
        I expect true skeptics to be evenhanded, which IMO he sure ain’t.

      • Brandon envies Mann’s achievements and prestigious prizes. Brandon’s prizes have come mostly from Cracker Jacks boxes.

      • Beth Cooper said on August 24, 2013 at 9:48 pm
        Max (self-awarded) ‘okay
        ___

        Beth, the “OK” in “Max_OK” means my name is Max and I was born and raised in Oklahoma, not that I’m just an OK person. I’m better than just OK, but not by much.

        Your comparing Michael Mann to Hitler and Stalin makes confirms my suspicion you are less than OK, a lot less.

        You ask me who I would trust. Well, certainly not you. As I recall, you approve of hacking, which IMO, makes you no better than a thief. If you came to my house, I would ask you to empty your pockets before you left

      • @Max_OK
        Brandon envies Mann’s achievements and prestigious prizes. Brandon’s prizes have come mostly from Cracker Jacks

        In the same way we all envy the fancy cars and houses with which gangsters reward their henchmen.

      • @Max_OK
        McIntyre exposed himself as a biased nitpicker.

        That’s a baseless knee-jerk lie, a bankrupt outburst of a willful ignoramus.

        Name even one such case.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        You really need to work on your mind reading skills Max_OK.

      • Max,

        Which award(s) are you referring to?

        I would say that one aspect (and there could be more) in which Dr Mann has garnered respect is in his ability to draw research grant money. I mean that in a positive way. Without numbers to compare, I am only guessing, but my impression is that Dr Mann is (or was) an All Star in that area.

      • Mosher,
        I find the “we” in the last sentence of your first paragraph -where you talk about “oil shill” leverage- most revealing. Freudian slip, no doubt. Very telling, nonetheless. We, unless I’ve missed something, includes you.

        Which explains your contention that whether the science is correct or wrong, doesn’t matter. That Mann, Steig, Jones, Trenberth and all the others sucked their climate “science” out of a unicorn’s teat or got it out of a 1450s alchemy handbook, doesn’t matter.

        As long as the Team controlled the IPCC CAGW/CACC storyline, how it was served to and told by the MSM, and how to best wreck the careers of Balunas and a good number of others, smear Spencer, Lindzen, McIntyre and JC to name a few, everything was OK.

        Well, those days are gone and what’s left is going fast, whether that’s Mann’s doing or not. Thank god, because your and Mann’s brand of politicized climate “science” is not only worse than garbage; it has done more economic, political and social damage than most can imagine.

        One good thing here though: your “we” above removes your mask once and for all for those who still hadn’t figured you out.

      • For some people I know, the fact that McIntyre is associated with the mining industry is enough in their minds to ignore him and his results. They are wrong, but there it is.

    • Jonathan Jones said on August 24, 2013 at 2:57 pm

      The failure to admit at the start that McIntyre was right and Mann was wrong was the critical error.
      ______

      Wrong? Are you sure McIntyre said Mann was wrong? I’m not a statistician, but I doubt you can use statistics to show Mann’s hockey stick is wrong because the temperature history looks like something other than a hockey stick. My impression is McIntyre took issue with Mann’s methodology, not his results, but he doesn’t whether the results are right.

      Wegman in reference to Mann said something like wrong method, right results = bad science. I suppose right method, useless results is good science, but it’s not progress.

      • Max OK
        Get with the parade. A leaked portion earlier this week at Reuters shows beyond much discussion that the IPCC now recognizes not only that the MWP did in actual fact occur, but that it was warmer then than now. At least one, if not two, cornerstones in the CAGW dogma have been removed

        Look it up. From a “science” [such as it is] perspective, that means that Mann and other younger Hockey Stick purveyors have been thrown under the bus by the IPCC.

      • Good that tetris now believes the IPCC. Chalk another one up for the consensus.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        But we know it was warm 1,000 years ago and less warm in the middle of the millennium. There are all sorts of correspondences with everything from cosmogenic isotopes to ENSO. If they’re claiming that this means that most recent warming is therefore CO2 – well you have to draw the line somewhere.

      • I think the “skeptical” logic goes like, because we don’t know exactly why it was warm in some places 1000 years ago, we don’t know why it is warm now even with more measurements and a CO2 theory that explains it.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of Earth. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm

        But we’re pretty sure that climate shifts have a lot to do with recent decadal warming and cooling. Mainstream science after all.

      • @Max_OK
        I doubt you can use statistics to show Mann’s hockey stick is wrong

        What McIntyre did, was show that Mann’s statistics (that produced a fake hockey stick) were flawed. To put it mildly. McIntyre is too polite to say “fraudulent”.

      • @Jim D
        I think the “skeptical” logic goes like, because we don’t know exactly why it was warm in some places 1000 years ago, we don’t know why it is warm now even with more measurements and a CO2 theory that explains it.

        That’s just the “scientific” view, whose logic goes like like, because we have measurements and a CO2 theory now, non-CO2 factors that caused warming 1000 years ago no longer happen.

      • Look at how fast the changes are. Reconstructions show less than 1C temperature difference between MWP and LIA. And that difference is over 10 centuries.

        0.1C a century.

        Compare that with 3C warming from a doubling of CO2.

        Hockey anyone?

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jonathan Jones: The failure to admit at the start that McIntyre was right and Mann was wrong was the critical error.

      I sympathize, but McIntyre did not actually show that Mann was “wrong”, he showed that Mann was sloppy (not that unusual in pioneering research) and that Mann’s conclusion was not solidly based. McIntyre and McKittrick’s work was subsequently shown to have its own flaws. The correct response by Mann would have been for him to acknowledge the comments of McIntyre and work on raising the standard of his analyses. A la Gallo and Montanier they could have published a review jointly, and the dispute would have ended. Subsequently, Mann et al published corrections in response to M&M’s critique, without acknowledgement.

      • You forget or choose to forget that when you boil the Hockey Stick down to its essence, it blade is solely due to the cherry picking use of one [1] tree in the Yamal series, and the splicing, upside down, of the Tijlander series into the graph. Remove those two, and there is no more uptick in the blade area.

        Also, as per my comment above, the IPCC has now thrown Mann and his “opus” under the bus, acknowledging that the MWP did in fact occur and that it was the warmer then than now. That pretty much takes care of the “never seen before temperatures” meme, and opens the door wide open to more questions about the role of natural variability, while putting a possibly -over time- terminal hole below the waterline in the “anthropogenic only” portion of the dogma.

      • No. McIntyre has systematically destroyed every attempt to resurrect the flat shaft of the Hockey Stick by pointing out the abuse of the same set of fatally flawed paleoclimate proxies. Recently he’s exposed blatant biases in data selection in newer papers. Commenters on McIntyre’s site also destroyed one peer-reviewed paper within an hour of its publication by showing that its authors had failed to follow the “new and improved” method they touted in their abstract and introduction.

        There just isn’t credible evidence to disprove the long-believed MWP or to prove that recent warming is “unprecedented.” Despite what some (including McIntyre himself) believe, that claim was a linchpin of the case for Urgent Mitigation.

      • tetris said in his post of August 25, 2013 at 9:03 pm

        “Also, as per my comment above, the IPCC has now thrown Mann and his “opus” under the bus, acknowledging that the MWP did in fact occur and that it was the warmer then than now.”
        ______

        tetris, you have been misinformed about the IPCC leaks. Apparently, statements by Jason Samenow, the Washington Post blogger on the leaks, were mistakenly interpreted to mean the MWP was warmer. For an explanation, see Jason’s update to Anthony Watt’s post on the subject at WUWT.

        You also are misinformed about Michael Mann. He doesn’t believe the MWP didn’t occur.

      • Latimer Alder

        @matthew r marler

        ‘McIntyre did not actually show that Mann was “wrong”, he showed that Mann was sloppy (not that unusual in pioneering research) and that Mann’s conclusion was not solidly based.’

        I am not an academic so maybe there is some ever so subtle convention or something that may mean a lot to you but is totally incomprehensible to Joe Public.

        But if I turn up at a client with stuff that is ‘not solidly based’ and ‘sloppy’, he would be perfectly entitled to not pay my bill on the basis that it was wrong.

        Or do climatologists have a different meaning for ‘wrong’?

        ‘There, there, just a climo having a rush of blood like anybody could have. A childish prankette perhaps.Lets still make him the poster boy of the ‘science’ for a year or two. And maybe give him a professorship. that’ll help him to calm down poor child’

      • Matthew R Marler

        tetris and stevepostrel,

        On the whole I agree. I was thinking as I wrote of what I might call my opinion earlier. My opinions in the AGW discussion have been changing across time as some of the information takes a while to sink in. The long, detailed posts on Steve McIntyre’s blog are worth reading carefully, and I had indeed forgotten them.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Latimer Alder: But if I turn up at a client with stuff that is ‘not solidly based’ and ‘sloppy’, he would be perfectly entitled to not pay my bill on the basis that it was wrong.

        Lots of pioneering research, like the original MBH1998, has serious flaws. You may know that there have been serious criticisms of the work of Milliken, Margaret Mead, Robert Gallo (who shared patent rights but not Nobel Prize with Luc Montanier), and Johannes Kepler. When McIntyre first criticised MBH1998, much good would have come if Mann et al had engaged them in a formal discussion (as was done later in Annals of Applied Statistics with McShane and Wayner, Mann and Schmidt, M&M and others.) As I wrote, the criticisms of M&M were themselves criticized by other statisticians (such as the claim by M&M that MBH1998 used an inappropriate criterion for choosing the number of prinicpal components to use.)

        But that was then.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Matthew R. Marler, I think you’re way off the mark:

        As I wrote, the criticisms of M&M were themselves criticized by other statisticians (such as the claim by M&M that MBH1998 used an inappropriate criterion for choosing the number of prinicpal components to use.)

        I don’t know which statisticians you believe said this, but as far as I know, none ever did. The reason for that is it would be a stupid thing to say. The people who said it mostly relied on the claim MBH used a particular selection criteria, but that’s known to be a lie as it wouldn’t have given the values MBH used. W&A came up with a different reason, but it had no basis in statistics. It was pure cherry-picking.

        On top of this, M&M did not even say there was a right number of PCs to use. They discussed what happens when you select different numbers of PCs. They showed that the PC selection issue was irrelevant save in that you kept whichever PC had a particular set of tree ring data. It doesn’t matter how many PCs you kept. If bristlecones were included, you got a hockeystick. If they weren’t, you didn’t. M&M didn’t even have a selection criteria to criticize!

        What statisticians do you think said this, or even other things criticial of M&M? The only one I remember even commenting was Ian Joliffe. And he commented in favor of M&M after people misrepresented him to claim he’d oppose them.

        For the record, M&M did show Michael Mann was wrong. They showed his reconstruction had no statistical validity in the period used to make claims about it. They also showed MBH’s claims of robustness were completely false. They further showed the entire results depended upon cherry-picking a small subset of their data, something MBH did via incompetent methodologies.

        MBH has no validity.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Brandon Schollenberger: I don’t know which statisticians you believe said this, but as far as I know, none ever did.
        I am not sure which of these were ever published, but the presentations that I heard were made at the Joint Statistical Meetings.

      • Matthew R Marler

        tetris, brandon shollenberger, steven postrel and jonathan jones:

        I usually imagine that there is a group of reasonable unbiased lurkers reading each thread, and I imagine myself writing to them, even as I address particular posts. today I must admit to them you have pretty soundly thrashed my assessment of the “sloppiness” versus the “total worthlessness” of Mann’s line of work. For more technical details there are the Annals of Applied Statistics publication of McShane and Wyner, and I recommend careful reading of all the commenters, M&W’s rejoinder, and of the supporting online material; then I recommend careful reading of the subsequent discussions on ClimateAudit where it is pointed out that Mann and others have contradicted themselves in their claims of whether their hockey stick is overly sensitive to a few chosen proxy series, and where there is a substantial case made that, in fact, the hockey stick does depend on data selection.

        And it is true that the IPCC stopped using the hockey stick as an emblem, for good reasons.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Matthew R Marler, thanks for that reference. It was fairly vague, but I believe I know what you’re referring to (correct me if I’m wrong). There was a session at the 2006 JSM titled, “What is the Role of Statistics in Public Policy Debates about Climate Change.” It had two speakers who discussed the hockey stick (and a third who discussed a separate issue).

        Assuming this is what you had in mind, I believe your memory or knowledge has failed you. The two speakers who discussed the hockey stick were Edward Wegman and John Michael Wallace. Wegman is a statistician, but he is highly critical of Michael Mann’s work. It is impossible to believe he’d have raised the issue you raised.

        Wallace, on the other hand, is not a statistician. Wallace is a climate scientist. He may have raised the issue you mention here, but he is not a statistician, much less “statisticians.”

        On top of that, Wallace was part of the group responsible for the North Report, a report which coincided with the Wegman Report. The North Report has been described as schizophrenic because it accepts many criticisms of Mann’s work yet somehow (a member’s description was they “winged it”) decided Mann’s conclusions were likely correct. And while they tried to minimize their criticisms of Mann’s work, when pointedly asked if they disagreed with any of Wegman’s criticisms of that work (which had all previously been raised by McIntyre), the chairman of the panel for the report said they did not.

        and where there is a substantial case made that, in fact, the hockey stick does depend on data selection.

        There’s an interesting fact I don’t believe was ever highlighted at Climate Audit. Michael Mann actually admitted his original (MBH98) reconstruction’s results were dependent entirely upon a series, NAOMER PC1, in his book. He flat out said that even though MBH98 stated the exact opposite, as did many of the responses to his critics. You can find the full quotes here (I should find the uploaded pdf file of it though as it’s formatting is much neater).

        And it is true that the IPCC stopped using the hockey stick as an emblem, for good reasons.

        It’s a shame they didn’t stop using it all together. Mann’s work was prominently displayed in the chapter on paleoclimatology in AR4, as was other work dependent upon his. And I know it was even used in the zeroth draft of the AR5. I don’t know if it’ll be in the final version of that, but clearly, nobody is too worried about using it.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Matthew R Marler, I should clarify something:

        I usually imagine that there is a group of reasonable unbiased lurkers reading each thread, and I imagine myself writing to them, even as I address particular posts. today I must admit to them you have pretty soundly thrashed my assessment of the “sloppiness” versus the “total worthlessness” of Mann’s line of work.

        Jonathon Jones was talking about the beginning of the hockey stick controversy, referring to the original hockey stick. This was a temperature reconstruction published in 1999, and it’s referred to as MBH. It was published in two stages, one a 1998 paper (MBH98) and one a 1999 paper (MBH99).

        What you’re referrering to is a paper published a decade later, Mann 2008. This reconstruction was said to validate the original one, but it basically just repeated the MBH problems on a larger scale. Oh, and it added new problems. One of my favorites is it used actual, recorded temperature data as a “proxy” for temperature data. That was the case in 71 of the 484 series that passed his (absurd) calibration test. 15% of the data contributing to his results was actual, measured temperature data!

        Sorry. Mann’s work is so bad I have trouble reigning myself in. The point was just to make sure people remember the difference between the original hockey stick and the 2008 version.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Brandon Schollenberger: The two speakers who discussed the hockey stick were Edward Wegman and John Michael Wallace. Wegman is a statistician, but he is highly critical of Michael Mann’s work.

        You might be right that I misremembered. I know some of Wegman’s work from way back, before he critiqued Mann’s work, and I read his critique of Mann’s work. The session that I remembered did not have Wegman, as far as I can remember.

        One of the reasons that I bother to post is for the informative feedback. I must admit that in this thread my point of view has been thoroughly demolished.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Brandon Schollenberger: What you’re referrering to is a paper published a decade later, Mann 2008.

        I was in fact referring to the 1998 paper. But as I say, I have been defending my earlier opinion that Mann et al’s work was “sloppy” instead of “worthless”. Mann et al would have done science a good deed if they had responded more constructively to the criticisms that they received. A decade and more later, my earlier opinion is untenable.

        Mann and Schmidt strongly defended their work and criticized M&S. Subsequently, McIntyre and his readers read the Mann et al work, including the supporting on line material at Science, and showed that Mann was inconsistent in his claims about the selection criteria for the proxies, and some other stuff. I had read through a lot of that, but in the intervening time it seemed to have had less effect on my opinion. Well, that may be how it happened, but I have been corrected.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Matthew R Marler:

        I was in fact referring to the 1998 paper.

        I don’t see how. McShane and Wyner examined Mann 2008 not MBH98. Given you referred to M&W and the responses to it, it seems you had to have been referring to Mann 2008.

        Incidentally, the 1998 reconstruction only went back to 1400 AD. The 1999 followup extended it back to 1000 AD. Only the latter covers the MWP.

        Mann and Schmidt strongly defended their work and criticized M&S. Subsequently, McIntyre and his readers read the Mann et al work, including the supporting on line material at Science, and showed that Mann was inconsistent in his claims about the selection criteria for the proxies, and some other stuff.

        A couple minor nits. One, McIntyre’s work preceeded, not followed, M&W. Two, Gavin Schmidt was not an author of the MBH or Mann 2008.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Brandon Schollenberger: A couple minor nits. One, McIntyre’s work preceeded, not followed, M&W. Two, Gavin Schmidt was not an author of the MBH or Mann 2008.

        McIntyre’s work preceded M&W. However, McIntyre also commented on M&W in the AOAS volume, helped M&W with that paper, and subsequently reviewed published and online comments by Mann and Schmidt.

        Schmidt and Mann commented on M&W, corrected an error (acknowledged by M&W), and contributed to the large volume of supporting on line material that accompanied the publication. Schmidt subsequently critiqued McIntyre’s criticism of M&W at RealClimate. Some of Mann’s comments at RealClimate were subsequently critiqued by McIntyre at ClimateAudit.

        I did initially address MBH1998, or so I intended, and I subsequently cited M&M’s commentary on M&W, which as you noted, referred back to Mann 2008 not MBH1998.

        There’s lots more in this history and in my biography. I truncated them drastically, to no good effect.

  10. Watch out for the Little People.
    ===========

  11. Trenberth, the Frightened, returns to his bogeyman under the bed scenario, little realizing the surprise is Santa Claus and won’t come out ’til it’s cold. Maybe he should just put up his stocking, and behave.
    ==================

  12. Judith, I think your analysis differentiators pretty much hits the bulls-eye. A way to look at it is that it’s not the differentiators that drive the ostracism, it’s the ostracism that drives the increasingly desperate need for some differentiators.

  13. Fan,

    I don’t think you realize that when you talk about ideological purity, you are clearly talking about people such as yourself, true believers in catastrophic man-made global warming/climate change.

    Skeptics, (who you insist on calling “denialists” – which does not speak well of your commitment to truth, or to open discourse, but instead to your inability to resist using pejorative descriptors to marginalize those who disagree with you) are not the ones speaking of or insisting on purity, or consensus, or 97% of anything. There are many levels of skepticism out there, and none of these skeptics are trumpeting percentages of those in agreement, or claiming that the science is settled, or insisting on conformity, or commissioning studies to show that catastrophic AGW believers are conspiracy theorists.

    Those who insist in purity are you and those who think and argue like yourself. You are simply projecting your own actions and practices on those you disagree with. Are you really so blinded by your own ideology that you can’t consider this as being a real possibility? It seems obvious to me.

    • Trenberth’s notion that the fugitive heat is camped out in the deep oceans – neat theory to salvage the consensus view, but, serly, how robust is the empirical data?
      Not very, I’m assuming, or he would nail his colors to it – rather than trying to give this 20-year warning on atmospheric warming.

      • Trenberth believe that heat goes into the depths below 200 m, without manifesting itself in the first 200 m, and like a joker in a box will jump up, concentrating itself back up to a high heat density, then warm the surface.
        How or why is never explained.
        As Mosher says, its all unicorns.

      • Everyone who thinks that oceans have a major role in the multidecadal variability must agree with Trenberth on that. There are no other alternatives.

      • DocMartyn | August 24, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
        Trenberths believe that heat goes into the depths below 200 m
        >>
        “Believes” ? Is this the climate ‘science’ alternative to measurements now ?

      • Pekka just when did you start using the term ‘multidecadal variability’ and giving it an credence?

      • Pekka Pirilä:
        “Everyone who thinks that oceans have a major role in the multidecadal variability must agree with Trenberth on that. There are no other alternatives.”
        I think it’s an interesting area. That the Oceans might change their heat energy transfer rate. Trenberth may be right or close to right.

      • I did some plotting comparing temperatures and PDO index several years ago, certainly similar to what very many had done before, but I didn’t know at the time. While it was clear that the data was not sufficient for drawing any strong conclusions some of the plots left the impression that there is probably something there.

        Since that time I have considered it most likely that what we see is a combination of AGW and natural variability and that the natural variability has a strong component of multidecadal nature, to what extent that component is (quasi)periodic cannot really be inferred from the data. It could have an approximate period of about 60 years, or it could have less regular transitions that are spaced by a couple of decades.

        If I would have to pick a length for each “half period” I would pick 30 years rather than the 20 years proposed by Trenberth, but give only little weight on that particular pick.

        My view is that climate scientists should avoid picking some specific values unless they have real justification for those. If they make badly supported predictions about the future, they are likely to be proven wrong as often as right. That’s not good for the science. I don’t believe that any of the models can describe correctly the natural variability (i.e. get right results for right and understood reasons). It’s not just random variability around the trend, but there’s some real but badly understood dynamics involved. The present models do not agree with observations as discussed by von Storch at Kilmazwiebel.

        I have written many times that the climate scientists should not belittle the uncertainties. Those who believe that immediate action is needed should explain why they believe so in spite of the uncertainties, as many certainly do.

      • @Ragnaar
        I think it’s an interesting area. That the Oceans might change their heat energy transfer rate. Trenberth may be right or close to right.

        So why doesn’t someone just take the oceans’ damn temperature and settle the issue for us for heaven’s sake?
        Why are we reduced to people merely having ideas of what might or might not be happening ? Hardly a basis for political action forcing vastly more expensive energy on the world.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Hi Gina – up until recently everyone was measuring down to 700m and wondering why it hasn’t been warming this century. Kevin Trenberth looked at the CERES satellite data – noticed the trend was positive and declared the energy missing.

        This is the CERES data. OLR is outgoing longwave radiation – the infrared everyone is concerned with. There is not of a trend with OLR. RSW is reflected shortwave – visible light reflected from clouds, land, ice, snow, etc. There is a trend to less reflection – so more energy in and a warming planet. The net is by convention up warming. It is all shown typically as anomalies – relative change – in Watts/^2. So this is the source of the missing energy.

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif.html?sort=3&o=117

        Transfer of energy between the oceans and atmosphere is largely variable because of ENSO. Explained here. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html

        In El Nino there is a reduction of cloud in the tropics and energy moves from the ocean to the atmosphere. As a result the planet cools. The reverse in La Nina.

        The situation is shown here with spikes of OLR in El Nino and troughs in La Nina. The past decade or so have seen more cold water upwelling in the eastern Pacific. So the surface is cooler and the winds have picked up causing more eddies to penetrate deep into the ocean. There is a balance of processes here – warm water rises and eddies move surface water deeper. The stronger the wind the more eddies and the warmer the subsurface. The heat will come to the surface again as soon as the wind drops. Don’t let them tell you any different.

        Karina von Schuckmann had the bold idea to interrogate ARGO data to 2000m . ARGO is a program involving some 3000 floats sampling temperature and salinity to 2000m starting in 2003. What she found was a modest increase in heat to 2000m. About 0.69mm/yr sea level rise from warming oceans – 0.55 W/m^2 increase in power in over the period and a small decrease in mass. The latter is ENSO related as well. The power trend is entirely consistent with CERES shortwave over the period. Voila – the missing heat.

        There is a bit of a problem with ocean heat data before ARGO. The splice between the datasets is improbable to say the least. The dearth of prior measurements beyond 700m makes it all very hit and miss.

        The most interesting thing about ENSO though is that it varies in intensity and frequency in periods from decades to millennia.

        The decadal periodicity you can see for yourself. La Nina (blue) dominant to 1976, El Nino (red) to 1998 and La Nina again since.

        This seems to have an impact on clouds as well – decreasing to 1998, increasing in the 1998/2001 climate shift and a slight increase in the ARGO and CERES period.

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=15

      • Matthew R Marler

        Pekka Pirila: Everyone who thinks that oceans have a major role in the multidecadal variability must agree with Trenberth on that.

        Trenberth has made a somewhat more precise assertion than that; besides, he waited until after it was clear that the GCMs were inaccurate.

      • Hello Chief,
        Thanks for the numerous considered replies.

        (1) Ok so CERES tells us that while there is a trend in the net radiation budget in watts/m^2, making for a net increase in the planet’s e heat content, this is all down to RSW, since OLR shows no trend.

        Now as I understand it, the basic mechanism of AGW is capture and restransmission of OLR, some of which heads back down to land and oceans, further warming them. But if OLR shows no trend while CO2 increases apace, does that not mean CO2 is off the hook?

    • Bingo Tom,

      I’d like to see fan state exactly what I deny. I don’t even deny fan’s ability to post a worthwhile comment, despite his track record of not doing so.

      Perhaps if we all acknowledged his man love for Dr Hansen, he wouldn’t feel the need to exhibit so frequently.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Trenberth is half right – as I was.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=10

      The other half is what happens with radiative feedbacks to ocean and atmospheric circulation.

      e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=53

      • Chief

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=53

        Chief:

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=53

        I have two statements and then two questions:

        The LW TOA flux in graph (a) come from different measurement devices/systems.

        Graph (b) has the same data but now “corrected”.

        Query: The “corrections” are justified?

        Query: How does graph (b) LW out show feedback?

        I thought that Karina von Schuckmann found heat accumulating at 2000 meters and by-passing the first 700 meters. Right?

        Feedbacks (which ones? clouds? air/ocean currents?) were doing exactly what? countering the accumulation by dissipating energy out? or providing a screen and reducing SW in?

        In my head, and spending a bit of time at the sea shore, the heat accumulating during calm daytime weather gets mixed into deeper layers when the seas get rough. The heated surface water gets mixed to depth.

        From what I perceived from ARGO data and what K v S was saying, heat bypassed the surface to 700 meters and went down to 2000 meters instead.

        More likely than not, I am confusing SW heating with LW cooling as well as not addressing specific layers: TOA, Tropospheric, Surface (Land/Water), and Oceans including at depth.

        If you find the time, might you re-guide me to some readings to help sort out this issue?

        Regards

  14. Judith, you write “So . . . what is the differentiator? Why is there such hostility between the two ‘sides’, even though there is little at this point to discriminate the two sides in terms of science?
    `
    Sorry, but there is an enormous lot of scientific difference between the two sides in terms of science. There may not be much difference between what you think is the correct science, and what Kevin Trenbeth thinks. But there is an enormous difference between the science of the true denier/skeptics and the ardent warmists. Let us start with your statement that “The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as 1C and as high as 6C cannot be judged as irrational.” The true denier/skeptic claims that the climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero. And the disagreements get greater from there on in.

    • The glass is at a level
      Its estimate our aim;
      Optimists observe,
      Pessimists declaim.
      ==============

    • Latimer Alder

      @jim cripwell

      You say

      ‘The true denier/skeptic claims that the climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero.’

      Can you provide us with the name of a ‘true denier/skeptic’ who claims this? I don’t think I’ve ever come across one.

      And how would you categorise a sceptic who doesn’t make that claim? Are they ‘untrue’?

      I fear that – like all believers in any religion – you think that all who don’t believe, do so for the same reasons. This is just not true.

      Example. Many British football fans do not support Manchester United. But that does not mean that they all support a club called ‘Not Manchester United’. There are more than 100 professional soccer clubs in England. They are all not Manchester United, but they are all different.

      • Latimer, you write “Can you provide us with the name of a ‘true denier/skeptic’ who claims this? I don’t think I’ve ever come across one.”

        Yes, me. I suggest you frequent WUWT, there are lots of commenters over there who agree with me.

        You also write “And how would you categorise a sceptic who doesn’t make that claim? Are they ‘untrue’? .”

        Sorry, I overhyped that bit.

      • Does the US still own Manchester United?

      • Latimer its called projection. Jim C cannot imagine the reasons why people have not joined his cult and therefore has to project beliefs onto them that preclude ‘deniers’ from coming over to the dark side.

      • Don, you write “Jim C cannot imagine the reasons why people have not joined his cult”

        Wrong on all counts. I dont have a cult, and I could not care less whether anyone else agrees with me or not. All I am interested in, is getting my ideas as close to what the science actually is, as I can. I come onto blogs to throw out my ideas, and, hopefully, people who know more about the subject than I do, will tell me where I am wrong. If in this process, there happen to be people who think I might have a point, well then maybe I have advanced the cause of science.

      • Steven Mosher

        Jim explains science reminds me of this

        http://www.epicfail.com/2012/05/14/translation-fail-3/

      • Latimer Alder

        @capt dallas

        I believe the majority shareholders in MUFC are the Glazer Brothers, who are American. That is not quite the same as being ‘owned by the US’.

        But it is clear that the Glazer Bros. are just a front for the Koch Bros. and that Old Trafford is little more than a badly disguised payout window for the Big Oil Denier Machine, Frack the Planet, Drown the Polies and Roast Babies Alive UK branch.

        While ‘The Team’ on the pitch are busy winning European Cups and the like as a distraction, the hordes of red-scarved individuals at the ‘match’ are in reality queuing up to get their orders from Mr. Big (or Sir Alex Ferguson as he used to present himself) about which ‘weaker cherry-picked parts’ of the Climate Science Empire to attack next.

        Half-time ‘Team talks’ consist of re-propagandising the sceptic masses with new ideology driven denialist demagoguery. And the crowd’s apparent joy at the final whistle when United overwhelm another side of patsies is nothing to do with the result but the knowledge that 5pm is payout time.

        At that appointed hour Sir Alex (or his latest incarnation – David Moyes) presses the big Green (ironic huh!) button to send the unthinking knuckle dragging slavering sceptic adherents their bribe money for the fortnight. And to unleash yet more terrible damage on the peaceful and unsuspecting Climos whose only wish in life is to advance the cause of Modelled Truth and the Rights of Mann.

        But all that is way to the North of me. I am not a Manchester United fan. My team is rather more obscure and rather less successful. ‘Tis only the slavering and the knuckle dragging and the ability to be bribed that we agree on.

        (BTW, I can provide documented proof for only the first paragraph. But I have a model that has sometimes given results ‘not inconsistent’ with the other findings.So I’ll call those ‘experimental evidence’ shall I? One has to be very careful with literal transatlantic minds).

      • Steven, you write “Jim explains science reminds me of this.”

        Our hostess says she has a hide like an allegator. I am a lot older than she is, and I have a hide that is 10 times tougher than an allegator’s. I am proud of what I write. Just remember “He who laughs last, laughs longest.”

      • I don’t think I can ever stop laughing at Adler’s stuff.
        =========

      • Steven Mosher

        He who laughs last, laughs longest.”

        not really. it depends when you start laughing.

      • “Our hostess says she has a hide like an
        allegator

        As in, a person who makes allegations ?

  15. Latimer Alder

    Fear and loathing of sceptics?

    When I started observing this discussion about 5 years ago, the loathing was very apparent.

    Part of it seemed to come from the Team being completely aghast that anyone who was not a full time academic would have the bare-faced cheek to challenge their work. Climategate makes it very clear that they felt they had control of all the important levers of power of the academic publishing machine, that no junior climatologist would have the cojones to risk a ruined career by asking awkward questions and that basically what they said went. The subtitle to their one to many propaganda mouthpiece ‘climate science from climate scientists’ says it all. ‘We tell – you peasants just hear The Word and Obey’ is what it is meant to convey.

    And then along came McSteve. A Canuck and not an academic so completely unfazed by the normal niceties of career and tenure and status and approval and citations and all the things that the Team were used to have working in their favour. And worse still , despite his background as a mining engineer (can’t you just hear the academic contempt dripping from those words?) he seemed to know a lot more statistics than Mann and co did (35 years experience of using them in reality counts).

    None of this would have mattered much if he had no voice. But the internet and blogging was just starting up, And however much the journals might have been in The Team’s pocket, the blogs weren’t.

    Mr McIntyre is unfailingly courteous. But also like Benton Fraser in Due South he never gives up. And as Jonathan has so correctly pointed out he was right and the Team were wrong. And in their heart of hearts everybody knows it.

    The loathing part is easy – he outsmarted and outstatisticked and outpublicised them

    But its only in the last couple of years that I have started to detect the fear. Because many climatologists have seen the recent pause and the lower sensitivity estimates as real threats to their existence. Its a simple equation, if climate isn’t going to cause global death and destruction by next Tuesday, then people aren’t going to be prepared to spend so much public money on researching it and the number of posts will decline..as will the once high status of climatology. And especially people will ask why so much blood and treaure is spent on so many climate models that have blatantly failed to do their job despite huge ‘investments’.

    Uo until say, Copenhage, climatology and its associated hangers-on was a real growth industry. Fast expanding into new fields. And fast expanding its total revenue. It was a bubble.

    But since Copenhagen that’s changed and the industry is hitting a round of what is politely called ‘consolidation’ and less politey called redundancies.

    Sceptics have little to fear by this process. In the main they are not academics – or at least not full-time climatologists. And, despite endless attempts to pretend otherwise, there really is no Big Oil Denier machine funding their work. Just an interest in seeing science done properly and in drawing appropriate conclusions from the very rickety evidence. And its probably true that many have had reasonably successful careers in other fields and are not shrinking violets over-impressed by status or titles or the other gongs so revered within academia. They do not respect or observe formal hierarchies or shibboleths or conventions. They are outsiders..and increasingly powerful ones.

    Perhaps the best example of their increasing power was the sad tale of Gergis et al…a paper that after passing all the ‘quality control’ of the academic machine was published with great fanfare – and lasted less than a week before its fatal flaws were exposed in the sceptical blogosphere.

    So they loathe the sceptics because they are often right. And they fear them because they cannot be controlled. Barbarians at the gate. Ripping down the walls of the nice comfy controlled academic environment.

    Lets reconvene in 10 years and see what the GAT is doing, how many full-time climatologists there are (fewer than now) and how much notice the general public and pollies take. It’s a dying industry.

    • k scott denison

      +1

    • John Robertson

      Latimer is right on the money.
      The precocious behaviour of “Climate Scientists” of the IPCC team persuasion,destroys their credibility.
      Climategate only confirmed the doubts that they created.
      Data unavailable, attack the inquirer, ignore the question, sneer, demean and avoid.
      They are doomed to fail as public attention focusses upon climate science, they sense this.
      Otherwise the gatekeeping they practise, makes no logical sense.
      Reading some of the earlier work of Travesty Man and friends, shows they had no evidence of global warming, never mind man caused global warming and actually published these papers acknowledging this.

      • Latimer Alder

        @ John Robertson

        Its a wonderful irony that many sceptics cite being blown off, or treated with arrogant contempt and disdain by (for example) the denizens of Real Climate as the tipping point that solidified their doubts.

        Their huge hubris thus unwittingly engineered the means of their own downfall. Just like the Greeks thought…Hubris followed by Nemesis. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh……

    • +100,000,000

    • Interesting thoughts.

      (35 years experience of using them in reality counts). That is exactly right! Experience can’t be learned overnight.

    • > Mr McIntyre is unfailingly courteous.

      Le mot juste:

      [F]louncing off in a snit.

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3785579961

      ***

      To determine and examine the networks involved, it might suffice to note who says what about whom or what.

      Language is a social art.

      • Latimer Alder

        @willard

        When your post comes with an English translation, I will have some time to read it. Until then, my diary is booked. Sorry.

      • Dear Latimer,

        Let me try again:

        1. Your claim that the Auditor is “unfailingly courteous” is patently false.

        2. Until you concede, I could quote counterexample after counterexample.

        3. I’m not bluffing – only trying to help.

        That was the first part of the comment.

        Please tell me if that’s clear enough for you.

        Hope this helps,

      • willard couldn’t appreciate the politesse of the like of McIntyre.
        ===========

      • Latimer Alder

        @willard

        Excellent!

        See – when you put your mind to it, you *can* write in relatively clear understandable English. If you practice this skill more often you might find more people stop to read and fewer just have you on permanent scrollby.

        Writing in obscure allusions might give you the impression that you are a great intellectual in the French tradition, but actually persuades everyone else that you are incapable of expressing a sensible thought or following a logical argument.

        Maybe you have some examples where Mr McIntyre has been less than courteous. Perhaps he used a cuss word when a hammer fell on his toe or whne The Team hid their dodgy data from him for the fifteenth time.

        I will rephrase my remark to ‘Mr McIntyre’s default position is to be extremely courteous’. Happy now? Has it changed the thrust of the argument one iota? Nope.

        But keep on with the English practice. It’s obviously doing you good.

      • McIntyre, relative to the Hockey Team, is extremely courteous.

      • > I will rephrase my remark to ‘Mr McIntyre’s default position is to be extremely courteous’.

        Good. Let’s see the effect:

        Mr McIntyre’s default position is to be extremely courteous. But also like Benton Fraser in Due South he never gives up. And as Jonathan has so correctly pointed out he was right and the Team were wrong. And in their heart of hearts everybody knows it.

        Let’s go back to Latimer’s claim:

        > Has it changed the thrust of the argument one iota? Nope.

        Was this description part of an argument? Some might disagree about that. In any case, the “default position” signals the excuse that Steve’s lacks of courtesy is explained by the behaviour of his opponents, i.e. the famous You Made Me Do It of transactional analysis.

        Also, the claim that Steve is extremely courteous sounds quite subjective. Considering that it applies to some kind of the idealization of a “default position”, it might very well be empty. From what we can gather, many “default positions” from the Auditor were certainly not extremely courteous. Mike’s & Phil’s “default positions” were also quite courteous, as we can read in our beloved Bishop’s political hit job.

        ***

        Speaking of “the Team”, some might prefer The Kyoto Flames:

        I thought it would be fun to think up lines for the hockey team. I’ve toyed with different ideas. Do you put the grizzled veterans – say, Jacoby and Hughes – on defence. Or do you keep the main lines together – Mann, Bradley and Hughes on one line; Jones, Briffa and Osborn on another? How do you work in the “rookie”, Rutherford? Who plays goal? Do you make up a tree ring line? I’m a little worried about their skating skills. It looks like Mann can skate backwards, but what about Hughes?

        What should the team be called: the Kyoto Flames? the Blades? the Heat? So many decisions, so little time.

        Source: http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/05/the-hockey-team-1/

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/5874729706

        Courtesy of the Auditor, of course.

    • Latimer,

      You said it all in a nutshell. And the tremds lend support to your last sentence. It is the trend of rapodly dying interest that is scaring the CAGW doomsayers.

      You said:

      It’s a dying industry.

      Sure is and this demonstrates how rapidly it is dying:

      Climate Change

      http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline

      Carbon credits

      http://carboncredits.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline

      Alternative energy

      http://alternative.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline

      Wind energy

      http://wind.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline

    • Latimer Alder:
      “Sceptics have little to fear by this process. In the main they are not academics – or at least not full-time climatologists.”
      Excellent point. It’s the attributes of the players. The Skeptics can freestyle, make their own decisions, take bigger risks, are less encumbered. The Scientists work under less flexible conditions. A more structured system.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Sceptics have little reason to fear losing their jobs as the memes implode. You have entirely missed the context.

      • Latimer Alder

        @ragnaar

        Seems to me that a 40 year-old redundant climate modeller is going to be pretty much unemployable.

        The private sector won’t want such an individual because an entire career spent in academia is no preparation for doing commercial work, and a great in-depth knowledge of a completely failed modelling regime is of limited to zero useful value. Commerce places a great value on getting real practical things right and none on writing papers. The academic world has the opposite idea.

        Academia will be reducing, not increasing posts, and modellers are the obvious candidates to go. Despite huge investment their failure has been so universally big and so universally apparent.

        Maybe there’s some thinktank halfway house inbetween the two that will take a few of the better candidates, but overall its a pretty bleak lookout for them. No wonder they fight tooth and nail to keep the ‘consensus lifeboat’ afloat. It’s all they have between them and burger flipping.

    • Concerned Citizen

      +10. Mirrors my thoughts a well. Overwrought experts under siege by the intellectually curious, rather than the energy-funded special interests they perceive.

    • We could just name this post “A Summary of the History of Climate Science” and make it a sticky top post for newcomers.

    • A good coverage of the “debate” from the viewpoint of a sceptic. I think that choice of adjectives and the ascribing of motives could have been left out but hey, its a good read!

  16. My impression is that Trenberth has never behaved in a way that had led to the animosity between the main stream and skeptics. I don’t understand his thinking on the extreme events, but his views in that area could not maintain the animosity.

    There’s some truth in the observation that Mann vs. McIntyre had a major role in the development. Reading the book of Mann on the fight tells certainly more about his role than that of the others, but several more people from both sides have certainly been needed. It’s typical of many of those that they see all kind of evil motives for their opponents behavior.

    • Latimer Alder

      @pekka

      I trust you have also read Mr Montford’s book The Hockey Stick Illusion which tells the story primarily from McIntyre’s viewpoint. And, I’d suggest, is rather less self-serving.

      • I haven’t read that, but I believe that I have read enough on views of various people involved. What was striking in Mann’s book is that it presents so direct evidence on his own prejudices and readiness to draw conclusions about the motives of other people.

        A book written by a third party is of less interest to me, I have no need to learn about Mr Montford.

        it’s clear that McIntyre can control himself better than Mann. Digger deeper to what he has done might, however, reveal behavior that deviates from the formal politeness shown on the surface. (I wouldn’t write that unless I had perceived some sign of that, but on that I may also err.)

      • Latimer Alder

        Mr Montford writes as a historian and explainer. I don’t think I learnt anything about him as an individual (as it should be). But an awful lot about the events that led to the debunking of the Hockey Stick and the Team.

      • Pekka
        Yes, there’s no real need for anyone to know anything about Mr Montford.
        But I suggest there is a real need to know what he wrote, an account of deep-seated institutional climate science corruption, as revealed by Climategate and the subsequent attempts to sweep it under the mat.

      • A good writer with an agenda can make you learn both what’s true and what’s not without helping in seeing what’s what. Worse writers like Mann are often much more revealing when they write about themselves.

      • Memphis,

        I’m pretty sure that i wouldn’t learn anything by reading Montford’s book. I have read quite a lot about the case elsewhere, and I have done that having the possibility to contrast opposing claims and to interpret original material keeping some balance in the selection process.

        Adding to that his book would not be likely to make me accept any claim that I haven’t already accepted.

        Another point is that I have been involved in science for decades. I have seen that scientists do not always behave properly in any field. Building a carrier in science is highly competitive. In a highly competitive environment all kind of tricks are used, and people are also surprisingly good in making themselves believe that they have not done anything wrong.

        Scientists are human, and often pretty strange humans, science as a process is successful in spite of that, and perhaps sometimes because of that.

        The way climate science gained rapidly prestige made the situation somewhat worse than in most sciences, but not really unique.

      • Latimer Alder

        @pekka

        You seem strangely resistant to reading what has generally been acknowledged as a classic.

        How about ‘The Age of Global Warming’ by Darwall. Has this got on to your reading list?

      • what has generally been acknowledged as a classic

        By whom?

        The main point is that I want to have the control of my sources. I don’t trust a selection of sources by anyone else, in particular not by anyone whom I suspect of having an agenda.

      • “Another point is that I have been involved in science for decades”
        Me too. I have see things which lead me to believe that it is not only cream that floats to the top.
        However, what independent analysis of our respective fields can we judge the fields of Physics, Biomedical Science and Climate Science since Hansen 1981?
        Well, the pursuit of science in physics and biomedicals has produced a huge amount of technology. Humankind has been enriched by the spin-offs of research physics and in biomedicine. Just what has Climate Science given us? Seriously, what do we know now that we didn’t know before, that can enrich our lives? I think changing the death rate of childhood leukemia from>90% to the present <10% is a rather good payoff.
        Do tell me what the period of 30 years has given us?
        New statistical methods?
        Better instrumentation?
        A better thermos flask?
        Just what have we got for the more than trillion dollars spent?
        I cannot see much return on the investment. Spending it on Dementia research or curing river blindness or malaria would have given us something.
        But, after a trillion bucks, just WTF is the 'equilibrium' climate sensitivity?

      • Pekka Pirilä | August 24, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
        I don’t trust a selection of sources by anyone else, in particular not by anyone whom I suspect of having an agenda.<<

        The obvious one being the IPCC.

      • Pekka Pirilä | August 24, 2013 at 5:14 pm |

        “what has generally been acknowledged as a classic”

        By whom?

        The main point is that I want to have the control of my sources. I don’t trust a selection of sources by anyone else, in particular not by anyone whom I suspect of having an agenda.

        Oh, please, Pekka … Your biases are showing, again! Gaia forbid that you should read anything that might show your “suspicions” to be unfounded!

        Yet, you dutifully read Mann’s latest creative writing exercise in self-promotion. Did you not “suspect” that Mann might have had (and continues to be driven by) an agenda?! An agenda, one might add, that Mann has shown to be about as far from the practice of “communicating” credible and trustworthy “science” as it could possibly be.

      • DocMartyn,

        People in general obviously have a psychotic compulsion to act irrationally from time to time. In some cases, it appears cultural. The “potlatch”, when accompanied by the destruction of the goods received, and the beggaring of the giver, is but one example.

        The amount of time, money, and effort, devoted to climatology has produced, as you point out, precisely nothing of value.

        Furthermore, the whole charade has been based on an hypothesis, which has been demonstrated experimentally to have no merit whatsoever. In other words, the GHE effect purely does not exist.

        Any experiment which sets out to show the existence of such an effect, shows its non-existence. This is how science normally advances. Climatology, however, appears to be a form of infectious delusional psychosis. Impossible, but apparent to an objective observer.

        A self proclaimed “climatologist” like Trenberth, is now apparently claiming that the ocean has entered one of its “soaking up” modes. Such is climatological science. The supply of climatological duct tape used for repairing the creeping, slowly collapsing Juggernaut, pushed by the CO2 worshippers, appears to be diminishing.

        Obviously I support your comments fully.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Doc @ 6.01, Latimer throughout: excellent.

      • > You seem strangely resistant to reading what has generally been acknowledged as a classic.

        If resisting is a behaviour, why use the precautionary “seem” to describe it?

      • Heh, I haven’t read the Bish’s Tender Tome, but it’s the next best thing to being there. A word to the Perspicacious Pekka.
        ============

      • Pekka Pirila,

        You again expose your pro CAGW doomsayer bias. You say:

        A good writer with an agenda can make you learn both what’s true and what’s not without helping in seeing what’s what.

        So you admit you read Mann but wont read “The Hockey Stick Illusion – the corruption of science

        You read only what supports your already formed views. You read Michael Mann and believe him, yet you won’t read “The Hockey Stick Illusion – the corruption of science”. What a joke.

        How do you expect people to take you as anything more that a partisan, CAGW doomsayer and scaremonger?

      • > Mr Montford writes as a historian and explainer.

        See for yourself:

        It is clear that the public can no longer trust what they have been told. What is less clear is what we, as ordinary citizens, can do in the face of the powerful, relentless forces of corrupted science, to set things right. Awareness, however, is the essential first step.

        Thus concludes Bish’s Tender Tome.

        Rather less self-serving indeed.

      • Pekka wouldn’t sound like such a naif about all three if he’d followed Climate Audit such that he wouldn’t need to read the Bish’s Tender Tome. willard, it’s still there.
        ===============

      • “The main point is that I want to have the control of my sources. I don’t trust a selection of sources by anyone else, in particular not by anyone whom I suspect of having an agenda.”

        This is conscious avoidance of critical thinking in a nut shell. Typical behavior of a default progressive, who has been taught since elementary school not to think for himself.

        Contrary thought is dangerous, and to be avoided at all costs. The only way to view it is through the filter of approved progressives filters, like progressive media, Think Progress, Skeptical Science….

      • As a contrary example, when I want to know what the “consensus” thinks, I go to their sources. The New York Times, Huffington Post, Real Climate, Skeptical Science, etc. When I was studying history and economics, I didn’t learn what progressives thought from conservative media. (Well, there really wasn’t any except the Wall Street Journal editorial page and National Review.) I read Marx, and Lenin, and Mao, and Alinsky, and others.

        When kept hearing how fascist conservatives were, I didn’t just read the rantings on the left making the charge, I read Mussolini, even plowed through Mein Kampf, the most boring book ever written. If you want to learn what other people think, you have to have the intellectual courage to read what they themselves say about it. Otherwise, when you make your decision, you are merely regurgitating what someone else told you to think.

        Oh, and I read all those before making up my mind about my political/economic beliefs, which started out considerably more progressive than they are now.

        I would be embarrassed to admit that i was afraid to read what someone else wrote on a topic in which I was interested. But that is unfortunately the norm for most progressives, “moderates,” “independents,” and libertarians.

      • Pekka presumes to speak of the corruption of science without having read the most lucid and most recent exposition. Sure, Pekka, it’s a simulacrum, of the twisting, the wrenching, the tormenting destruction of the highest enlightenment principles; skip it, not worth your bother.

        Nor have I read it; no need.
        =========================

      • GaryM,

        ” I dislike arguments of any kind. They are always vulgar, and often convincing”

        The Importance of Being Earnest.
        Oscar Wilde

      • > [I]f he’d followed Climate Audit such that he wouldn’t need to read the Bish’s Tender Tome.

        If purple was the colour of his true love’s airs, it would.

      • Doc, I’ve long said the internet is a wonderful place where people can violently disagree without coming to blows, or worse yet, descending to agreement.
        =============

      • Pekka Pirila,

        I’m pretty sure that i wouldn’t learn anything by reading Montford’s book.

        What arrogance! What ignorance!

      • Pekka Pirila,

        The main point is that I want to have the control of my sources. I don’t trust a selection of sources by anyone else, in particular not by anyone whom I suspect of having an agenda.

        Rephrased: You want to filter so you read only what supports your beliefs.

        We’ve seen that many times on past threads in discussions about energy, mitigation policies, carbon pricing policies and renewable energy.

      • Pekka’s most egregious ignorance is at the depth of his credibility loss among skeptics if he is not intimately familiar with the details of this most impressive corruption of science, and policy. Sure it’s a tall order, but it’s a short book; taller and shorter than willard.
        ===============

      • Doc martyn

        Just what have we got for the more than trillion dollars spent?
        I cannot see much return on the investment. Spending it on Dementia research or curing river blindness or malaria would have given us something.
        But, after a trillion bucks, just WTF is the ‘equilibrium’ climate sensitivity?

        +1

      • > What arrogance! What ignorance!

        I think I can prove that Pekka could learn at least one thing from reading our beloved Bishop’s political hit job:

        On page 27-28 there is the Deming Affair. It is claimed that “Lindzen of MIT has confirmed that the email was written by Jonathan Overpeck.” But note 12, which follows this claim, points to an Arxiv document authored by Lindzen. There is one mention to Overpeck in that document: a signature to an international conference invitation. The only mention of “getting rid” of MWP cites (Deming, 2005) as authority.

        Here is when the Auditor might revive yet another introduction to check-kiting.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/15401067079

      • Latimer Alder

        @willard

        You quote the last three sentences of 449 pages of Montford’s book. And the final section from which it is extracted is called ‘Where do we stand now?’ .Seems not unreasonable for the author to finally express his opinion at this point.

        I think my suggestion that it is ‘rather less self-serving’ than Mann’s book will stand up well to rigorous scrutiny if this is the best you can do. We can do a page-by-page comparison for ‘self-serving’ and keep score if you wish.

      • Latimer Alder

        @willard

        ‘If resisting is a behaviour, why use the precautionary “seem” to describe it?’

        1. To show that it is my opinion. Short for ‘seem to me’
        2. To recognise that English is not Pekka’s 1st language and that there may be a translation difficulty.
        3. To avoid stupid irrelevant nit-picking arguments from folk such as you.

      • But MWP!
        =======

      • > To show that it is my opinion. Short for ‘seem to me’.

        It does seemed that way to me too, Latimer. If we are right, then even behaviours such as resisting does seem to go through some kind of interpretation from the observer. Which means that to interpret Pekka’s behaviour as resisting, you need to work with much more than his speech patterns. In a nutshell, you need to work out a model of Pekka’s mind. This model can rest on a simulation, a theory, or whatnot:

        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-representation/

        This does not matter for my point, which was to hint at a second refutation of your argument elsewhere in the thread about fear and loathing.

        I hope this is clear enough as it is. But I can rephrase more carefully if need be.

      • > [I]t’s a short book.

        I would not call a 482 pages’ book a short one.

        There might be better ways to convince Pekka. Here’s a quote from the cover:

        > … one of the best science books in years … deserves to win prizes.

        Thus wrote Matt Ridley, in Prospect magazine.

        The text from the quote is in red.

        Some might have preferred purple.

      • > [I]t’s a short book.

        I would not call a 482 pages’ book a short one.

        There might be better ways to convince Pekka. Here’s a quote from the cover:

        > … one of the best science books in years … deserves to win prizes.

        Thus wrote Matt Ridley, in Prospect magazine.

      • > [I]t’s a short book.

        I would not call a 482 pages’ book a short one.

      • I didn’t read the book, but I read McIntyre’s account of the e-mails on his website, and I think it was good. It showed that Mann was somewhat a hothead and proactive with the hockey stick. There was a lot of push back on how weak the hockey stick was among his peers, including the way they talked among themselves about Mann’s attitude, and they were especially concerned about convincing Richard Alley’s independent NAS committee who were skeptical of tree rings anyway. In the end, tree rings back in Mann’s 1998 and 1999 papers were weak evidence alone.

      • I wrote it in one line: The Piltdown Mann’s Crook’t Stick.
        =================

      • Tree rings are a pretty tough sell even within the climate science community. The divergence problem was their main concern, mostly because they didn’t have an explanation of why tree rings showed “cooling” when the climate was clearly warming. The e-mails make this quandary clear.

      • It wouldn’t have been a quandary except for the need to defend the most important icon of CAGW. Had there been no ’cause’, they’d have figured out the flaws in the proxies, at least their own ‘proxies’. You are getting warmer, Jim D, some thoughts worth pursuing there.
        ============

      • AR3 became a big deal possibly because of the hockey stick. It was an advertising job to be able to say warmest in a millennium because that was Mann’s new result. By AR4 the MWP had made a return among the uncertainty lines, so it was short-lived. Climategate came out after AR4, and those e-mails were already 10 years old, and their actual effect had already faded. As I said, I am skeptical of tree rings unless they are backed up by other evidence. AGW doesn’t need them. The other part of Climategate was that Jones didn’t like McIntyre, who thought he was hiding something, but in the end BEST confirmed Jones’s land record a few years later.

      • Jim D | August 24, 2013 at 11:30 pm |
        Tree rings are a pretty tough sell even within the climate science community. The divergence problem was their main concern, mostly because they didn’t have an explanation of why tree rings showed “cooling” when the climate was clearly warming,
        _______

        According to kim, more CO2 makes plants grow faster, but the stupid trees ignored the rising CO2 and grew slower. kim should give those trees a good talking to.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        It was just one tree. We think someone forgot to water it.

      • Latimer Alder

        @willard

        Call me if and when you come back up from your rabbit hole. I don’t plan to chase you there. Have fun

      • HR writes

        Yet, you dutifully read Mann’s latest creative writing exercise in self-promotion. Did you not “suspect” that Mann might have had (and continues to be driven by) an agenda?!

        You haven’t obviously not read at all what I say about that book, and about what the book tells about Mann.

        You have only noticed that I have read the book, and you have your prejudices about me.

        I have bought a few books related to the controversies. Other authors are Hulme, Pielke Jr., and Leframboise. Hulme and Pielke Jr. are interesting and their books contain a lot of good thinking (while I don’t agree on everything), Mann’s book is rather bad but revealing, Leframboise is just unbearable for me.

      • Hah, the crimson on the thin ice ain’t berry juice.
        ==================

      • @Willard
        our beloved Bishop’s political hit job:

        A undisputed account of what happened is a “hit job” is it?

        Doubtless you prefer to shoot the messenger, and go with the political cover-up jobs run by the organzations involved, that investigated and exonerated themselves, using taxpayers’ money to bribe their pals to run these shams.

      • Pekka and willard both shudder and shy at the book; it’s changed too many minds for their appetites.
        =================

      • “McIntyre’s viewpoint. “

        McIntyre’s viewpoint is one of a wealthy former Canadian mining executive.

        As the tar sands operation in Canada is likely the world’s largest mining operation ever conceived, and he never seems to give an opinion of that debacle, I would think he is not the most objective participant in the debate.

        The statistics of the energy return on energy invested for a low-grade fossil fuel such as tar sands would seem a natural fit for a statistician of McIntyre’s caliber. Yet he doesn’t seem to want to lift a finger and help estimate how much more carbon emissions that enterprise would add due to its low efficiency. I wonder why that is?

        The only answer I get is that he can do whatever he wants. Well, so can I and I do get a kick out of continuing to point out the stunning hypocrisy of the denier camp.

      • Reading at Hilary’s blog the following, re the IPCC documented ‘pretended response’ to IAC recommendations concerning
        panel members avoiding conflicts of interest by reviewing
        their own or employers’ papers, is enough to make yer weep
        at such prevarication, ( ter put it politely.) bts

        http://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/ipcc-and-conflict-of-interest-tapping-into-the-team-work-side-step/

      • Gergis alone odorizes the rot way over, and I can smell it all the way over here.
        ============

      • Web smears tar
        On the walls where
        Minnie’s hottah,
        Not at Torontah.
        ============

      • > Seems not unreasonable for the author to finally express his opinion at this point.

        Perhaps, but this “opinion” contradicts the claim that our beloved Bishop wrote his political hit job “as a historian and explainer”.

        And if that’s not enough, lots of such “opinions” drip page after page. Let’s try to find one by opening the pamphlet almost at random (with thanks to Beth for inspiration):

        The publication of Loehle’s paper was met with a storm of criticism and not only from scientists working in the paloeclimate mainstream (note 198). Despite the fact that Loehle’s conclusions reinforced their preconceptions, many Climate Audit readers also joined in with the pulling apart of the paper, happy to point out any flaws they could find. [...]

        The more substantive criticisms of the paper related to the absence of any estimates of errors. Loehle said he couldn’t see how these could be calculated, but the Climate Audit readership, which included some fairly high-powered academics, was able to demonstrate that it was in fact possible, if less than obvious.

        This was on page 305, in the middle of the political hit job.

        Here are some comments on this old episode of ClimateBall.

        ***

        First, note 198 leads to the citation, and nothing else. That is, no other references are made about this episode. Here are two important links:

        http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/something-new-in-the-loehle-network/

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

        Notice the dates. There are many others. In what Latimer considers the work of an historian, our beloved Bishop does not refer to his material. This is not the only place he forgets his references.

        My favourite is when he uses a “forum” to refer to the Climate Sceptics mailing list. This led to a very interesting discussion at Lucia’s a while ago. Another time, perhaps.

        ***

        Second, the Auditor’s position on Loehle’s paper was far from being as critical as portrayed. See for yourself:

        http://climateaudit.org/category/multiproxy-studies/loehle-2007/

        Third, the claim that “the more substantive criticisms of the paper related to the absence of any estimates of errors” is quite subjective. Gavin does seem to hold, in the post cited above:

        What does this imply for Loehle’s reconstruction? Unfortunately, the number of unsuitable series, errors in dating and transcription, combined with a mis-interpretation of what was being averaged, and a lack of validation, do not leave very much to discuss.

        Validation does seem to be quite crucial. Our beloved Bishop may very well be swallowing more than he can chew here.

        ***

        Third, this episode is narrated to show that this was an example of 21st century science. As an aside, Bishop notes that, notwithstanding the contrarian criticisms, Loehle’s main findings “still stood”. This is clearly a subjective interpretation of the episode.

        While I find sympathy with the argument for blog science, I also think that Bishop’s story romanticizes a lot what was happening during these discussions.

        ***

        Fourth, readers should appreciate how our beloved Bishop shifts the readers’ attention from the Auditor’s behaviour and the ones of the contrarian crowd. If readers can find criticisms from the Auditor on Loehle, that would be appreciated. Here are the posts at Steve’s tagged “Loehle 2007″:

        http://climateaudit.org/category/multiproxy-studies/loehle-2007/

        ***

        All in all, we should always be circumspect in our interpretations, and always have in mind Bender’s advice:

        > Read the blog.

        Unless, of course, we’re more interested in hagiography than history.

      • So McIntyre not applying himself to analyzing the CO2 implications of tar sands, is an example of “denier hypocrisy”, says Webhub.

        Astounding drivel, even by his standards. Weblogic, let’s call it, a product of the vino no doubt.

      • And Loehle gets funding by the paper and pulp industry, I.e. the Koch brothers.

        Like I said, stunning hypocrisy.

    • @Jim D
      The other part of Climategate was that Jones didn’t like McIntyre, who thought he was hiding something

      Jones WAS, for years, hiding something. The data.

      He resented McIntyre for asking for it, rather than take his (Jones’s) word on what it contained.

      And Jones’s epitaph will one day be his most memorable comment, capturing the essence of the cargo-cult alarmist ‘consensus’ :

      “Why should I show you my data when I know you’ll try and find something wrong with it?”

      • Latimer Alder

        He’ll be remembered for his contribution to the exposure of the vacuousnes of the peer/pal review system too.

        Here’s how Fred Pearce – no dyed-in-the-wool sceptic he – put it in the Guardian:

        ‘The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. “They’ve never asked,” he said.’

        Jones has published over 200 ‘peer-reviewed’ papers in the last 25 years In all that time, nobody bothered to check any of his work. And yet it is used as the basis for the understanding of recent temperature changes via the HADCRU datasets.

        That’s not a way to run a whelk stall, let alone a ‘science’.

        Ref: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry

      • Latimer

        That sort of lack of scrutiny (and many other things) does set me thinking (again) as to whether climate science is a real, legitimate and separate branch of science in the manner of other more established scientific disciplines.

        tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        tonyb wonders whether “climate science is a real, legitimate and separate branch of science”

        What counts is the strongest climate-change science, not the weakest. That’s why climate-change skepticism that confines its attention to the weakest climate-change science amounts to a particularly timid, feeble, futile variety of climate-change denialism.

        That’s plain scientific common sense, right tonyb?

        \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 how do you judge the strength of climate science? Odor?

      • Latimer Alder

        @tonyb

        Again and again, I contrast the appallingly low professional standards that academics accept with those of the outside world.

        In the OW we long ago recognised that humans are fallible and can make ‘mistakes’ either by accident or by design. And in response we implemented systems that try to identify and eliminate such errors. Simple things like double entry bookkeeping, auditing, witnesses for wills, double independent signatures, rest breaks for drivers, two pilots in a cockpit and so on and so forth. All of them (fallible though they still are) designed or evolved to reduce the risk and impact of human errors. Most have been learnt the hard way – with death and destruction in their wake.

        And one might think that when working on ‘the most important problem humanity has ever faced’, our gallant academic seekers after truth would have been eager to adopt all the best lessons of hundreds of years of failures to ensure that they have the best possible data, conduct the best possible experiments, invite and encourage the deepest level of scrutiny and independent checking to come up with the most robust conclusions.

        One might think so, but one would be sadly disappointed. The reality is that there is almost no ‘quality control’ in academia, and the culture of secrecy and of ‘why should I show you MY data’ is rampant.

        An academic’s number one objective is to get something published. Whether it is any good is very much a secondary issue. And once published the chances of it getting any subsequent QC checks are minimal. Its in the sacred ‘literature’ and will stay there forever, no matter how much crap it may be.

        Jones once again summed up the quality hurdle such papers need to overcome. ‘I read the papers on the train, and pass them if they feel right’.

        And its quite reasonable to assume (since he leaves no audit trail of his decisions) that he used the same ‘method’ when ‘adjusting’ raw data to enter into his HADCRU datasets.

        But we will never know because, like the careful custodian of the world’s most important data that he and his hapless colleagues are – they’ve lost it all in an office move. Surely only the late Tom Sharpe could do real comic justice to their ineptitude, and even he would be stretching the reader’s credulity.

        Whether climatology deserves to be a ‘science’ is a moot point. But it is clear that the public – all of whose climate it is too – deserve far better professional standards from their advisers than the current academic model provides. they would be completely unacceptable in the outside world.

      • What counts is the strongest climate-change scepticism, not the weakest. That’s why climate-change ‘science’ and its apologies that confine their attention to the weakest climate-change scepticism, amounts to a particularly timid, feeble, futile variety of climate-change credulity.

        You know the kind I mean – standard FOMB fare.

      • Lati,

        Good point.

        Why can’t orginial scientific thought be done like a recipe book?

      • Michael,
        Lati and his recipe book will figure out how his home country can make up for a huge deficit in home-grown oil, natural gas, and coal production.

        Not being able to come up with a solution, he and his mates down at the pub will then blame his ills on “my obsession”.

      • Latimer Alder

        @michael

        ‘Why can’t original scientific thought be done like a recipe book?’

        Might be nice if the cook had some decent guarantee of the quality of the raw ingredients though. That the white crystals really are sugar and not salt.

        And if you’re going to suggest that we all spend vast quantities of blood and treasure on a problem you think your ‘original scientific thought’ has detected, I’d want a slightly better double check than ‘I read it on the train and it felt right’. Or even ‘and I told my mate down the hall about it and he agrees’.

        If you want to do academic speculative ‘science’, that’s fine, But don’t then try to pretend that the ‘results’ are anything better than speculation too.

      • Latimer Alder

        @webbie

        You flatter yourself hugely if you think that the denizens of the Dog And Duck willl give you a first thought, let alone a second one. We won’t.

      • Lati,

        You’re confusing a scientific publication convention (peer review) with the science itself.

        Your long rant above was similarly confused/ill-informed/careless/wrong.

      • Climate scientists confused pal review with peer review. The review now is not by their peers.
        ==============


      • Latimer Alder | August 25, 2013 at 8:14 am |

        @webbie

        You flatter yourself hugely if you think that the denizens of the Dog And Duck willl give you a first thought, let alone a second one. We won’t.

        But you just did give me a first thought, Little Lati.

        Here are a few other links to the North Sea oil problem.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-23776950


        What this means is that the production at its peak, in 1999, has fallen from more than four million boe per day to only 1.54 million last year. Oil and Gas UK is expecting that to fall by at least a further 8.5% more and perhaps double that decline – to between 1.2 million and 1.4 million boe, for this year and continuing into next year.

        and also

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-23771338


        The sharp decline in production of oil and gas from under British waters is “worrying” industry leaders.

        I am sure you have a solution, and it likely has something to do with the shale potential under Blackpool.

        But don’t forget about Poland!

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/31/us-energy-poland-lignite-analysis-idUSBRE96U0L920130731

        “Poland, one of the heaviest polluters in Europe, will become even dirtier now that its shale gas ambitions have faded and it turns to cheap domestic lignite coal to secure its energy supply.”

        Any second thoughts, Lati?

      • Latimer Alder

        @webbie

        As promised.

        No.

      • Latimer Alder

        @michael

        Science is based on observational data. If your data is bad, so will be your science.

        One might think that ‘scientists’ would go to great lengths to ensure that they have good data. It seems that in climatology this does not apply. ‘It feels right’ is good enough.

      • Again, Lati confuses science and the process of peer-review.

      • Lati, I will continue to hold out hope for the pensioners of the UK and that they will continue to be able to afford to heat their homes in the winter.

        Fortunately, the alternative and renewable energy industry will continue to make strides and provide the population with cheap energy in the coming years.

        Cheers.

      • Owen Paterson went to Lithuania.

        H/t the Bish’s Tender Toots.
        ==========

      • John Carpenter

        “Why can’t orginial scientific thought be done like a recipe book?”

        Michael, the idea of ‘QC’ and ‘original scientific thought’ are two separate and distinct things. For QC, think ‘document and data control’. What kind of policies and procedures are in place to ensure traceability? How do you control for revisions? How do store and secure data and information used to form conclusions? Willard should know something about this. There are ‘recipes’ on how to do these things. Quality management systems are a dime a dozen as well as third party registrars. None of this has anything to do with ‘original scientific thought’. This is the same misunderstanding Pekka has long had with me on this issue, or at least that is my interpretation of it. Quality management has really nothing to do with the creative ideas of research, but it has everything to do with the housekeeping one should keep when doing it.

      • Dang, that was supposed to be ‘the Bish’s Timely Toots’. Check out the timely reminder @ his Palace. Frack it again, frack it again, louder, louder.
        ===========

      • Latimer Alder

        @michael

        No confusion here, mon brave.

        But if you are so convinced there is no problem please guide me (for example) to where I can find a description of the QC methods used in the production of the HADCRU datasets. And the independent auditors report on how well they have been adhered to.

      • Make up your mind Lati, are you lecturing us about how to do science, or how to store the pencils?

      • > How do you control for revisions?

        I hope scientists do use a control version system. And if they do, they should use Git. Imagine the IPCC creating the trunk and the Auditors creating branches.

        (Everything could be done in Python… OK, I won’t push the daydreaming.)

        ***

        I don’t think the Auditor used a CVS:

        My first question was related to the version of Steve’s code. The answer seems to be that the code here:

        ftp://ftp.agu.org/apend/gl/2004GL021750/

        is the final version. No other version seems to have been published since then.

        Wegman and his clique wrote that they have been assisted by Steve to run that code. Nothing else is known about the nature of this assistance by Steve.

        Wegman and his clique wrote that they have “reproduced” MM’s work, and they made some “recomputations”. We also know that Steve sent Wegman some emails.

        Wegman and his clique did not publish their code, as promised. This non-disclosure has been critiqued by Steve and Mosh.

        An intriguing puzzle. Pieces are missing.

        http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/29/mosher-on-the-provenance-of-said-et-al-2008/#comment-285334

        ***

        Also, let’s recall one of our first comment at Steve’s, in the comment thread of an op-ed Judy just quoted:

        Documenting data now becomes providing access to all relevant documents to understand it: memoranda, reviews, comments, reports, correspondence, e-mails, attachments, etc.

        http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/#comment-203085

        Putting the two thoughts together, we get that to know exactly if and how Wegman did run Steve’s code, we’d need to have the correspondence between the two.

        ***

        When we get to this part of the stories, we usually hear a chorus of crickets.

      • John Carpenter

        “Putting the two thoughts together, we get that to know exactly if and how Wegman did run Steve’s code, we’d need to have the correspondence between the two.”

        Look… Squirrel!

        I’m glad to see you don’t disagree with the other general principles I made.

      • W,

        This is the vanishing point of ‘data whining’.

      • Crickets chirp and chat,
        In the echo chamber file;
        Flourescent Censor.
        =============

      • John Carpenter

        “Make up your mind Lati, are you lecturing us about how to do science, or how to store the pencils?”

        My guess is you make judgement calls and important decisions every day based on how people store their pencils. My guess would be you put your trust into those that know how to store their pencils vs those who are too dumb to know how to do it. How stupid do you have to be if you don’t even know how to store your pencils? Are those the people you hire to make sure things get done right?

      • You wanna watch the ones who know how to sharpen pencils.
        =============

      • > Look… Squirrel!

        Should readers notice fear from your reaction, John?

        You know I disagree: there is a relationship between quality control and this aspect of l’affaire Wegman.

        Proselytism about fully open audits carries its load of responsibilities.

        ***

        Anyway.

        If you prefer a more philosophical comment, here’s an example to show how we could reconcile both Pekka and your position.

        Ludics is a framework to connect two types of work in logic: proof theory, which is traditionally syntactical, and game semantics, which develops the intuition that truth is the result of the interaction between some moves. Here’s the foundational paper:

        http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=80083

        Here’s an outline:

        http://ls.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/prodi/slides/Lecomte.pdf

        Sorry for the formalism. Sometimes, it’s useful.

        ***

        There are many ways to prove theorems. This is a problem: how to keep track of all the proofs? A possible solution is to abstract away from how a proof is done and keep track of what the proof does exactly.

        This relates to the discussion the following way. Pekka wants to focus on results. You, John, wants to focus on processes. What I’m suggesting is that you both should focus on finding a framework whereby we record results by way of their processes.

        Of course, I’m not suggesting that we should do all this in Ludics. What I mean is that we should not forget that the content layer (the data) is never independent from the logic layer (the theory).

        ***

        At this point, I would turn it over to archivists.

        Finally, please bear in mind that V&V might very well be impossible, considering the current technological state. At least, that’s what Steve Easterbrook maintains.

        Also, we should bear in mind that all this should cost many times the actual IPCC budget.

      • John,

        I place a bit more import in what people do with their pencils.

        Maybe I’m crazy.

      • John Carpenter

        ‘data whining’.

        Boo hoo, the bank dropped a few zeros from my balance. Guess they don’t store their pencils too well. Oh well, at least I still like their logo and marketing.

      • Do you have access to a fully open audit report of the costs of Occupy Irak, John?

        I can find other examples if you fear squirrels.

        Beware your wishes.

      • A slam dunk. Pencils swivel through the net.
        ==========

      • Thanks willard – there’s the rub.

        Joking aside, I don’t have any problem with what John is suggesting.

        But someone’s gotta pay.

        When it’s a choice between paying your grad students/jnr researchers a decent wage and a 24 carat archiving and verifcation processes……if someone can make this happen, great, I’ll have a pony too.

        Our beloved ‘skeptics’, who commonly exhibit traits suggestive of free-market fundamentalism, anti-government, anti-regulation obsessions, could get on board and acknowledge that some more of the latter elements might be required to achieve what they proclaim they want.

      • What you don’t get, willard, and maybe won’t because you can’t, is that the statistics were ‘garbage’ in Jean S’s memorable words, and the echo chamber of climate science amplified to an unsustainable screech the signal of catastrophe.

        All the sophistry in the willard world isn’t going to change that.
        ===========

      • John Carpenter

        “This relates to the discussion the following way. Pekka wants to focus on results. You, John, wants to focus on processes. What I’m suggesting is that you both should focus on finding a framework whereby we record results by way of their processes.”

        Willard, that is the whole point. If you don’t control the processes used to obtain the results, the results are not worth much. Calibration, traceability to standards etc… Are necessary for all measurements made. Results obtained otherwise are questionable. Even original research into unexplored ideas and methods need to obey this idea and find a path to it. Otherwise it does not stand on familiar ground that we can agree on.

        “I can find other examples if you fear squirrels.”

        No fear in squirrels, Willard, just annoyance at the distraction they pose from the original topic of discussion. Perhaps I misunderstand the true meaning of the phrase you coined.

      • kim,

        you remind me of those halycon days of the ‘skeptics’ demanding the “raw data”.

        Ah, good times.

      • Fan

        Now, that is one of the most revealing things you have ever written here.

        So what do YOU consider to be the ‘weakest climate change science?’

        We need some guidance as we obviously want to concentrate on the most vulnerable of the many achilles heels.

        Please restrict the examples of weak climate science to no more than 100, as our Big oil funding will only permit us to employ a few dozen researchers at a time.
        tonyb

      • John Carpenter

        “But someone’s gotta pay.

        When it’s a choice between paying your grad students/jnr researchers a decent wage and a 24 carat archiving and verifcation processes……if someone can make this happen, great, I’ll have a pony too.”

        Michael and Willard, the ‘it’s too expensive” argument is not a convincing one. Archiving and storing data digitally is not bank breaking. I also said nothing about audit/verification processes. Being prepared to be audited and actual auditing are not the same. Having a system in place that makes a verification/audit process go smoothly is not the same as having an audit/verification performed. It’s when the pencils are not stored correctly that the audit/verification process becomes burdensome and costly. If you have a system in place that recognizes what auditors will be looking for, then most of the work has already been done. Just putting the right answer down when asking for a derivation on a test does not get you any credit, you have to show the work. Keeping records of how you show your work is not overly expensive if it is built in as part of the system FROM THE START. Getting started does have costs associated with it and their certainly costs associated with maintaining the system, and doing it all after the fact can be quite burdensome. What cost do you put on lost trust for work that has been performed, appears to be genuine, but can not stand up to scrutiny? Those costs are not easily measured, but are costly nonetheless.

      • John,

        You misunderstand.

        The argument is not “it’s too expensive”, simply that the cost must be borne and those footing the bills need to accept that as part of the cost of doing science.

        This is not commonly the case at the moment.

      • John Carpenter

        “John,

        You misunderstand.

        The argument is not “it’s too expensive”, simply that the cost must be borne and those footing the bills need to accept that as part of the cost of doing science.

        This is not commonly the case at the moment.”

        Yes, I do understand and we are in agreement. I appreciate your response.

      • I’m glad that we’re all in violent agreement about the financial problems “Calibration, traceability to standards etc…” seem to impose, John.

        The point I’m trying to make is that “Calibration, traceability to standards etc…” can be used to refer to the ideal of truly open audits, in which case the Wegman Affair illustrates that even the Auditor is far from it. If you prefer, we could take the interview between Harris and Curry: do we have access to the raw data? How could we replicate Judy’s judgement without it?

        Unless you come up with specific requests, you have no business telling me these are squirrels. And in fact, as soon as you’ll into specifics, my guess is that the ideal of truly open audits should reveal to be the myth it always were.

        Here what the myth looks like, in reality:

        Mr McIntyre’s entire appeal was built upon an assertion that the disputed information was withheld without intention to publish and should be disclosed under the EIR because it would ‘show a long-standing academic fraud by the Climatic Research Unit’.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/54294182943

        I think Judy said something about impugning motives to scientists.

        ***

        Speaking of which, have you read a discussion of this judgement at Steve’s?

        Seems that the Auditor prefers to build timestamps chronologies.

        At Judy’s, perhaps?

        Yes, but green line tests.

      • Latimer Alder

        Longer Michael

        ‘I have a great lawyer. I really do. His courtroom skills are legendary.

        And I know that if he’d remembered to turn up on the right day at the right court and hadn’t lost the court papers, nor prepared for a different case entirely, then he’d have been able to sweettallk the jury into finding me not guilty straight away.

        But as it is, I’ve only another three years to go until I’m released and I can tell him face to face just what a great lawyer I think he is’.

        Being professional in what you do is not just about storing pencils. That this concept seems to be beyond you suggests that you must be a climatologist.

      • Latimer Alder

        @michael

        You make a powerful case for doing less, but better climatology. Sounds good.

        And just what I’d expect in a period of consolidation.

        Perhaps we should start by closing down the teams that don’t adhere to minimum professional standards.

      • John,

        This is the same misunderstanding Pekka has long had with me on this issue, or at least that is my interpretation of it.

        I wonder, what you mean by that in a comment that is in full agreement with my thinking.

      • One possible reason for thinking that we disagree may be that I have emphasized some additional points:

        1) When the exploration goes into new territories, it may be impossible to define QC procedures. Such procedures are useful only when enough is known about the issues studied ahead of the time. It’s clear that great care must be applied under such conditions, but trying to follow a QC handbook may be simply impossible.

        2) For genuinely new results the best assurance is obtained by independent repetition by other scientists. That’s an essential component of the scientific process, not of any specific study.

        When I have tried to explain to my students how scientific work differs from engineering, I have certainly not indicated that the requirements for quality control would be less. They may sometimes be less formal, but not less in any other sense.

        Sometimes it’s justified that scientific results are published when significant uncertainties on their reliability remain, but that must then be stated very clearly in the paper. The progress of science may be sped up significantly by that as that may lead other scientists to a solution not found by the original author. That’s naturally applicable only, when the results are of exceptional significance if found correct.

      • I noticed that Willard is trying to redirect the approach to a logic-based system and perhaps consider different approaches to simultaneously tracking process and research in an optimal fashion.

        One of the current trends for scientific process control is to use workflow systems such as Kepler. This can capture the provenance of an established process, allowing others to duplicate the work.

        Gotta check out what I am working on, which is a semantic-web based knowledge and simulation server described at http://ContextEarth.com.
        This built on a first-order logic framework, and is compatible with workflow-based schemes. All open-sourced and with version control at GitHub.

        No squirrels over here. Collaborations welcome, as this is going to transform into an industrial strength server over time.

      • John Carpenter

        “Unless you come up with specific requests, you have no business telling me these are squirrels. And in fact, as soon as you’ll into specifics, my guess is that the ideal of truly open audits should reveal to be the myth it always were.”

        Ok Willard, look. I was responding to Michael in reference to QC measures, ‘recipes books’ and ‘original scientific thinking’. I reread the beginning of the thread to try to understand your persistence with my squirrel comment….so i see where Jones was being crucified for not producing whatever, you offered McIntyre and Wegman as a counter example. That may be relevant to that discussion, but as far as the point I was making, which was generic and neutral with respect to climateball, it was a ‘look squirrel’ comment. I don’t think anything I said would be any less applicable to McIntyre than it would be to Jones. The fact is I was not directing my comment to any particular side of the debate or any individual specifically. And though the idea of truly open audits may be an ideal, it is one that all sides should aspire to conform to. No question that it is an unattainable ideal, but the spirit of the idea should live on both sides. Arguing over who did what and when and whether so and so also did it (mommy mommyisms) does not advance the ball. That must be painfully obvious to you. Bringing it up as you did to my comment is nothing less than ‘look squirrel’. I’m looking to get beyond that, beyond citing and counter citing examples in ways that provoke. Not to say I don’t provoke, I was trying to provoke Michael to think harder about the position of data housekeeping as it pertains to trust and its relationship to QC systems. In the end he agreed to that principle.

        So, how are things going to change that advances the ball? QC management systems might offer some insights to the research academic world where it has been successful in the industrial world. Perhaps it is worth looking into?

      • John Carpenter

        “When the exploration goes into new territories, it may be impossible to define QC procedures. Such procedures are useful only when enough is known about the issues studied ahead of the time. It’s clear that great care must be applied under such conditions, but trying to follow a QC handbook may be simply impossible.”

        Pekka, this is a good point. My stress on having a quality management system does not mean we disagree about this as your second point shows,

        “For genuinely new results the best assurance is obtained by independent repetition by other scientists. That’s an essential component of the scientific process, not of any specific study.”

        This is a path for standardizing. Once replication of a process or idea is realized, standardization can naturally evolve. With standardization comes requirements to meet the standard. To show how requirements are met, measurements and methods must be traceable. This takes time, effort and cooperation between all interested parties. In the end you are left with a higher level of trust and confidence between participating members. Heh, a consensus is formed.

        Pekka, perhaps I was wrong to say we ‘disagree’. Perhaps you misunderstand the value, in my opinion, that a research program based on an established quality management system might bring to the table. Perhaps quality management system is the wrong term to apply as well, but at the moment I don’t know of an alternative example.

      • John,

        In this kind of open discussion everyone frames the question differently, therefore the answers are also different even, when both would agree totally, when the framing is the same.

        More specifically our experience comes probably from different research questions (mine is from elementary particle physics in my younger years, but closer to engineering, economics, and systems analysis more recently). Formal QC is essential in many laboratories, but much less, when other uncertainties are so large that potential errors of measurement make no difference.

        One description of scientific work that I have given to an experienced engineer interested in writing a doctoral thesis is that in engineering the requirement is often that a good enough solution must be found with sufficient certainty, while a scientist given the same problem must do his utmost to find out whether the solution is the best available and to find ways to compare objectively alternative solutions. The scientist mus also report his whole reasoning.

      • John Carpenter

        Thanks Pekka, well stated.

      • Steven Mosher

        “When we get to this part of the stories, we usually hear a chorus of crickets.”

        huh. Its pretty simple. your next step would be to write to wegman and ask for what you want. pretty please with sugar on it.
        Then you need to research your legal avenues if you have any.
        Then you need to follow what legal avenues are open to you.
        Then you need to follow up and get others to follow you.
        In the end mails may be liberated one way or the other. ask gleick for help.

        The bottom line of course is that wegman doesnt matter because Mann and the HS dont matter. not to the science at least. Mann’s mistake was thinking that he was protecting something that was worth protecting.
        he was wrong. you see sometimes symbolic battles can be more trouble than they are worth.

        But folks who would like to continue the wegman battle are welcome to do what I did. Im dumb founded that folks havent. Put mashey on it, then of course have somebody translate his work into something digestable

      • @WebHubTelescope
        Lati and his recipe book will figure out how his home country can make up for a huge deficit in home-grown oil, natural gas, and coal production.
        Not being able to come up with a solution, he and his mates down at the pub will then blame his ills on “my obsession”.

        The obsession in question would be the bizarre insistence that all energy be home-grown. Autarky.

        Any other goods and services you feel should be home-grown rather than traded for ?

      • Obviously you need BOTH grad students AND archiving systems.
        The trick is to get the right balance.

      • Well, moshe, what’s nauseating is the waste of talent it took to swallow that ‘garbage’.
        ============

      • John,

        No time now. Will reply later.

        ***

        Web,

        Thanks for the link.

      • John,

        Sorry for the delay. School starts this week around here. Made lots of notes, but will try to offer an outline, as it’s already too late for discussion. It’s a long comment, but my notes are ten times that long.

        ***

        Basically, what I want to say is that however good can be our scientific book keeping of the data, if we don’t have an objective way to settle our interpretations, the audit will never end. Having a tool like Kepler would be a good thing, no doubt about that. But this ain’t what determines Jones’ or Wegman’s responsibilities, to take the two examples from this subthread.

        I don’t think that asking Wegman to clean up his act, asking for legal advice, or sending FOI requests will help bring the audits to an end. In fact, we can clearly see that legal retaliation has become an end by itself. It provides a steady stream of PR brownie points, which in other ventures could be considered harassment.

        Personally, I have nothing to gain from such endeavour. In fact, the Auditor himself might have more to gain by throwing Wegman under his auditing bus. One does not simply try to portray oneself as being an over-conscientious auditor while relishing in competitive sports and espionage in cases whereby one is both judge and party.

        Anyway.

        ***

        I agree that your idea is neutral with respect to Climateball. But to appeal to them does imply connotations which advocate from one stance, as I’ve already said. So referring to Wegman helped me illustrate how having all the data would not be sufficient to prevent people from playing Climateball, exactly because it shows that this game could be played from all sides, but is not.

        Why is that? Because quality controls, while being welcome, might never be enough to produce objective judgments. In fact, they might never be as central to produce science as the fact that it’s the cost of reproducing results that matter. If redoing an experiment from scratch is less expensive than producing quality-controlled experiments, that’s where science will go. Free science may not be free for everyone, at least that’s what the scientific industry seems to say.

        Think of doing science as easy as doing 3D printing. It might be the case that getting free templates is the way to go. It might also be the case that getting proprietary one buck templates is also the way to go. What matters, in the end, is not that everyone reproduce exactly the same stuff, but that the most people get to agree that what they reproduce agree with each other. (In matters of economics, let’s say that I’m a pluralist.)

        This is why I took the example of Ludics. The idea is that besides the content, you’d need the logic. This is the only way you’d be able to settle in an objective way. You need to have a way to compare one product to another. That is, not only you need a way to validate a product P, which is what QC does, but to verify it. This is the only way that will ever stop the never ending audit: by determining how judgements cohere with one another.

        It is quite clear that we can’t wait for climateballers to fulfill their self-avowed commitments. Nor can we wait for everyone to arbitrate themselves or one another. Blog science needs a constant feed of outrageous news to keep climateballers happy.

        ***

        We can’t expect any comment thread to settle everything, ever. And this is why I can only leave it at that, and move to the next op-ed. There are already two others, and that’s just at Judy’s.

        The whole business blog science is quite unsustainable as it is. Perhaps it’s part of the fun. The fact that there’s no real QC may be another part of it.

        Thanks for your openness,

        w

  17. I too caught the irony of Harris labeling you as diving deep into the politics by stating you don’t know what the future will look like or what actions need to be taken and then identifying Trenbreth as simply wading in while he acts as a responsible scientist trying to protect us.

    Had it not been radio, Richard Harris may have suggested to Dr Trenberth that he borrow Scott Mandia’s Superman suit.

    • Yes, this irony gets a special lighted case in my museum. What does Harris wonder at the need for framing? Do journaloids dream of a world without framing?
      =============================

  18. > Fear and loathing of skeptics [...]

    I vaguely recall something about mind probing. It was a long time ago. Let me search my memory. Oh, yes, that:

    Your credibility is reduced and your own motivations are questioned when you attack the motives of another scientist.

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/21/arctic-sea-ice-and-weather/

    INTEGRITY ™ – The Credibility Race

    • Latimer Alder

      Umm

      Fear and loathing are observable behaviours. To say that they exhibit fear and loathing says nothing about the causes (motivation) of those behaviours.

      Your post fails.

      • > Fear and loathing are observable behaviours.

        Not exactly. They can be described using behaviours, but they serve as causal posits to explain these behaviours. One does not simply sees fear – one infers it from observations.

        The same applies to motivation, or more precisely intention.

    • +1

  19. “Fear and loathing of skeptics, particularly Steve McIntyre (read the Climategate emails for evidence of this). McIntyre is symbolic of attacks against consensus science, and a number of scientists have taken this very personally.”

    McIntyre’s attacks have essentially been on blatant attempts at deception.
    Those who resent him self-identify as supporters of deception.

    • BFJ seems to think if I don’t like who he likes I’m a supporter of deception. That doesn’t seem fair.

    • BFJ : McIntyre’s attacks have essentially been on blatant attempts at deception.
      Those who resent him self-identify as supporters of deception.

      Max_OK : BFJ seems to think if I don’t like who he likes I’m a supporter of deception. That doesn’t seem fair.

      Expert misreading.

      Or are you going to try and tell us you resent McIntyre for his bad haircut?

  20. I’ve watched this debate for nearly a decade and a couple of things have stuck out.

    First, the IPCC was conceived politically rather than scientifically and therefore the language and attitudes of the IPCC and its supporters tend to be political. Words like consensus, dissent, skeptic and denier are all profoundly political.

    Political discourse is very different in intention than scientific discussion: in politics the objective is to win and have your views implemented. In science, at least science before politics get involved, the objective is to find out what is true about nature.

    If you make a mistake in politics your enemies/opponents jump on it and try to use it to destroy your credibility and people’s trust in you. In science mistakes are part of the process and, while you want to avoid them, do not harm reputation if they are made intelligently.

    There is some truth to the idea that the rancor in climate arose because of the McIntyre/Mann tussle. People like Hansen, Jones, Trenberth, Gavin and so on lined up behind Mann despite knowing that his science was not terrifically robust. This was not a very scientific thing to do.

    The situation was made much worse by the non-scientific cheersleaders like Joe Rohm and the zealots at Desmog and ScepticalScience. Once they became engaged what had been a semi-scientific discussion became polemical.

    From a scientific perspective, given the state of the evidence and the relative immaturity of the various models, it would have been wise to avoid making broad claims or suggesting certainty in all but the most trivial areas. However, politically, modest claims hedged with uncertainty was not what was required to push the IPCC agenda.

    Which, in turn, made it very easy for skeptics to ridicule the more outlandish claims. It also made it pretty much inevitable that Nature itself would refute or call into question the “certainties” which the more political scientists had been feeding to their political masters.

    The “pause”, the stubborn persistence of Arctic ice, the expansion of Antarctic ice, the rise of non-CO2 based explanations for observed warming, the absence of abnormal sea level rise and the ongoing downward revision of CO2 sensitivity have all undermined the authority of “mainstream” political climate science.

    The fact is that climate science was and remains too immature to bear the huge political weight the “greens” have placed upon it. Intelligent climate scientists implicitly recognize this as they seek the political neutrality of uncertainty. In hindsight, I suspect many climate scientists rather wished they had never forsaken the perfectly respectable “uncertain” position which an infant discipline should adopt in the face of the unknown.

    While uncertainty will not satisfy the eco warriors it has the virtue of being intellectually honest. A virtue which a scientist should prize far beyond the transient satisfactions of policy advocacy.

    • Latimer Alder

      @Jay Currie

      +1

    • Theo Goodwin

      “From a scientific perspective, given the state of the evidence and the relative immaturity of the various models, it would have been wise to avoid making broad claims or suggesting certainty in all but the most trivial areas. However, politically, modest claims hedged with uncertainty was not what was required to push the IPCC agenda.

      The fact is that climate science was and remains too immature to bear the huge political weight the “greens” have placed upon it. Intelligent climate scientists implicitly recognize this as they seek the political neutrality of uncertainty. In hindsight, I suspect many climate scientists rather wished they had never forsaken the perfectly respectable “uncertain” position which an infant discipline should adopt in the face of the unknown.

      While uncertainty will not satisfy the eco warriors it has the virtue of being intellectually honest. A virtue which a scientist should prize far beyond the transient satisfactions of policy advocacy.”

      Spot on, Dr. Curry. Once the history of this mess is settled, it will be recorded in these words. The great fault of Alarmists has been to claim too much for a science that is in its infancy.

      • Theo, this is a good post, but “Jay Currie” is not our beloved Dr Judith Curry, as you appear (from using “Dr Curry”) to assume.

      • Theo Goodwin

        Faustino,

        Thanks. Up too late again. Though I continue to applaud the remarks that I quoted.

    • “the stubborn persistence of Arctic ice”

      This folks is why climate deniers have little credibility.

    • +10 Another one right on target – well said.

  21. > Allegiance to the ‘consensus’ and the social contract between the scientists, institutions and policy makers that has been very beneficial to the field of climate scientists.

    If true, that would provide a motivation for some climate scientists.

    INTEGRITY ™ – Never Attack Motivation, Describe It

  22. While the ocean is complex and both JC and KT have focused on that in their careers and discussion, the land is simpler to follow as only the top few meters interact with the atmosphere on decadal scales, no circulations or deep interactions, etc., and more direct observations. We can look how the land temperature has been changing, for example here.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:120/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:120

    We see that the last 30 years that the land (red) has been warming twice as fast as the ocean (green). Its rate corresponds to 4 C per doubling. I think more attention is needed to land temperatures as they respond to forcing more quickly, and this type of plot graphically displays something new going on since 1980.

    • Jimd

      If we look at a single temperature record instead of the noisy global one we can see that the 1980 rise has reversed itself

      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

      Tonyb

    • “. I think more attention is needed to land temperatures as they respond to forcing more quickly”

      Bollocks. There has been no change in rate of warming, Tmax, and rate of cooling in Antarctica. Any CO2 driven photon reccing mechanism should increase the rate of summer warming, increase the Tmax and slow the rate of cooling.
      If you believe in ‘global warming’ explain the differential response to the same “FORCING”, in the two hemispheres, and do so using normal thermodynamic and kinetic descriptions and not the ‘climate science only’ nomenclature.

      • Just as summer warms more over land, so climate warms more over land. It is quite easy to see how thermal inertia is important in response rates. The hemispheres are consistent with their land fractions, and the land furthest from the ocean responds more, which also favors the northern hemisphere.

      • CH, unless they can explain how the land warming leads the ocean warming in this last phase on my graph, what they are talking about has no relevance. I think they are just talking about seeing short-term El Nino signals over land which I don’t disagree with, but when it comes to decadal trends, it is a different story as we see from the graph.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘CH, unless they can explain how the land warming leads the ocean warming in this last phase on my graph…’

        It doesn’t Jim – you’re imagining things. This comes from eyeballing in woods for dimwits graphs with 10 year smoothing.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1970

        ‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans.’

        ‘It’ is not all that relevant.

        The idea is to bring some actual knowledge and science to the table. Not simply pull it out of your arse. If you took any time at all to review the Dietmar Dommenget paper you would see that it has absolutely nothing to do with ENSO and everything to do with long tern data and modelling periods of up to 2000 years.

      • CH, that explanation is consistent with thermal inertia if you think about it. It is easier to heat the land because it can lose less heat by evaporation. Drier land responds most to forcing, e.g. deserts.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Yes all – or thereabouts – the thermal inertia is in the oceans.

      • CH, good, thermal inertia explains why land warms more in the daytime, in the summertime, and under any other positive forcing. This was my point. The land warming more is a signature of positive forcing.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘In fact, after the sea surface temperature, soil wetness and snow mass
        are the most important “memory” mechanisms for time scales ranging
        from weeks to seasons.’

        http://www.ecmwf.int/newsevents/training/lecture_notes/pdf_files/PARAM/Rol_land.pdf

        Water availability is the prime factor at low levels (not in the troposphere) over land as the Dommenget study says – but by far the ‘memory mechanism’ (80% to 90%) is oceans. Oceans drive land temperatures.

        Through the larger area of oceans and greater thermal inertia and with greater water availability over oceans to transport energy. Fundamental and not secondary processes.

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=10

      • JimD clearly has the stronger scientific argument in this case. To argue against it, you must come up with an alternative model, but all the Chief can do is unintentionally reinforce the low-thermal-inertia land heating model..

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Oceans maintain a store of energy that moderates temperature changes globally. Oceans force global temperatures.

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=10

        The difference in surface temperature is the result of reduced water availability over land. It influences surface temperature but not tropospheric temperature – as suggested by the Met Office notes supplied.

        ‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. In this study it is illustrated that this land–sea contrast exists also on interannual time scales and that the ocean–land interaction is strongly asymmetric. The land surface temperature is more sensitive to the oceans than the oceans are to the land surface temperature, which is related to the processes causing the land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios. It suggests that the ocean’s natural variability and change is leading to variability and change with enhanced magnitudes over the continents, causing much of the longer-time-scale (decadal) global-scale continental climate variability. Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1

        I have as usual supplied peer reviewed science that directly addresses the issue. Webby and Jim as usual supply nothing but what they pull out of their arses – webby enters the twilight zone by calling for citations below. These guys are a science free zone.

      • Chief, you lost this one too. I am curious when you will become angry and adopt one of your other sockpuppet names to express your outrage.

        Very Hulk-like in the way you respond to getting feedback.

        Larrikins like to mock, but they can’t handle it when the tables are turned. 

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Webster – you routinely miss the central concept in any discussion. You then p_ss around calculating climate trivia and ponce around as if you have then discovered quantum mechanics. The sad fact is that you then get the climate trivia wrong – as in the 5E+22 J/yr increase in ocean heat content just yesterday. I usually wonder how you possibly survive as an engineer with such utter mathematical incompetence. I can only think you have a severely limited range of expertise and just do the same thing over and over using a cook book. Either that or you are simply a ‘manager’.

        I had a discussion on the last open thread on the statistically nonstationary nature of the ENSO time series. You repeated – amidst abuse – that the series reverted to the mean without obviously having any idea the statistical meaning of monstationarity. Finally – your claim was that something stopped ENSO from reverting to the mean and that I believed in perpetual motion.

        ‘There are a couple of ENSO theories – chaotic oscillator or stochastically forced. – http://www.pims.math.ca/files/kleeman_3.pdf – In either case the statistical series is non-stationary over decades to millennia.

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/23/open-thread-weekend-29/#comment-369132

        WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | August 25, 2013 at 12:58 pm |

        Chief, it always reverts to the mean.
        What causes the mean value? It’s the forcing, stupid.
        What a large tool, and multiple sockpuppet abuser you are

        WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | August 26, 2013 at 8:58 am |

        ‘Chief, Something causes reversion away (sic) from the mean.
        You are like a believer in perpetual motion machines.

        Chief is a multiple sockpuppet abuser and believer in perpetual motion — what a combination.

        So forcing causes both reversion to and reversion away (sic) from the mean.

        Your ignorance and dishonesty is astonishing.

      • “The sad fact is that you then get the climate trivia wrong – as in the 5E+22 J/yr increase in ocean heat content just yesterday. ”

        I said that was a big number and then the original commenter corrected it by saying they intended to say it was 5E+22 J/decade. Per decade, not per year.

        Chief, you are a gutless wonder. A gutless wonder is somebody that is all talk and no action. I doubt you could do any kind of model on your own.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        “Please put the amount you so frequenty cite – 5 x 10^22 joules per annum in context. “

        That is a big heat sink, see this
        http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html

        And of course I avoided your silly little blog – I always do these days. Your ‘model’ vaguely reproduces ocean heat content – smooths and simplifies and has absolutely no point at all.

        I of course model many things – floods, groundwater, water quality, estuaries, waves, sediment plumes, biology even. I just don’t incorrectly calculate climate trivia – like incorrectly derived dry adiabatic lapse rates – and then ponce about like I’ve discovered quantum mechanics. Give it a break – you are fundamentally shallow and irrelevant.

      • “I of course model many things – floods, groundwater, water quality, estuaries, waves, sediment plumes, biology even.”

        Sure you do. Probably with play-doh and a garden hose.

        What a poseur you are Chief.

    • Jim D | August 24, 2013 at 5:17 pm
      I think more attention is needed to land temperatures as they respond to forcing more quickly, and this type of plot graphically displays something new going on since 1980.
      >>
      So you’ve found something the alarmist Establishment has missed ?

      • No, they haven’t missed it, but the “skeptics” have avoided it in their chaos/uncertainty ideas that are completely associated with the ocean. Meanwhile we have this land signal that is even bigger and clearer and not discussed. The elephant in the room.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The pink elephant in the room.

      • Nonsense. The skeptics haven’t discussed it (land temperatures) because the “scientists” haven’t pinned much on it. You really do seem to think you’ve found something the motivated alarmist Establishment has missed.

        Yes folks, what he’s found is that well-known pink elephant in the room. The one that also has the power of aviation, much like its porcine cousins.

      • But of course! The ‘D’ in “Jim D” stands for Dumbo.
        Heck, Jim, why not just post as Dumbo from now on?

      • So, out of interest, what is the “skeptical” explanation for why the land is warming at a rate of 4 C per doubling (0.3 C per decade). I don’t think I have seen it, unless UHI is alive and well and living in Siberia.

      • JimD,
        Evaporation from oceans 361*10^12 m3 per year
        Precipitation on to oceans 324*10^12 m3 per year

        Evaporation from land 62*10^12 m3 per year
        Precipitation on to oceans 99*10^12 m3 per year

        Average rainfall on Oceans p.a. 1.1 meters
        Average rainfall on Land p.a. 1.5 meters

        So we have incoming radiation being converted to latent heat over the oceans, then moving over the land, then being converted into sensible heat. So the system can be in steady state and yet have a differential thermal gradient.
        Ain’t physics fun when you have a dynamic, non-equilibrium system.

      • DocM, but the graph shows it is not a steady state. It is diverging. The ocean can’t keep up with the land warming. At some point, the land will be so much warmer than the ocean, the clouds and rain will reduce over land drying it and making the situation worse, possibly.

      • Jim D, do you know what a steady state is?
        Do you know the difference between a steady state and an equilibrium?
        Have you perchance noticed the change in temperature between 5 in the morning and 2:30 in the afternoon?
        You might also note the difference in ‘average’ temperature between summer and winter.
        Note also that the interplay between components of the planets is continuous, and not based on a generalized average over a year, decade or century.
        Have a little think and work out why there is more rainfall over land than over water, and see if this is due to a difference between ‘yearly averages’ in some measurable parameter.

      • DocM, I know a divergence when I see it, and that is not a steady state. The temperature gradient is growing seemingly linearly without slowing leading to a different world from before 1980 when the temperatures moved more in sync. The relative humidity over continents has to drop with this divergence, and I think that is starting to be observed.

      • Well JimD, I just plotted HADCRU SST vs. BEST for the period 1850-1980 and for 1980-2012

        SST = 0.4388*(BEST) – 0.05; R² = 0.7787 (1980-2012)

        SST = 0.4223*(BEST) – 0.1373; R² = 0.5478 (1850-1980)

        Where is this decoupling of land from ocean?

      • DocM, here in case you missed it.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:120/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:120

        It is quite obvious. I use CRUTEM not BEST as it includes more recent years. According to your numbers the land has always warmed at twice the rate of the ocean? Weird. It doesn’t look like it when you plot it against a time axis. They look to be 1:1 most of the time before 1980 then 2:1. See what I mean?

      • @Jim D
        So, out of interest, what is the “skeptical” explanation for why the land is warming at a rate of 4 C per doubling (0.3 C per decade). .

        So, out of interest, why have you still not told us the explanation for why the mainstream climate “science” largely ignores this alleged winning point, while you alone trumpet it ? Could it be that this is stretching things even more than they do, if that is possible?

      • “Where is this decoupling of land from ocean?”

        If it wasn’t coupled, we would need a different model.

        It’s good that the deniers want to talk about the divergence between land and ocean temperature temperature rise. That leads naturally to an explanation of how the ocean heat content is rising at the rate it is.

        You see, the ocean’s heat capacity is masking the sea surface temperature rise by absorbing the excess heat. As JimD continues to point out, the land has no such mechanism, so its temperature rises approximately twice as fast as the SST does.

        I will patiently wait for an alternative model that can explain this divergence in rate, replete with citations to scientific research. One just can’t say that the land is warmer, but it is the rate that needs explanation.

      • Gina is right. It is a winning point that the land is responding to the forcing on its own and obviously faster than the ocean. Thermal inertia is a little hard to explain to Joe Public, but I would say that the daytime heating of the land is faster than the ocean, the summertime warm-up is faster too, both due to the lower thermal inertia of land. In fact land responds more quickly to any forcing and is a meter for any changes in forcing. So, like daytime and summer, it responds to climate forcing faster too. it doesn’t have internal circulations to confuse the picture either. It is a very direct measurement.

      • Regarding the above, poetically you might call climate change “The Endless Summer”. With a tendency towards hotter, drier, less cloudy conditions than before in continental areas, if this divergence continues.

      • @Jim D
        Gina is right. It is a winning point that the land is responding to the forcing on its own and obviously faster than the ocean.

        So how do you explain the failure of the motivated alarmist consensus to seize on it ? Why is it only you ?
        Are you even more committed to proving CAGW than they are ?
        Or do they, as much as they want a winning point, realize yours is worthless ?

      • Heh, Human Heat Islands.
        ====================

      • “So how do you explain the failure of the motivated alarmist consensus to seize on it ? Why is it only you ?”

        It isn’t only him Gina, you need to pay more attention. Less reckless abandon and blind denial please, this is the future of our planet we are talking about.

      • My apologies, it’s not only Jim D that is pushing the land temperature issue – lolwot is now lending a hand.

      • The Human Heat Island Effect will be pusillanimous against glaciers. We’ll still have to retreat to the Equatorial Cities, modeled after jellyfish. Get the first issue of the new journal; the next issue will explore implanting the human genome directly into jellyfish.

        Oh, hi there Danny Bloom.
        ==========

      • Here is the plot of sea surface temperature and land temperature, for the northern hemisphere, from 1851-1970 and from 1970-2013.
        (CRUTEM4 and HADSST2 data)

        One can observe that the coupling of the two temperature series is both tight and is unchanged either side of 1970.

        The SH is less clean, mostly because of the noise and there are steps i the SST around 1897 and 1944. But there does not appear to be a clean transition in coupling in the modern period.

      • Gina brings up a point that nobody else is trumpeting the land only warming as indicative of climate sensitivity. I would add that not only did the experts not highlight the ocean compared to land divergence on the GISS web page they also deleted it. Why hide such good evidence?


      • steven | August 26, 2013 at 8:14 am |

        Gina brings up a point that nobody else is trumpeting the land only warming as indicative of climate sensitivity. I would add that not only did the experts not highlight the ocean compared to land divergence on the GISS web page they also deleted it. Why hide such good evidence?

        What are you talking about? James Hansen has been pushing this idea for years. Look at his figure showing what happens when the ocean sinks the heat (I added data points to his original 1981 paper)

        More info here:

        http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/stochastic-analysis-of-log-sensitivity.html

        Little steven, you really are quite the fool. Don’t have the wherewithal to elaborate on your thesis as a real scientist would, so you keep blabbering on and on.

      • Web, saying that the warming of the land will be faster than the warming of the ocean is not the same thing as saying the land will warm while the ocean stops warming. If I were a fool I’d love to have invented you as my joke but I’m afraid that one has been told so many times now it has stopped being funny and is now just a nuisance.

      • The oceans will continue to absorb excess heat and the SST will continue to rise, but at half the rate of the land.

        That is the theory and it has been borne out by observations.

        Watch what happens.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Hansen in his 1981 paper used a ‘box model’ to distribute heat between the atmosphere and oceans. It assumes diffusion from the atmosphere to the oceans. The actual physics don’t work like that – and I assume Hansen understands that because the concepts are ultimately very simple. Webby has a problem with reality however – he substitutes his own.

        The oceans and the land are heated by shortwave radiation. The oceans warm until the losses to the atmosphere are approximately equal to the gains from sunlight. The oceans provide a source of warmth that is there regardless of changes in incoming and outgoing energy. Land gains and loses energy with very little thermal inertia. It warms and cools with higher ranges and retains little warmth. The oceans moderate global temperature.

        This is the real science of the land/ocean contrast.

        ‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. In this study it is illustrated that this land–sea contrast exists also on interannual time scales and that the ocean–land interaction is strongly asymmetric. The land surface temperature is more sensitive to the oceans than the oceans are to the land surface temperature, which is related to the processes causing the land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios. It suggests that the ocean’s natural variability and change is leading to variability and change with enhanced magnitudes over the continents, causing much of the longer-time-scale (decadal) global-scale continental climate variability. Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’

        Emphasis mine. Continental warming is 80% to 90% forced by ocean warming.

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=11

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1

        Although ‘contemporaneous ocean warming’ at the end of the last millennium seems more driven by positive changes in net forcing at toa – which is entirely in the shortwave.

        e.g. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=129

        This is what science and the data actually says. Webby is so bizarrely unable to process anything that doesn’t agree with his internal narrative. He is an interweb nut case complete with incompetent and simplistic web science and absolutely no real climate science in sight. If you discount Hansen’s 1981 study which he misinterprets.

      • Don’t listen to what The Chief Impediment says as it is completely wrong.

        The Chief is an impediment to understanding. He does this stuff because he has this constant urge to mock authority.

        The other deniers encourage him because he adds to the FUD.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Object to actual science webby? I’m not surprised.

      • Gina, as I mentioned, the reason land is not gaining much traction is that Joe Public doesn’t understand thermal inertia. Some of the “skeptics” still want UHI to explain it (even in Siberia and interior Canada), but they are just waiting for Watts to figure out how to “adjust” his station data in the correct way to show it.

      • Jim D,
        The question you keep ducking, is not why Joe Public has not latched on to the land temperature issue, but why the government shills haven’t. Why are the climate “scientists” overlooking this “winning” point of yours?

      • http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:120/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:120

        It is hard to overlook that the green (land) line is twice as steep as the red (global) line in the last 30 years and its trends lead the rise in 1970. I predict they will pay more attention to this if the “pause” goes on, but the “pause” could break first. Maybe they would be accused of changing horses in the middle of the race if they switch to land as the main measure now.

  23. Steven Mosher

    Judith you can say all sorts of things and remain inside the consensus because the consensus is underdetermined by the science. What you cannot do is cross certain thin green lines: you cannot talk about climategate in the way you do and you cannot criticize the IPCC except where it is too “conversative” such as in ice loss. And you cannot talk to skeptics or give them a place to demonstrate their nonsense

    • Theo Goodwin

      Is this intended as helpful advice or something else?

      • Steven Mosher

        something else.

        Lets put it this way. Judith wasnt kicked off the island because of her science, because the island is not defined by “the science”. She was kicked off for breaking certain rules that have nothing to do with science:
        talking to McIntyre, taking a hard line on climategate..

        Im not suggesting she change anything. Im pointing out that island climate is not defined by adherence to certain science beliefs.

        Its kinda the same with Island skeptic.

      • The difference is, there’s no consensus on Island Skeptic, and thus no process for tossing anybody off.

      • John Carpenter

        “The difference is, there’s no consensus on Island Skeptic, and thus no process for tossing anybody off.”

        Yeah well, I’m not sure there is a process for tossing people off island climate either, just criteria. Where there may be an island climate, it might be more accurate to say there is an archipelago skeptic.

      • > I’m not sure there is a process for tossing people off island climate[.]

        Scientists vote with their citations.

      • Wegman’s fluorescent echo bubble chamber.
        ============

      • Latimer Alder

        Folks

        Just to alert you that in the UK ‘being tossed off’ has an alternative meaning that may mean something different than you mean.

        But then, on reflection, I am in some sympathy with the idea that those who required Judith to leave Consensus Island are indeed a Bunch of Tossers

      • Getting kicked off the consensus island is like getting kicked off Gilligan’s Island. It’s hardly a loss to leave behind a bunch of intellectual Gilligan’s (Michael Mann) and Thurston Howell IIIs (Algore).

      • ” GaryM | August 25, 2013 at 12:17 am |

        Getting kicked off the consensus island is like getting kicked off Gilligan’s Island. “

        GaryM,
        Bad move, citing Gilligan’s Island. Your side has characters the likes of Captain Dallas and Captain Kangaroo (the sockpuppet known also as Chief Hydrologist, Dr. Dunderhead, and Generalissimo Skippy) trying to steer your ship.

        Those are the captains of industry that are taking you way off course and stranded on a deserted island.

        It is all so very comical.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Yeah well, I’m not sure there is a process for tossing people off island climate either, just criteria.”

        It works better if there ISNT a process or set of criteria.
        There will of course be exemplars for exile. Do X and you are history.
        But it works better if there is no clear criteria. That way people are reticent to test boundaries and they look to others to figure out what is allowed and what is not allowed.

        then there are groomers like willard

        The other way you can look at this is the process must be opaque. Its something that cannot be discussed because if you discuss it they it becomes readily apparent that the tribe is not what it purports to be. iThe more arbitrary the application of power to marginal members the better.

        You see other people looking at judith and wondering ‘what did she do?”
        And each will try to explain which rule she violated. There isnt any chief to say which rule, so of course everyone who sees the exile moderates their own behavior based on their interpretation. So its vital that her sin never be named. To her it must look arbitrary that way she cannot figure out a way back in. To others in the group, they must come to some interpretatioin so they can avoid the same fate, and the arbitrary nature of the excommunication serves to homogenize group behavior.

      • This islands model works for other tribes as well. Who in the news was tossed off Hispanic island?

    • Mosh

      Are you on your phone again when posting this?
      What on earth does this cryptic comment mean?
      Tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        Long ago I used to say this

        Global warming is true and Mann was wrong to call McIntyre an oil shill.

        Now of course the second part has nothing to do with the science. But if you belong to the consensus you cant utter that sentence.

        The consensus “appears” as a body of scientific knowledge when it fact it is not. To belong to the consensus you have to believe certain science things that almost no one denies, but more importantly you have to avoid certain topics or hold the party line on those topics.

        So, if you take a position of climategate as Judith and I do, which is outside the official line, then they will treat you like you disagree with the science. They have to pretend that the consensus is about the science when it is not. And you can prove its not about the science by taking certain positions across the thin green lines. AGW is right, Mann was wrong. If you cross that line it doesnt matter what your science position is

        So what Judith, Tamsin, and Muller all did was they crossed certain lines that are utterly unrelated to the scientific truth of global warming. On the science they are “in the tribe” but the tribe isnt defined by that science, the center is hollow and vapid, what defines the tribe is adherence to a set of behaviors that have nothing to do with the founding principle.

        Think of it this way. Judith is like an uncircumsized jew. She may believe in the core religion, but shes need to visit the Mohel and get a bit of symbolic flesh removed at least in the eyes of the tribe. She wont belong until she follows certain rules that have nothing whatsover to do with the science

        What I am saying is that the things Judith does ( talk to skeptics, critcize the IPCC, talk about climategate ) are

        1. utterly unrelated to the science
        2. the very actions that make people think she is outside the consensus
        of science.

      • @Mosh
        What I am saying is that the things Judith does ( talk to skeptics, critcize the IPCC, talk about climategate ) are
        1. utterly unrelated to the science
        2. the very actions that make people think she is outside the consensus
        of science.
        >>
        Only if you think the *process* of science is unrelated to the science.

      • Steven Mosher

        mephis

        “Only if you think the *process* of science is unrelated to the science.”

        Lets see.

        1. Co2 causes warming

        2. Judith invites Mcintyre to georgia tech

        3. Did C02 change it’s radiative powers?

        Les see

        1. The planet is getting warmer

        2. Phil Jones violated FOIA rulez

        3. Did that change the historical temperatures.

        yes the process of science is important, that process would in fact explain why and how judiths actions are utterly UNRELATED to the science, to the facts of the matter, and that she was banished from the island for matters utterly and totally unrelated to anything connected to the science.
        Boys can behave badly, but not girls.

      • Mosher said:

        “Think of it this way. Judith is like an uncircumsized jew.”
        ___________

        An amazing trick !

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘So what Judith, Tamsin, and Muller all did was they crossed certain lines that are utterly unrelated to the scientific truth of global warming.’

        When Judith talks about climate shifts we are no longer in Kansas – Toto – although it might take some time for the threshold to be finally crossed. .

      • My favorite line is Toto’s note to Dorothy: ‘Took the shoes. Find your own damn way home’.
        ==============

      • Of course McIntyre is not an oil shill. He is a tar sands mining shill.
        Big difference between drilling and mining.

      • Shills.
        The worst of all are the government shills. You know, the Consensus.

    • Or as Willis said, you can talk to the hand.

    • Mosh, given other comments, I will say that your intent was clear to me. Although I think you meant “undetermined’?

    • “Lets put it this way. Judith wasnt kicked off the island because of her science, because the island is not defined by “the science”.” – Steven Mosher.

      Agreed.

      “They deny that the scientific method can challenge scientific authority — that the institutions of science have more to say than the process of doing science.” – Ben Pike.
      Interesting take on it here: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2013/08/science-without-an-object.html

      The way I read Pike is, They pick up the Consensus stick and wave it around. If you look at the stick, there’s a note taped to it that reads, This I Is The Science, but it’s really not there. The Science is with the Scientists. Let’s look there.

  24. Dr Curry, you seem mighty bothered and hurt because you have been thrown off the “consensus island”. You shouldn’t be. You are right, they wrong. You did what all scientist should be doing: be faithful to science and facts, to the best of your ability and conscience.
    It is the “consensus” crowd who have thrown the science under the bus, and put advocacy before science. Shame on them, not on you.

  25. Chief Hydrologist

    You would be very much in the minority then Jim. On the wrong side in the climate debate?

    ‘Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’

    http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=10

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1

    • Ah Chief, that was a paper anyone can understand so must be wrong. You need a super-computer and years of training the program to run proper models

  26. David Springer

    willard (@nevaudit) | August 24, 2013 at 4:30 pm |

    In the words of Ron Broberg:

    Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

    http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

    Mann
    Jones
    Schmidt
    Trenberth

    Do you get it now?

    That is in the 1971 book “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. You didn’t know that?

    A pity top Fortune execs missed that training.

    By serendipity some get daily practice.

    Wrong. This is knowledge required to climb the corporate ladder. A senior VP at a Fortune 500 therefore must have it to get where they got.

    • David, you will find that it is generally people who can command loyalty, respect and can also pick effective subordinates who clime to the top.

      • Indeed, and some studies show that leaders are more likely to be sociopaths:

        http://bigthink.com/videos/leaders-are-more-likely-to-be-sociopaths

      • That’s true Willard – I’m sure a lot of politicians are sociopaths also.

      • Seems that somebody somewhere agrees with you, jim2:

        You gotta hand it to the GOP. They’re using wars they started, tax breaks they didn’t pay for and a financial crisis they didn’t prevent all to justify massive cuts they’ve always wanted to make to the middle class. Machiavelli would be envious.

        http://underthemountainbunker.com/2011/07/10/machiavelli-would-be-envious-of-todays-republican-party/

      • Has someone done an analysis of the mental health of sociologists?

        Willard, let me ask a question.

        Why do you think most clinicians are so aloof?

      • > Why do you think most clinicians are so aloof?

        It varies, I suppose, but one might guess a mix of self-awareness and non-judgementality, which are acquired through the necessary experiences of a wounded healer:

        [T]he wounded healer refers psychologically to the capacity “to be at home in the darkness of suffering and there to find germs of light and recovery with which, as though by enchantment, to bring forth Asclepius, the sunlike healer.” The archetype of the wounded healer reveals to us that it is only by being willing to face, consciously experience, and go through our wound do we receive its blessing. To go through our wound is to embrace, assent, and say “yes” to the mysteriously painful new place in ourselves where the wound is leading us. Going through our wound, we can allow ourselves to be re-created by the wound. Our wound is not a static entity, but rather a continually unfolding dynamic process that manifests, reveals and incarnates itself through us, which is to say that our wound is teaching us something about ourselves. Going through our wound means realizing we will never again be the same when we get to the other side of this initiatory process. Going through our wound is a genuine death experience, as our old self “dies” in the process, while a new, more expansive and empowered part of ourselves is potentially born.

        To represent this, the Greeks left us the myth of Chiron, the centaur who could cure anyone except himself. Chiron is essential to understand how astrologers talk of Sagittarius, i.e. the daily ruler of Jupiter. It’s at the basis of the “I’m only trying to help” I alluded to the other day.

        Interestingly, this only can help explain why there was so much debate to settle Jesus Christ’s birthday under the influence of this sign.

        It is a pity that scientists do not study these concepts.

        TL;DR; — I don’t know. Who cares? Here are some stories that structure our collective minds instead.

  27. This is absolutely hilarious.

    “And this is where Curry parts company most clearly with her peers. For example, the leading scientific organization for earth scientists, the American Geophysical Union, says in a position statement that climate change ‘requires urgent action.’”

    ‘Curry says[,] I just don’t know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don’t know.’

    By now, of course, Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy.”

    Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy? The AGU says CAGW “requires urgent action,” aka decarbonizatiohn, and Dr. Curry says “I don’t know” enough to make such a radical policy prescription. But it is Dr. Curry, not the AGU, who has abandoned science for public policy?

    I swear, it’s the deaf interviewing the blind, being supported by the stupid.

    • Are you calling the taxpayers stupid?

      • Stupid sound a bit harsh:

        Of the 100 largest public companies in the U.S. (as identified by the 2013 Fortune 500), at least 65 have subsidiaries or properties in the most commonly recognized tax haven countries.

        http://news.muckety.com/2013/07/29/us-companies-offshore-tax-shelters/43481

        Sucker might be more accurate, but it does not result from the most advanced mediarology. To that effect, we await our Fortune top 500 execs’ suggestions.

        Meanwhile, for more on mediarology, cf.

        http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html

      • willard,

        An uneducated member of the public who falls for the CAGW propaganda can properly be called a sucker. But for the educated “elite,” like the reporter who interviewed Dr. Curry, stupid applies. Not in the sense of lacking intelligence, but in lacking common sense. Willfully ignorant. Stupid.

      • Harold,

        No, I don’t consider most voters stupid. When theya re told what you progressives really want, they reject you in huge numbers. That is why decarbonization is called mitigation, or resilience, or protecting the children. because if you told them you wanted to charge them so much for gas and oil that they could no longer afford it, you would never win another election.

        My comment expressly related to CAGW “supporters.” meaning the drone reporter, and most pro-CAGW commenters here.

      • Nope, the nature of the framing required by Harris precludes ‘Willfully ignorant, stupid’. Generally the same question, the same question, is ‘ignorance or disingenuousness’. In this case, it’s the same answer, the same answer: Disingenuousness.

        Sadly, it’s blatant. When will they ever learn, ever learn?
        ============

      • kim,

        I rarely disagree with you, but here I do. Oh I agree the reporter is disingenuous. But that does not mean he is not willfully ignorant/stupid as well. The dishonesty is a tactic. The motivation is the blind acceptance of that which any amount of critical thought would demonstrate was false.

        But modern education, and modern progressive media, drives into default progressives the need to avoid critical thought. Read Pekaa Pirila’s comments elsewhere on this thread about not being willing to read Montford’s book.

        Dishonesty and stupidity are not mutually exclusive.

      • Oh, sure, I guess the question is not really an either/or one.
        ============

      • > Willfully ignorant. Stupid.

        Whatever the mental property, I think Judy’s observation applies when it’s used to characterize scientists:

        Your credibility is reduced and your own [insert your favorite mental property] are questioned when you attack the [mental property inserted in the first slot] of another scientist.

        Populists like GaryM are well advise to extend this observation to the public in general.

      • Heh, ignorant and disingenuous both apply here.
        =========

      • David Springer

        Stupid is as stupid does.

  28. Steven Mosher

    Damn I should have finished your article before I piped up.

    Let me touch on one point we made in our book

    “3. The selling of the merchant of doubt and war on science memes, which made uncertainty and doubt dirty words. My uncertainty monster flew directly in the face of this.”

    It did more than this. By positioning the opposition as merchants of doubt, the first law of marketing implies that the consensus is a merchant of certainty. Now note nobody ever says this, but our binary ways of thinking tend to trap folks into this conclusion. If I position my opponent as Expensive, you are naturally going to think that my product in in expensive.. even if its not.

    To make matters worse this stealth message that the consensus is certain was buttressed by things like “the debate is over” the science is settled.
    listen to experts. In short the science and what people say about it gets hi jacked by the first law of marketing. There is no helping it. It has a mind of its own which is ground in some of our most fundamental ways of thinking about things..

    As I’ve said before I think a better description of skeptics is that they are merchants of confusion. In this schema their confusion is countered by “or best explanation” or merchants of clarity. In this opposition science gets to keep its sub brand of “uncertainty”

    You, Tamsin, Muller have all crossed certain thin green lines. Whether its criticizing Mann, talking to McIntyre, challenging the temperature record, refusing to take a policy position, talking about uncertainty too much these lines are all boundaries that you cannot cross. And if you are already on the margin due to your gender, any flirtations with boundary crossing will be seen as dangerous ( and holy by others )

    some things to consider

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

    also, the figure of the trickster.. When Hansen called the folks at CA “jesters” I had a long deep chuckle

    The other day willard recommend Girard, I would second that.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Frankly – we have rarely seen such an abundance of pop psychology claptrap in a single comment.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Judith

        You may appreciate then how it is used in a modern pedagogical framework – http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html

        Other than that Mosh’s comment seems merely another of the symptoms of groupthink.

        1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
        2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
        3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
        4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
        5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
        6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
        7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
        8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

        Point 4 is relevant. Using terms such as ‘confusion’ and ‘jesters’ to describe opposition. Other groupthink practices inhibit the ability to grow in knowledge and understanding – thus are inimical to passing through conceptual gateways to open up new vistas.

        ‘Threshold Concepts’ may be considered to be “akin to passing through a portal” or “conceptual gateway” that opens up “previously inaccessible way[s] of thinking about something” (Meyer and Land [9]).’

        Thus ‘consensus science’ ceases to be science at all and is instead an expression of a psychopathology.

      • > [S]ymptoms of groupthink [...] an expression of a psychopathology.

        The alternative is to consider these traits as pervasive in group dynamics, as we can witness Denizens exhibiting most these items daily.

        The link does not lead to the typology, BTW.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The link leads to a modern pedagogical application of the idea of liminality.

        Try this instead – http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm

        Sceptics may individually certainly talk from a position of somewhat common cultural values – but the group dynamic applies especially well to the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets. There is no equivalence as I am fond of telling Joshua.

      • Thanks for the cite, Chief, and for this:

        > [T]he group dynamic applies especially well to the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets.

        which does sound like a stereotyped view of an out-group.

        So I agree with you: the #4 is quite relevant.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Although you should really look at the symptoms as a package.

      • CH, you miss something else. My wife started out as a research scientist and gave up research, like many do, because she found it hard to deal with failure. Most of the things we do fail, they fail because most of our guesstimates are wrong. We design experiments to test our postulates and normally our postulates are demolished. If you have the sort of personality that doesn’t mind failure, your in. If you get depressed that you quite beautiful hypothesis is complete tosh, you crumble.
        The temptation is not to test your postulate at all, but to just make your hypothesis more and more complex; epicycles on epicycles.
        At the moment we have the ‘pause’.
        The longer it goes on the lower the estimate of ‘climate sensitivity’ must be. The models are being tested by nature, and not the modelers, but testing is occurring.
        The non-experimentalists will be buttressing their crumbling ivory towers using dust, black carbon, volcanoes, sulfates, CFC’s, sub-aquatic heat sinks and all manner of epicyclic tricks.
        However, the post-Doc’s and the young, freshly minted, untenured professors are becoming restless. These are the people who know where all the bodies are buried, they know all the fudges, approximations, simulations that give the ‘wrong’ results and what the older generation has been getting away with. The quickest way to rise is by stepping into dead-mans shoes and these people know where the daggers are.

      • DocMartyn

        “At the moment we have the ‘pause’.
        The longer it goes on the lower the estimate of ‘climate sensitivity’ must be. The models are being tested by nature, and not the modelers…..”

        A good comment but shouldn’t we consider that CS is a field in a Hilbert space and thus a vector rather than as a singular constant?

      • Doc, please curb those grocer’s apostrophes dude.

      • “Doc, please curb those grocer’s apostrophes dude”

        I was never taught English Language at school, so I have tended to make up rules for writing as I go along.

    • Steve, I think you are quite correct as to the green lines; but I don’t think it is marketing, rather it is the political purpose which has underlain the IPCC process.

      As I said above, the IPCC was and is a political not a scientific organization. As I write, political people are editing the 5th IPCC report. They are not editing with an eye to making the science clearer. They are editing to try to bring the science into conformity with the IPCC agenda.

      Critically, the IPCC’s mandate is to explicate “man made” global warming. It is there to provide the scientific ammunition to buttress “solutions” to the “problem” posed by CO2 emissions. Now, politically, science which suggests that there is no problem or that the problem is not terrifically serious is unhelpful. Unhelpful science will tend to be left out of the IPCCs reports. Whether this is done at the lead author level, the reviewer level or in the political “edit” is immaterial.

      Thus, the political goals of the IPCC shape what counts as consensus science. If someone does a scientifically rigorous analysis which proves that CO2 sensitivity is .5 degrees per doubling, the political goals of the IPCC mean that this science will be depreciated at best, ignored at worst.

      Sceptics take a lot of stick for pointing out that the 1992 Rio conference had an essentially predetermined environmentalist agenda. However, a close look at the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which includes the precautionary principle makes that agenda clear.

      So, the consensus itself is a political construct having very little to do with science. In fact, the consensus operates as a filter on the science designed to screen out science which is unhelpful to the IPCC agenda.

      • Testing by nachur
        is best,
        never mind
        the rest,
        appeal ter
        consensus,
        adjustment
        or buttress,
        methodoligically
        worthless
        and finally

        fruitless

        bts

      • Bingo !! Spot on !
        This is the most difficult issue for people to acknowledge.
        That the IPCC by design was explicitly a political process (with a preordained desired outcome), not a scientific one.
        I myself struggled mightily to reject this conclusion, because it required me to overturn some cherished beliefs of my own.!

      • Latimer Alder

        @brent

        The ‘I’ in ‘IPCC’ makes it clear.

        It is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

        By its own name it is a political body. And though carefully selected and government-approved scientists have an important input to its work, the finished product is essentially a political document.

      • That there’s stuff goin’ down in naychur we don’t know is
        recognised by the methods and skepticism of science.
        Naychur rules This in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean,
        posted in comments at Jennifer Marohasy.

        http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/atlantic-ocean-floor-unexpectedly-pumping-iron-130820.htm

      • The summaries are, indeed, finalized by government representatives, but not all of them are on the same side in the debate, and the final outcome is a compromise acceptable to all.

        The working group reports are written by scientists, but governments participate in the review process and have trough that some influence on the outcome. All formal decision making of IPCC is done by government representatives. Thus they decide also, how the authors are selected. One problem is that some chapters may have an authorship where too few are really active and dominate too much when some of the others just fill the quota. This is a problem in all international collaboration.

      • Thanks Jay Currie your comments about the IPCC were always obvious to me. Organizations (Business or Gov.) tend to do what they say they will do.

    • a new word, liminality, i like it :)

      • Michael Larkin

        You’ve probably heard it before, Judith, in the word “subliminal”, meaning “below the threshold” (usually of consciousness). Climate science, it could be argued, is also subliminal in the sense that it’s below the threshold of being a mature science–unlike, say, chemistry.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        preliminary – liminary – postliminary

        ‘Liminal states: This space is likened to that which adolescents inhabit: – not yet adults; not quite children. It is an unstable space in which the learner may oscillate between old and emergent understandings just as adolescents often move between adult-like and child-like responses to their transitional status. But once a learner enters this liminal space, she is engaged with the project of mastery unlike the learner who remains in a state of pre-liminality in which understandings are at best vague. The idea that learners enter into a liminal state in their attempts to grasp certain concepts in their subjects presents a powerful way of remembering that learning is both affective and cognitive and that it involves identity shifts which can entail troublesome, unsafe journeys. Often students construct their own conditions of safety through the practice of mimicry. In our research, we came across teachers who lamented this tendency among students to substitute mimicry for mastery.’ http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/24/who-is-on-which-side-in-the-climate-debate-anyways/#comment-369403

        http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html

      • Steven Mosher

        The most interesting characters are liminal.

        you can think of liminality as the space in between. neither outside nor inside, but able to occupy both.

        a liminal character may be viewed as polluting or dangerous. Note Judith that your old student was most concerned about the effect your words might have on others.. on the flip side they can be seen as holy.
        hence the difficulty people had placing you as either saint or heretic.

        Think about the inititiation process for a scientist..

        hmm maybe we need to talk about the “mad scientist” character in fiction and what they represent..

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Meyer and Land [12] have likened the crossing of the pedagogic threshold to a ‘rite of passage’ (drawing on the ethnographical studies of Gennep and Turner in which a transitional or liminal space has to be traversed; “in short, there is no simple passage in learning from ‘easy’ to ‘difficult’; mastery of a threshold concept often involves messy journeys back, forth and across conceptual terrain.’

        By definition it is a threshold – a portal – a passage. The passage may be messy – but once traversed there is a sense that there is a new heaven and new Earth. There is no going back. Adorning this idea with notions of saints and sinners seems quite unnecessary. They could be insiders – in the way of arcane knowledge in a field, as an adult for instance or as an initiate of some sort. They could be part of one of competing groups with disparate knowledge – old and new paradigms.

        Mad science – or the fear thereof – has a different wellspring.

    • Let’s clear something up here about the war skeptics are waging:

      It’s a war on corrupt science, and the politicized Merchants of Credulity who market it.

      • > It’s a war on corrupt science [...]

        A noble cause indeed.

      • Indeed, and swirlingly cleansed of corruption itself, such a cause, dontcha know?
        =========

      • Anti-science ideologues posing as skeptics don’t stand a chance in a war against science. They will get their sorry butts kicked.

      • Memphis,

        Let’s clear something up here about the war skeptics are waging:

        It’s a war on corrupt science, and the politicized Merchants of Credulity who market it.

        I’d say, for the vast majority of people, it’s not about the science at all, its about the economics and human well being.

        It’s a war on waste – enormous economic waste on hugely expensive mitigation policies that would deliver no benefits.

      • Max_OK

        “Anti-science ideologues” on either side of the debate do not have a chance against good ol’ Mother Nature (who still rules the climate game).

        Max_CH

      • Max-ok,
        The real problem we face is anti-science ideologues posing as scientists. Politically-funded climate scientists working to a politicizing agenda, pretending it is science. The IPCC lot, with their left/totalitarian outlook.

        That’s who skeptics are bringing to book. As amateurs, they may lack the hard science, but unlike the scientists they actually know how the process of science is meant to work – to advance objective correctness, not political correctness.

      • >> Skepticism is a war on corrupt science [...]

        @willard > A noble cause indeed.

        Yes. Quite distinct from Noble-Cause Corruption, such as that buttressing CAGW.

      • > Quite distinct from Noble-Cause Corruption[.]

        How so, Gina?

        Also note Chief’s typology:

        3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

        There are ethical and moral consequences in your decisions, Gina.

      • Willard asks what the difference is between pursuing Noble Causes
        (a) without
        (b) with
        the use of Corruption.

        If we take her to be a typical alarmist, it does go some way to explaining the nonchalant attitude to tactical fraud in the whole Consensus edifice.

      • Thank you, Gina.

        So, your war is noble, and your noble war does not contain any kind of corruption. That makes it an interesting kind of war.

        Please tell me more about how you fight your war.

      • You feign ignorance of what I speak? Why?
        What is so complicated or mysterious about trying to keep government climate science honest?

    • > [A] better description of skeptics is that they are merchants of confusion. In this schema their confusion is countered by “or best explanation” or merchants of clarity.

      The subtitle of Oreskes & Conway is How a Handful of ScientistsObscurred the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming:

      http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/keydocs.html

      Also note that the usual concept is FUD, an acronym which stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt:

      FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor’s product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

      Auditors might wonder who would like to brand oneself as a merchant of uncertainty.

      • Come to think of it, the never ending audit could very well be transposed in a formal dialog between Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

        This would be a bit less formal than Pinter’s own method:

        I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C.

        http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html

      • Willard

        How about “merchants of false certainty”?

        (Example: IPCC)

        Max

      • Where there is no real understanding, those like Oreskes who claim otherwise are the frauds. The skeptics are who point this out do us all a service; they spotlight rather than sow the confusion.

      • So you reckon the alarmists cannot themselves be guilty of FUD?

      • Merchandizing uncertainty irremediably portrays the opposition as selling certainty, perhaps more certainty than the opposition is willing to sell, e.g.:

        Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (Figure 2.3). The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture.

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-2.html

        This “very likely” does not express any certainty.

      • > So you reckon the alarmists cannot themselves be guilty of FUD?

        Fear, mostly. That’s why they are called “alarmists”, phatboy. They are being accused (not guilty, labels being just words) of exaggerating.

        Please mind that a counter reaction to alarmism (i.e. exaggeration) is called minimization:

        Minimisation is a type of deception involving denial coupled with rationalisation in situations where complete denial is implausible. It is the opposite of exaggeration.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_(psychology)

        ***

        Now, please tell me who’s Uncertainty and who’s Doubt.

        No need for “guilty of”.

        Thank you for your concerns.

      • Steven Mosher

        “The subtitle of Oreskes & Conway is How a Handful of ScientistsObscurred the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming:”

        I should not have to school you on the un importance of sub titles.
        You of course are entitled to your own facts, but you’d have to be a dunce to not recognize the shortcomings of merchants of doubt, when doubt and uncertainty plays such a visible role in science.

        you should sit through brand building exercises, since language is a social art I will suggest that you might benefit from sitting and watching folks who practice that art for pay. whats the harm?

      • The subtitle may be just an interesting coincidence.

        I think Oreskes & Conway used the expression “merchants of doubt” because of the famous 1969 Brown & Williamson document.

        Doubt is our product.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/302809431

        I would have talked of Smoke and Mirrors (NA has a tag for it), but I think that “merchants of doubt”, considered with this connotation in mind, has merits. It would be interesting to know which branding efforts are associated with doubt. It would be even more interesting to know which ones are associated with uncertainty.

        Do you think that uncertainty is Judy’s product, Moshpit?

        ***

        Now to the main argument. Recall that FUD “is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.” We’ll make three observations.

        First, note that we’re talking about perception here, not facts as we usually understand them. There’s no way to stop interpreting perceptions. It leads to what Stevan Harnad called, in another context, a hall of mirrors:

        http://philpapers.org/rec/HARLIT

        Second, note that one uses FUD to brand the competition. That means a brand is thus the result or two opposite marketing efforts. If I were a Fortune Top N exec, I might feel lukewarm to take the branding effort of a black hat marketer at face value, however charming may be his platonician theory of marketing by opposites.

        Third, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are three interrelated roles. Doubt will accuse Fear of selling fear, while Fear will accuse Doubt of selling doubt. What’s the role of Uncertainty in that trio? Overton may have a question like this in mind when he invented a window that could be stretched:

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

        ***

        In a nutshell, here’s what’s happening.

        Climateballers are raising concerns about other Climateballers’ credibility. It may look like an exercise of Monday Morning Quarterback (we are indeed monday morning), but that is the game that is being played. It looks like a fight, but it’s also a race to more credibility.

        The fight looks like a comedy of menace. The race looks like waiting for Godot. This is why I say that Climateball is basically a comedy of menace while waiting for Godot.

        ***

        Another word would be socialization, as such power struggles intensify around fourth grade:

        http://www.pbs.org/parents/raisinggirls/friends/elem1.html

        This kind of explanation has more bite than any islander analogy.

    • I cannot tell you how fascinating it is to watch Mosher deconstruct progressive propaganda cum marketing with such precision, when he so often engages in the same obscurantist tactics himself. Particularly in defense of all things modular.

      This is what the “consensus” really has to fear. If any of the key members, Jones, Schmidt, Trenberth, ever had a come to Jesus – sorry, come to Gaia – moment, the party would be over. It’s what prosecutors call flipping an insider. Mosher hasn’t actually really flipped, and isn’t really an insider, but he has his moments. And they’re fun to watch.

      • Mosher’s a lot more complex and interesting than the Jonses and Schmdts, but it wouldn’t matter which side he flipped on anyway.

        The ‘insider flip’ happened years ago, and he said “Harry Readme”. It might be dramatic if he decloaked, but it wouldn’t change anything. Frankly, nothing will change anything. Like Al Queda, too many people are ‘all in’ for anything to make any difference. The warmist ‘team’ will always be there, even through the next ice age. Waiting for the Great Pumpkin.

      • Waiting for willard to wonder well. Irrigating the little green sprouts in with the squash and the cukes.
        =============

      • Harold,

        HarryReadMe was not what I mean by a flip. And the anonymity of the releaser prevented it from having the impact that the flip of a major player would have.

        Nor am I predicting anything of the kind. Though I think Jones gave it real consideration when he first got nailed after climategate. But now that they have survive that, and Mann and Gleick keep their positions in the field, and the IPCC keeps staggering along, the prospects are slim. But still possible, and fun to contemplate.

      • > Irrigating the little green sprouts in with the squash and the cukes.

        Your Evil Clown act is getting boring, Koldie.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        wee willie has sounded the full depth of tedium and triviality long since.

      • Thank you for the kind words, Chief.

        Here’s an experiment. I won’t open or comment on any new topics in this thread. I reserve the right to comment if a commenter either reacts to my previous comments or invokes my name. That does not mean I will reappear, as I think I contributed more than enough so far.

        You can have all the dancing floor to yourself, now.

        Go ahead, show us some moves.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Wee Willie Winkie rins through the toon,
        Up stairs an’ doon stairs in his nicht-gown,
        Tirlin’ at the window, crying at the lock,
        “Are the weans in their bed, for it’s now ten o’clock?”

      • Steven Mosher

        some think this is related

      • The road to Damascus is a road not often travelled by climate scientists it appears, at least not until they approach retirement anyway. As for Voltaire, its best to cover all bets before one dies? ;)

      • More like plucking for the harmonics, moshe.
        =============

  29. Both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ are apprriate answers to the climate debate. Remember the debate is about climate, not models. Yes is appropriate for 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 1998 and No to the rest.
    As a scientific debate it is silly because it was confected by politicians.
    So from 1900 to the present: 58 years of Yes and 55 of No. Is there a winner?

    • 58 years of Yes and 55 of No

      And it looks like the “Nos” have it at the moment.

      But who knows for how long?

      (not even kim)

      Max

  30. R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

    This was a fantastic summary of perspectives. It would be nice to think that Trenberth might actually take the time to read it, though that is unlikely.

    Regarding oceans, the energy flux between ocean and atmosphere and the “pause”, don’t know exactly where Trenberth pulled the 20 year figure from, except that was roughly the time between the 1976/77 climate shift and the reversal of 1998. If we suppose, as Trenberth seems to, that oceans have been in a accumulation mode since 1998, then 2018 or 2019 might be time for another period of dicharge to begin. But this would only be if we’re looking at the Pacific only. As pointed out, the AMO could shift to a cool mode, and really complicate things. But what seems to missed by all sides currently is the affects that increasing GH gases may have on these ocean cycles. The assumption that we can simply extrapolate the future from the past clearly is completely wrong-headed when considering the substational external forcing that the human carbon volcano represents.

    • R Gates views the Human Carbon Cornucopia through smoked lenses.
      ===============

    • “The assumption that we can simply extrapolate the future from the past clearly is completely wrong-headed when considering the substational external forcing that the human carbon volcano represents”

      You sort of know that all science based predictions about the future and based on an understanding of the fundamental drivers of past events?
      Is it only in climate we are to throw our hands up in the air and say ‘anything can happen, but whatever happens will be bad’? Are our children going to turnout ‘bad’ because the grew up in a completely different society to their parents? Can we make no predictions about the best way to raise them in the internet age, because never before has humanity had the internet?
      Do you know that the spiral arm that the Earth belongs to was in this position, 225 million years ago, we were within 25 million years of two extinction level events? Should we be fearful?

      • We jest can’ predict and experts ain’t no better than the rest.

        Thomas Sowell and Nassim Taleb check out the record of
        the Ideas’ professions’, not so good.

        No matter, there’s little built in accountability in the ideas’
        profession, unlike fields of engineering and medicine,
        feedbacks don’t matter What counts is oracular profundity.
        Why, yer Erlich or yer Hansen can jest go right on prophesisin’ dooms-day till the cows come home, (or don’t.) Then there’s
        them Intellect-chual pundits welcoming peace in our time
        agreements, confidentaly forecasting the length of an impending
        world war, foretelling visionary Utopean outcomes ter Stalinist or
        Maoist political experiments or long range forecasts fer every
        other goddam political interackshun ……….. ‘n if their wrong,
        jest fergit about it or innoculate yer theory. Not ter worry.
        bts

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        What I am getting at Doc is the notion of the perturbing a chaotic system by an external forcing, and thinking that you can predict what will happen based on the history of that chaotic system just prior to perturbing it. The natural cycles of PDO, AMO, ENSO, can’t be expected to guide us in our predictions for the future as those cycles themselves will experience the perturbation.

      • R.A. Gates, look at this:-

        It is a Thomson Tide Machine (Lord Kelvin) and successfully predicts the tides and tide levels, using reduction gears.
        Now just because you throw the word ‘chaos’ around doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about.
        This isn’t Jurassic Park and you are no Jeff Goldberg.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        That’s a very nice machine Doc. Too bad chaotic systems do not operate like machines, eh? They are just as deterministic as your nice machine, but far too many variables, feedbacks, etc. to model accurately. Hence why climate models will always be wrong in specifics, even if they have general dynamics correct.

        Yes, I am no Jeff Goldberg, as he is an actor who learned some lines to make it sound like he was actually knowledgeable about Chaos theory. It was all an illusion to fool and entertain the audience. I prefer actually knowing something about it, for my own enlightenment.

      • “…these oscillators (PDO, ENSO, NAO, NPO) are in reality not causally independent but they are ALL just emergent local manifestations of GLOBAL dynamics of the system.” – Tomas Milanovic.

        http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/04/scenarios-2010-2040-part-iii-climate-shifts/

        I am no Jeff Goldblum. I am more like that guy who focused on raptor 1 and didn’t see raptor 2 until it was too late.

        Off topic perhaps Ragnaar’s picture de jour: http://oceanmotion.org/images/impact/95324main_v39n2-big.gif

        Showing Ocean currents around Greenland. Does anyone care to enlighten me if those currents meander more at times and less at times?

        The other thing the picture says to me is spend research dollars here. It would seem to be as seeing that the narrow Bering Straight is the only other outlet for the Arctic Ocean, there’s a lot going on here.

      • Doc Gates,
        The great thing about complex non-equilibrium thermodynamics is that it can make really smart people look like idiots. The wrong assumption here, poor choice of reference there, next thing you know you have the signs wrong.

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-sign-was-that-again.html

        Like land use for instance. :)

      • Captain, one of the oddities of chaotic behaviors is that they are not chaotic on all scales; the dripping of a tap is a classical chaotic system. The frequency of drops exhibits chaotic behavior, BUT, the overall flux through the system is zero order. One can simply model the system in terms of flux at larger time scales but not short ones.

  31. The interesting points about Judith’s head post to me are the large areas of common ground that exists between the two sides, especially wrt the science, but any attempt by sceptics to bring this up is given short shrift by mainstream climate scientists.

    The difference between JC and KT in terms of confidence in the projections of the climate models is striking IMO and this seems where advocacy has supplanted scientific objectiveness with a normative approach to the evidence we are all considering.

    The sociology of the climate science has provided a fertile ground for the study of tribal behaviour and the staying power of motivated reasoning in the context of what everyone should be agreeing on: that is that climate/weather is a prime example of complex and dynamic systems interacting in unpredictable ways.

    • I think your second paragraph provides an explanation for your first one, Peter.

      How would you react if I told you we almost share all our beliefs, but that most of our disagreements are based on the fact that you lost your objectivity, are being judgemental, and act like a tribesman?

      I hope you do realize what being called a tribesman implies and that the accusation of being “normative” carries its load of irony, considering the accusations I just made up for illustration’s sake.

      Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

      • Agreed Willard. Reality is in constant conflict with human perceptions and any confluence usually is unrecognised in one’s thinking. A good step forward is always taken when one recognises that their biases need to be allowed for when they make decisions or express a POV.

      • I concur, Peter, and would add that we should acknowledge that sometimes, people are just not made to be in speaking terms. We all have our elective affinities. I enjoy your peaceful detachment, for instance.

        Style matters.

      • I always enjoy your contributions Willard and while I sometimes find myself not agreeing with your POV on some topics, I still find that I am learning something from you, in contrast to some others, whose names shall not be mentioned.

        You have invested much time and mental energy in this and other discussions around the blogosphere and your sources and links are always much appreciated.

        As for being detached, I am endeavouring to control my emotions as much as I can so as to make more reasoned conclusions on what I am perceiving of the world around me and to influence the people with whom I engage to do likewise. I feel like a juror about this debate and I am still out.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Funny – I always find him trivial and specious. Perhaps I’m more objective.

      • Your POV on science and philosophy and your poetry is one of the main reasons that I keep coming back to this blog Chief but on the subject of Willard’s contribution I disagree. I enjoy Willard’s posts and particularly appreciate his tweets.

        Perhaps its hard to be more objective about one another when you have exchanged insults numerous times in the past?

      • I do appreciate Chief’s tenderness, Peter, especially in his poems.

        I almost appreciate his dismissiveness, even when directed at me.

        What I appreciate less are the repetitive ringtones.

        And I say this as a Philip Glass fan.

  32. Paul Vaughan

    JC wrote: “I realize that I am treading into the area of social psychology here, I am throwing these ideas out there in the hopes that some social scientists will pick up on this issue and investigate so that we can better understand the dynamics here, where the tribal differences on a scientific topic are not driven so much by scientific differences but by social issues. [...] I am concerned that the social psychology of the allegiance to consensus is getting in the way of moving climate science forward and providing useful information and analyses to support decision making by policy makers.”

    I very strongly share the concern expressed in the last sentence.

    – –

    JC wrote: “‘Consensus’ scientists are busy investigating the pause cause, using arguments that have been skeptical talking points for several decades.”

    That made me laugh. (It’s so true.)

    – –

    JC wrote of poor understanding of “[...] the mechanisms of vertical heat transport in the ocean”

    Multivariate evidence considered collectively suggests very clearly that the role of equator-pole-temperature-gradient-driven-wind has been severely underestimated. (Temperature, mass, & velocity are coupled.)

    Sober, appreciative attention to natural sun climate attractors is due now. (Further delay is unethical at this point.)

  33. Could it be that the thanksgiving turkey of certainty’s
    goose is cooked?

  34. Heh, no leering and frothing @ ClimateEtc? I tell you again, my best stuff gets deleted, even by my finest editor, StevieMac.
    ================

  35. Steven Mosher | August 24, 2013 at 6:12 pm |

    Good, now you state a clear position. However, that position is that “the consensus on climate change” amounts to an unspoken conspiracy to promote a policy agenda while carefully avoiding genuine engagement on the issues. Well, it is that or, as another said above, a kind of psychopathology. Now we are clear on your view of the matter.

    But what about Dr. Curry who has done her dead level best to engage Trenberth and others on the science and, perhaps more important, on the boundaries between science and advocacy? You seem to have nothing to say about that effort. Given your silence and your opinion of consensus science, my guess is that you believe that any attempt to address ethics in science is just another example of King Lear raging against the thunderstorm. Right?

    • Theo Goodwin >> …that position is that “the consensus on climate change” amounts to an unspoken conspiracy to promote a policy agenda.

      “Conspiracy” Government is funding a climate science that argues for more government. Exactly as you’d expect, government is first and foremost looking after itself. What else do you expect? And how do you manage to shoehorn “conspiracy” into the picture?

      • Theo Goodwin

        I wanted to suggest that on the matter of ethics in science that Mosher’s position is nihilistic or, what amounts to the same thing, postmodern. Such a view makes attention to ethics something like a symptom of immaturity. From your post, it seems to me that you hold a nihilistic position.

    • Steven Mosher

      Theo

      “But what about Dr. Curry who has done her dead level best to engage Trenberth and others on the science and, perhaps more important, on the boundaries between science and advocacy? You seem to have nothing to say about that effort. Given your silence and your opinion of consensus science, my guess is that you believe that any attempt to address ethics in science is just another example of King Lear raging against the thunderstorm. Right?”

      well you didnt read my book so you are forgiven.

      The boundary between science and advocacy?

      lets see if I can help

      start with three words: activism, advocacy, advise

      before we try to draw a boundary between advocacy and science I would think we want to know what advocacy is relative to other closely related words.

      lets assume you can define advocacy. Comes the question

      Does a scientist have the right to advocate. seems so
      Does he have a moral obligation to advocate: probably not.
      And so the question is does it make practical sense to advocate. that is do you do harm to “science” do you diminish “trust” or can you change the world! yippee

      I see the decision to advocate as a practical pragmatic decision. Its not an issue of rights, its not an issue of oughts. Its an issue of will you achieve your ends. So I am quite happy with Judith advocating and not very happy with Hansen advocating.

      I try to avoid advocating because I have no experience doing it. But its hard to avoid advocating ( we should do something, data should be open, scientific ethics should be followed )

      So I dont have a problem with scientists advocating, cause its hard not to and its hard to draw lines, but pragmatcally speaking certain people need to shut up,, mann, trenberth, and let some newer voices have a go..

  36. When the the climate scientists can give the economists a prediction with small enough uncertainty that the economists can use it with a reasonable discount rate and show future costs of different choices of actions with acceptable ranges of certainty the politicians will have something to work with. Until then scientists should stick to science and truth detection and avoid activism. The obvious exception to this is the requirement for activism to keep the politicians from running ahead before they have sufficient info to make an informed decision.

    • Yep, it’s a runaway horse and carriage sort of situation.
      ================

    • DMA

      +1

    • The science can already provide a number such as 1 degree C for every 2000 Gt CO2 burned, which should be a useful and very direct measure. It is about as far as the science can go. Then it becomes a balance between Gt CO2 burned and degrees C warming, and everyone has their own idea of the optimal compromise.

      • Jim D

        “CO2 burned”?

        As I recall from Chemistry 101, CO2 doesn’t “burn”.

        It is a product of burning fossil fuels.

        You cite a number of 1 degree C for every 2000 Gt CO2, which sounds OK theoretically but you should add “all other things being equal”, shouldn’t you?

        The rule of thumb fits for the past record, if we accept that human CO2 was responsible for 97% of the forcing since pre-industrial days, as IPCC claims in AR4.

        Max

      • Latimer Alder

        ‘The science can already provide a number such as 1 degree C for every 2000 Gt CO2 burned’

        It can? Wow. I thought we’d need to have an accurate understanding of climate sensitivity to do that. Do we have such a thing? How was it experimentally determined? How much has been burnt in the last 15 years? How much did the temperature rise?

      • Jim D

        Typo:

        Should read:

        “if we accept that human CO2 was responsible for 97% 93% of the forcing…”

        Max

      • Latimer Alder

        Jim D’s 1 degree C per 2,000 GtCO2 (all other things being equal) is based on the estimate by IPCC in AR4 that 93% of the observed past warming can be attributed to forcing from CO2.

        It stands or falls with the accuracy of that statement.

        IPCC concedes in AR4 that its “level of scientific understanding of natural (solar) forcing is low” (it also concedes that “clouds remain the largest source of uncertainty”.)

        There are many studies that have concluded that around 50% of the past warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th C solar activity (highest in several thousand years). This has now ended.

        The current “pause” despite unabated CO2 emissions and levels reaching record heights (and IPCC projecting warming of 0.2 degrees C per decade) adds even more uncertainty

        So there is a lot of “uncertainty” (as our hostess has emphasized repeatedly), and If these solar studies are correct, Jim’s number must be revised downward, say to 0.5 degrees C per 2,000 GtCO2 (or even less).

        Max

      • I was saying that as an example of what the consensus could say at this point. Rather than 3 C per doubling, which is too sciencey, or even 2-6 C by 2100 depending on emission scenario, they could say 1 C warming per 2000 Gt CO2, which is practical information directly linking effect with cause. It gives a true sense of control of the destiny.

    • DMA, don’t underestimate the value of uncertainty. I fear making decisions, so uncertainty is my friend.

      • Max_OK

        Uncertainty is there (and it’s big). (Judith)

        Predictions are inevitably wrong, and this gets worse the further out the time period goes (Taleb)

        But judgment helps make decisions despite this.

        The “no regrets” policy and technology proposals included in the ASME “position statement” you cited a few days ago are a good example.

        After going through this report in some detail, here are the major “take homes” for me.

        – The ASME recommendations do not include the implementation of any direct or indirect carbon tax, but list some other policy proposals and then concentrate on specific “no regrets” technical actions to reduce CO2 emissions.

        – Without the implementation of these specific technical actions (business as usual), and with population increasing to 10.9 billion by 2100 (latest UN estimate) plus per capita CO2 emissions increasing by 30%, the atmospheric CO2 concentration could likely rise from 394 ppmv today to around 650 ppm by 2100.* At this CO2 concentration the theoretical greenhouse warming from added CO2 would be between 1.3 and 2.3 ºC, depending on the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.

        – Approximately 125 ppmv CO2 increase could be averted by the implementation of specific “no regrets” technical actions in the power generation and transportation sectors plus various energy conservation initiatives, bringing the 2100 level well below 550 ppmv, which is seen as a goal. Over 60% of this reduction comes from the replacement of most new coal-fired power plants with nuclear plants. The theoretical warming from added CO2 by 2100, which could be averted by implementing all the actions being considered is estimated to be between 0.6 and 1.0 ºC, depending on the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.

        *[The ASME report includes much higher estimates, whereby the world-wide average per capita CO2 emissions would rise to a level by 2100 that is over 4 times as high as today and even higher than the per capita CO2 emission in the USA today! This obviously does not pass a “reality check”.]

        The report does not go into cost/benefit analyses, but since the proposed CO2 reduction initiatives chosen to achieve these CO2 reductions are all “no regrets” actions (that essentially pay for themselves), no separate cost/benefit analyses are needed.

        Good stuff. Thanks for giving me the link.

        Max_CH

      • manacker said August 25, 2013 at 4:41 am

        Uncertainty is there (and it’s big). (Judith)

        Predictions are inevitably wrong, and this gets worse the further out the time period goes (Taleb)
        ______

        And you are certain about that? Ha Ha !

        I don’t agree about the predictions. It’s just a good excuse for doing nothing because you are certain nothing is going to change,which of course, also is a prediction.

        The notion “predictions get worse gets worse the further out the time period goes” sounds good, but is it true?

      • Max_OK

        You ask

        The notion “predictions get worse gets worse the further out the time period goes” sounds good, but is it true?

        A classical example of this are the predictions, made in the mid to late 1800s, that London, New York and Manchester would be inundated in meters of horse manure by 1930 or so resulting from the rapidly increasing number of horse carriages.

        “Climatologers” (like city planners, “astrologers” or fortune tellers) are only as good as their “crystal balls” (or GCMs).

        These cannot predict the future.- and the longer the time period, the less likely they are to guess it right.

        Facts of life, Okie. Read Nassim Taleb, if you don’t believe it.

        Max

      • Max_OK

        The ASME “position statement” has a lot of good information in it.

        Of course it contains a lot of “motherhood and apple pie” and the obligatory statement that humans are causing warming and this could become problematic (all things outside the mechanical engineers’ area of expertise).

        But the specific proposed technical solutions are worth looking at seriously.

        I’ve picked out the ones, which I could identify as “no regrets” initiatives (i.e. actions that make economic sense on their own merit).

        These are

        – Replace most new coal-fired power plants with non-fossil fuel plants (I’ve chosen nuclear for most of this, because this technology is available and cost competitive today). Where nuclear does not make sense (proliferation concerns or sitting on top of a gas field) a smaller part would be replace by combined cycle gas-fired plants, where technology is also available and cost competitive today). These two actions alone would give us an estimated 2100 reduction in CO2 of around 89 ppmv, or ~70% of the total reduction from all actions.

        – Replace three-fourths of all light gasoline (or Diesel) driven vehicles with state-of-the-art hybrids; switch half of all heavy vehicles from Diesel to natural gas. Again, economically competitive technologies exist today. These actions would give us an estimated 2100 reduction in CO2 of 18 ppmv.

        – Other climate initiatives to reduce waste and improve energy efficiency, such as waste recycling, building insulation, “lifestyle changes”. Based on studies made in Germany and the USA, it appears that these could reduce 2100 CO2 level by another estimated 19 ppmv.

        The total savings from just these actions could reduce 2100 CO2 level from an estimated 650 ppmv (without these actions) to around 525 ppmv (with all above actions).

        And, using the IPCC AR4 model-based estimate for 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (3.2C) for the upper end of the range of the temperature impact and the conclusion of several more recent observation-based studies as the lower end (1.8C), I arrive at an estimated net theoretical reduction in 2100 temperature resulting from all these “no regrets” CO2 reduction actions at 0.7 to 1.3C.

        This should make you happy, Okie – but somehow I sense that you are not happy knowing that there are “no regrets” actions based on a serious report by an engineering group, which could result in a theoretical reduction of global warming from CO2.

        And I’m having trouble figuring out why this is so.

        Help me out.

        Max_CH

      • manacker, to achieve 525 ppm, the global carbon footprint would have to drop to 2.5 Gt CO2/person by 2100 from its current 5, even as the population increases and development continues. The US footprint is 20 GtCO2/person, Europe is about 10 Gt/person, China is about 7. It is a lot to expect.

      • [...] to achieve 525 ppm, the global carbon footprint would have to drop to 2.5 Gt CO2/person by 2100 from its current 5, even as the population increases and development continues. The US footprint is 20 GtCO2/person, Europe is about 10 Gt/person, China is about 7. It is a lot to expect.

        Solar powered electrolytic hydrogen and “bio-methane”. Both should be hitting their stride by 2040. Easily mature and rolled out in time for your deadline, unless some other, better, technology is used instead.

      • …of course my units should have been tonnes CO2 per person.

      • The notion “predictions get worse gets worse the further out the time period goes” sounds good, but is it true?

        Lyapunov’s Theorem and the Perron effect are well known, the temporal horizon for instability being less then 0.2 time units.

        There is a nice example of the application to a climatic series in Nicolis and Nicolis [foundations of complex systems pg 220]

        Slutsky used LT in his seminal papers update on economic time series (1927),

        Lyapunov’s Theorem is a bound on predicting when your prediction becomes unstable.

      • It isn’t really a prediction at the longer term, it is a change in the equilibrium climate. The sensitivity is the only parameter required in addition to the CO2/GHG concentration. No time integration is needed. These are two steady-state solutions, a current one and a perturbed one. The perturbation in forcing is about 1%.

      • Jim D

        You say:

        to achieve 525 ppm, the global carbon footprint would have to drop to 2.5 Gt CO2/person by 2100 from its current 5, even as the population increases and development continues. The US footprint is 20 GtCO2/person, Europe is about 10 Gt/person, China is about 7. It is a lot to expect.

        Your figures are totally goofy, Jim.

        Here are some better figures (from Wiki and CDIAC):

        World average per capita CO2 is 4.7 tons today; it was 4.6 in 1980 (increase of 3% over the 30-year period)
        Nations that were highly industrialized in 1980 had pc CO2 of 12.4 tons in 1980; they have 10.4 today (16% reduction)
        This includes North America, all the EU nations at the time, other W. European nations, Japan, Australia and New Zealand
        The highest pc CO2 in 2010 was the USA at around 17 tons, down 20% from 1980 at around 21 tons.

        All other “non-industrialized” nations had a pc CO2 of 2.3 tons in 1980; they now have a combined pc CO2 of 3.8 tons (increase of 65%)
        The per capita CO2 generation in China has increased eight-fold from around 1.0 tons in 1980 to around 7.9 tons in 2012
        The per capita CO2 generation in India has increased three-fold from around 0.5 tons in 1980 to around 1.6 tons in 2012
        World population grew from around 4.4 billion in 1980 to around 7.1 billion today
        Above “industrially developed” nations have grown from around 0.8 billion in 1980 to 1.0 billion today
        All other nations have grown from around 3.6 billion in 1980 to 6.1 billion today
        World population is expected to reach 10,854 million by 2100 (latest UN estimates)
        This represents an exponential growth rate of 0.48% pa, as compared to a 1980-2012 growth rate of 1.47% pa
        The “industrially developed nations” are expected to grow in population from around 1 billion in 2012 to around 1.2 billion by 2100 (~20%)
        The “non-industrially developed nations” are expected to grow in population from around 6.1 billion in 2012 to around 9.7 billion by 2100 (~60%)
        The pc CO2 of the “Industrially developed” nations will likely continue to decrease slightly from 10.4 to 9.5 tons (further 9% reduction)
        Including future growth in China, India, etc., the per capita CO2 emissions of the “non-industrially developed nations” will continue to increase sharply in the future, from today’s 3.8 to a future 5.7 tons CO2 by 2100

        On this basis, the global per capita CO2 emissions will increase by around 30% from today to 2100

        This compares with a 3% increase over the 30-year period 1980-2010
        This will result in cumulative CO2 emissions of 4,000 tons from today to 2100, with atmospheric CO2 rising to around 650 ppmv

        If “no-regrets” actions listed in the ASME report are implemented, this could be reduced by around 125 ppmv.

        Max

      • manacker, your numbers aren’t far off mine, but now you can see how hard your previous 525 ppm would be to achieve. It is half the rate to get from 400 to 650 ppm, and even that is optimistically low for no mitigation policies or energy transitions to renewables, adding other GHGs natural or not, etc.

      • Re Manac 4:58 PM post on Aug 25, 2013

        Max_CH, I’m glad you found the ASME statement interesting. I think we can agree that many of the recommendations are good.

        However, I’m not as keen on nuclear power as ASME, you, and Hansen (see his video).

        I can’t dismiss the potential for nuclear power disaster from terrorists attacks. There is just no guarantee these power plants will always be indestructible.

        Tax policy was beyond the scope of the ASME statement. As you know, I believe a revenue-neutral carbon tax is a no brainer.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        We have all seen Hansen’s video. At least I saw the first less than a minute. Nothing at all new – move on to something more interesting. Very few of us are at all impressed. It is just the way it is – that doleful voice and the lugubrious expression.

        The new generation nukes are in fact a whole lot better at protecting the environment. Instead of having 270,000 tons of nuclear waste sitting around in leaky drums and tanks – e.g. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-nuclear-leak-idUSBRE95K18720130621 – it can use the waste burning up the remaining 97% of fuel left in the waste and converting it to much less long lived products.

        e.g. – http://www.ga.com/energy-multiplier-modulehttp://www.ga.com/websites/ga/docs/em2/pdf/FactSheet-TechnicalFactSheetEM2.pdfhttp://www.ga.com/websites/ga/docs/em2/pdf/EM2_presentation.pdf

        These are to be manufactured in a factory, delivered sealed to site where they are placed in a concrete bunker and run for 30 years before being taken back – still sealed – to the factory. They can’t melt down. The waste is a small percentage of conventional waste and dangerous for hundreds and not hundreds of thousands of years. It is a sealed system in first of all super tough ceramics and then an outer bunker of concrete. The coolant is helium in a closed cycle, high efficiency gas turbine. No radiation can possibly escape. Much better.

        Taxes are idiotic and eventually deliver – if they are high enough and actually work – higher energy costs, no tax revenue and permanent damage to your economy. Nothing the rest of the world would like more – feel free.

      • Chief Hydrologist said:

        “We have all seen Hansen’s video.”

        “Very few of us are at all impressed.”
        _______

        Chief, I’m impressed with your ability to see into peoples’ minds. That must come in handy.

      • Jim D

        Glad our estimates now agree.

        It remains to be seen whether we (everyone on this planet) will generate around 4,000 GtCO2 from today until 2100, following more-or-less a business as usual approach, and arriving at around 650 ppmv CO2 or we will adopt the “no regrets” approach outlined in the ASME paper of aggressively implementing all those technology proposals that reduce CO2 emissions, which also make economic sense, thereby reducing the CO2 by 2100 by 125 ppmv to around 525 ppmv.

        No direct or indirect carbon tax would be necessary to implement these “no regrets” proposals.

        As pointed out, these will have a theoretical impact on the global average temperature by 2100 of between 0.7 and 1.3 deg C.

        I do not think it is realistic to talk about “reducing CO2 by 2100 to 350 ppmv or even 450 ppmv”, because I do not believe China, India and all the other nations that want to develop their economies who will follow, will abandon that objective and there is no way for them to achieve it without developing an infrastructure that guarantees reliable low-cost energy, which will be at least partially based on fossil fuels.

        I think replacing two-thirds of all new coal-fired power plants with non-fossil fuel generation (principally new generation nuclear) and half of the rest with combined cycle natural gas (where there are proliferation concerns or natural gas is locally available) is a pretty aggressive goal. This major step alone could achieve 70% of the above reduction if implemented.

        There are, of course, substantial political hurdles, which would need to be resolved.

        The remaining initiatives in the transportation sector or reducing waste/improving efficiency are no-brainers.

        This is all based on technology, which exists today; any additional reductions that could possibly result from new technology innovations, which do not yet exist, could add a bit to the estimated CO2 reductions.

        Max

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Is that what you take away Max. Hansen starts talking about 4th generation nuclear and I turn of? Mind reading? I don’t need a 100 minute video on 4th gen nuclear. I’ve actually read quite a lot. I very kindly give you a potted version and a few links to what I think is the leading contender. GA is investing $1.8 billion their own money on developing what is already a workable design from the LANL. On what is actually an improvement in nuclear safety in doing something rational with all that gunk sitting around.

        You don’t even thank me. Just behave like the ungracious dimwit that you are. Go figure.

      • Max_OK

        Sorry to hear that you aren’t keen on nuclear.

        It appears to me to be the alternate with the best chance today for dramatically reducing CO2 emissions over the next several decades.

        Terror attacks?

        If we stop building nuclear plants (that we’d like to build to reduce CO2)because we are afraid of terror attacks, we are in effect giving up to the terrorists – and we’re saying that CO2 reduction really isn’t that important, after all.

        Solar for domestic use could be another “no regrets” option, but is limited to a small percentage of the total power supply. And as far as CO2 is concerned, nuclear eliminates more CO2 than solar, if you include the gas-fired standby plants required for the 75-80% of the time that solar does not work.

        Folks that don’t want CO2 and don’t like nuclear are between a rock and a hard spot. Bad place to be.

        Max_CH

      • Manacker,

        I just noticed your reply to the dingbat who opposes nuclear power but wants to cut global GHG emissions. Unfortunately, he is just ACAGW alarmist, a doomsayer and an anti-nuke, pro-RE ideologue so no reasoning is possible with him.

        But for others I’d support your points and add these:

        1. For those worried about terror attacks on nuclear power plants they need to define the potential consequence and the probability. Given 55 years of operation so far and no terror attacks, the probability seems remote.

        2. Also, the anti-nukes need to nut it in context. What would be the damages compared with the benefits?

        3. Anti-nukes often raise the proliferation argument. But why argue to ban nuclear and not ban oil? Surely it is fossil fuels that have delivered all the weapons used in WW I and since and done far more harm than nuclear. So why not ban oil? Where is the perspective?

        Solar for domestic use could be another “no regrets” option.

        Only if it is unsubsidised. In which case it would not be installed because it will probably never be viable without massive subsidies. And anyway, it is not a serious consideration for no regrets because it will never, IMO, abate much GHG emissions. Its contribution to GHG emissions abatement is trivial and probably always will be.

        Even without considering the emissions from the back up for solar, the emissions intensity of solar is higher than nuclear. The reason is because solar needs far more material per MWh of energy supplied than nuclear (solar requires more mining, processing, fabricating manufacturing, and transport between every step, per TWh of energy supplied, than nuclear.)

      • Re manacker’s post on August 26, 2013 at 4:39 am

        Max_CH, you, Chief, and Lang are hilarious.

        You three believe global warming isn’t a problem and nuclear power is a solution to this problem.

        Thanks for reminding me why I come here for amusement.

      • Just to be clear, I would not say that attack on nuclear power plants would be likely, but I would like to provide an absolutely beautiful example of the kind of thinking we see resulting from motivated reasoning:

        One someone may have said on Sept. 10, 2001

        1. For those worried about terror attacks on nuclear power plants terrorists flying planes into the WTC, they need to define the potential consequence and the probability. Given 55 28 years of operation so far and no terror attacks, the probability seems remote.

        I love how Peter makes no attempt to define potential consequence and probability in his declaration that those who disagree with him about consequence and probability.

        The mind of a “skeptic” is a beautiful, beautiful thing.

        Selective reasoning is selective.

      • Dagnabit:

        Just to be clear, I would not say that attack on nuclear power plants would be likely, but I would like to provide an absolutely beautiful example of the kind of thinking we see resulting from motivated reasoning:

        One someone may have said on Sept. 10, 2001

        1. For those worried about terror attacks on nuclear power plants terrorists flying planes into the WTC, they need to define the potential consequence and the probability. Given 55 28 years of operation so far and no terror attacks, the probability seems remote.

        I love how Peter makes no attempt to define potential consequence and probability in his declaration that those who disagree with him need to define consequence and probability.

        The mind of a “skeptic” is a beautiful, beautiful thing.

        Selective reasoning is selective.

      • Unbelievable. You’d think that sooner or later I’d actually check the formatting before posting. But nooooooooo. That would make too much sense

      • Max_OK (and Joshua)

        Let me try to clear up some confusion one or both of you may have regarding my views on nuclear as a substitute for coal to reduce CO2 emissions.

        The ASME paper listed several “no regrets” options for reducing CO2 emissions.

        The one that could be implemented immediately and has the highest CO2 impact is replacing new coal-fired power generation capacity with nuclear.

        As Peter Lang has pointed out, replacing coal with wind or solar is not a “no regrets” solution, because these are not economically competitive with coal, primarily due to the low on-line factor. Domestic solar could possibly be an option for a limited part of the total (Peter disagrees that this could become competitive without taxpayer-funded subsidies). But solar results in less CO2 being eliminated than nuclear, because of the gas-fired standby capacity that is needed to cover the 75-80% of the time when the solar panels are not working. So nuclear is the better substitute for coal from the CO2 standpoint.

        I personally do NOT think we face a future climate problem due to human CO2 emissions, because there is no empirical scientific evidence to support such a notion (from his comments here, I believe Peter Lang agrees).

        I also do not think we are in imminent danger of running out of fossil fuels over the next century, although it is obvious that these resources are not unlimited and substitutes will eventually need to be found.

        And I have concluded, based on the evidence out there, that even the most urgent implementation of all the “no regrets” actions suggested in the ASME paper, while reducing future CO2 emissions to year 2100 by around half, will only have a barely perceptible theoretical impact on our future climate by 2100 (between 0.7C and 1.3C, depending on which climate sensitivity estimate is used).

        However, if we DO want to reduce CO2 emissions, replacing coal with nuclear is the most effective “no regrets” approach.

        (And don’t toss out the scare of a terrorist attack or meteor strike on the nuclear plant – sure these could happen, but there are other ways to protect against that.)

        Max

        .

      • Manacker,

        I personally do NOT think we face a future climate problem due to human CO2 emissions, because there is no empirical scientific evidence to support such a notion (from his comments here, I believe Peter Lang agrees).

        I want to clarify my position. It is as follows:

        1. I don’t know if we have a problem with potential CAGW or not. I am very open to a persuasive case. But so far I don’t find the case persuasive.

        2. However, I am strongly persuaded that the policies being advocated to mitigate GHG emissions are very high cost, economically damaging and will not deliver the benefits stated by their proponents. So these are bad policies. The policies include Kyoto Protocol type policies, carbon pricing and mandating and subsidising renewable energy. I am strongly convinced these are irresponsible policies.

        3. I believe we have very little understanding of:
        – climate sensitivity,
        – the damage function,
        – the potential to decarbonise the global economy (by 2050, 2100),
        – the probability that advocvated mitigation policies will succeed and deliver the benefits claimed by their proponents

        Until we have a much better understanding of these four key inputs, policies other than no regrets policies cannot be justified.

        4. Nuclear power is a potential ‘no regrets’ policy. It is the best currently available option for making significant cuts to global GHG emissions. If we change the policies that are effectively preventing it being a viable option, nuclear power could, potentially, cut global emissions from fossil fuels by 50% by around 2060. However, progress is being thwarted by the very same people who are most concerned about CAGW. Their hypocrisy suggests to me they are not really all that concerned about CAGW, instead, they are using CAGW as a means to implement their obvious political agendas. That is what I believe is the case, and it makes me less inclined to believe that we should risk implementing high cost mitigation policies.

        I hope that clarifies my position.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      DMA asserts “until climate scientists can give the economists a prediction […] scientists avoid activism.”

      Normal folks utterly reject the ideology of economic primacy over science and morality.

      For excellent reasons.

      Ain’t that right, DMA and kim and Peter Lang and Latimer Alder?

      \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 said:

        Normal folks utterly reject the ideology of economic primacy over science and morality.
        _____

        I do. I believe economic systems exist to serve people, not people exist to serve economic systems.

      • Max_OK

        I believe economic systems exist to serve people, not people exist to serve economic systems.

        Looks like we all agree then, Okie.

        Max_CH

    • “When the the climate scientists can give the economists a prediction with small enough uncertainty that the economists can use it….”

      The only thing less scientific than a climate model is an economic model.

      • The only thing less Scientific than an economic model is a Keynesian.

      • And the worst of all is an economic model based on input coming from a climate model.

      • It isn’t so much that Keynesians are wrong, as they don’t see the big picture.

        Deficit spending is stimulative. And so is cocaine.

      • “It isn’t so much that Keynesians are wrong, as they don’t see the big picture.”

        Keynsians are wrong because they don’t see the big picture.

        And “stimulus” spending, at best, moves future economic activity from the future into the present. It does not create wealth that would otherwise not be created. And Keynsians could not be more wrong about the mythical multiplier.

      • We’re saying the same thing. You don’t get a multiplier, you get a buzz that feels like one as long as you’re the one doing the multiplying..

        Don’t try to tell a coke head that he isn’t multiplied.

  37. who is on the side of the TRUTH? I’m!

    sandpit job is NOT science!

  38. Judith Curry,

    “where the tribal differences on a scientific topic are not driven so much by scientific differences but by social issues.”

    If I may comment upon social issues and in this case, the human species evolutionary, emotional and social maturation from pre-history to today. If one equates early human history behavior as infantile, needy, reacting negatively and intensively to life’s stressors (early capricious barbarism), and continue the child developmental theme with concrete thinking say during the heyday of Catholicism through the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we have come to where I believe the current evolutionary ride has taken us: Erik Erikson’s Identity and role confusion (adolescence). The quintessence of Judith Curry’s request.

    It appears that the present climate debate is reflective more of adolescent behavior and thinking, hence, role confusion and identity confusion.

    “Adolescence being a transitional period ” whose cultural purpose is the preparation of children for adult roles.” (Wikipedia).

    Viewing the behaviors of the three parties, Trenberth, Harris, and Curry in the context of adolescent transitional period, It appears to me that the female portion of the species transitions much earlier towards adulthood’s Ego Integrity.

    It also appears to me that: “However, there are also some negative aspects (to adolescences) which include the child or adolescent developing some egocentric thoughts which include the imaginary audience and the personal fable.[5] An imaginary audience is when an adolescent feels that the world is just as concerned and judgmental of anything the adolescent does as they are, an adolescent may feel as if they are “on stage” and everyone is a critique and they are the ones being critiqued.[5] A personal fable is when the adolescent feels that he or she is a unique person and everything they do is unique. They feel as if they are the only ones that have ever experienced what they are experiencing and that they are invincible and nothing bad will happen to them it will only happen to others” Piaget.

    Trenberth’s egocentric thoughts are his expositions to his imaginary audience.

    Harris’s egocentric thoughts encompasses his personal fable.

    Judith Curry? having moved along a bit further and faster than others, she seems to be playing the waiting game, for some of the others to catch up.

    • Judith Curry? having moved along a bit further and faster than others, she seems to be playing the waiting game, for some of the others to catch up.

      Yes. I get that impression too. And, I’d add, doing it very well.

    • RiHo08

      It appears to me that the female portion of the species transitions much earlier towards adulthood’s Ego Integrity.

      Your point makes sense.

      We’ve got two prime examples (beside Beth, Johanna and some of the other denizens here) that come to mind: Judith and Tamsin.

      But there are also a few that are still stuck in the adolescent paradigm, and (like the young Maid of Orleans) are fighting the “noble battle” of righteousness.

      And, of course, there are some “gents” here, who have already reached their “best years” (not to mention any names).

      Max

      • manacker

        Remind me. Was St. Joan one of the good guys or bad guys?

      • RiHo08

        Remind me. Was St. Joan one of the good guys or bad guys?

        Depends on whether you’re a Frenchman or a Brit.

        (I’m neither, but I think Ingrid Bergman looked cool in full armor).

        Max

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The flames they followed Joan of Arc – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3EMjptFA9c

      • Chief

        Does the burning of Joan of Arc mean that youthful exuberance and righteousness are destined to follow Manfred von Richthofen down in flames? A bitter end for those who cross the green line, at least in the age of concrete reasoning. But today is different. Right?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Live fast – die young and have a good looking corpse has always been the motto of the shooting stars amongst us. Arthur Rimbaud serves as a warming for those who burn too bright – and too long – in visionary splendour.

        ‘Once, if my memory serves me well, my life was a banquet where every heart revealed itself, where every wine flowed.

        One evening I took Beauty in my arms – and I thought her bitter – and I insulted her.

        I steeled myself against justice.

        I fled. O witches, O misery, O hate, my treasure was left in your care!

        I have withered within me all human hope. With the silent leap of a sullen beast, I have downed and strangled every joy.

        I have called for executioners; I want to perish gnawing on their gun butts. I have called for plagues, to suffocate in sand and blood. Unhappiness has been my god. I have lain down in the mud, and dried myself off in the crime-infested air. I have played the fool to the point of madness.

        And springtime brought me the frightful laugh of an idiot.’

        Une Saison en Enfer – 1873

        Yesterday – that warming was best elucidated by Alan Ginsberg.

        ‘…rejected yet confessing out the soul to conform to the rhythm
        of thought in his naked and endless head,
        the madman bum and angel beat in Time, unknown,
        yet putting down here what might be left to say
        in time come after death,
        and rose reincarnate in the ghostly clothes of jazz in
        the goldhorn shadow of the band and blew the
        suffering of America’s naked mind for love into
        an eli eli lamma lamma sabacthani saxophone
        cry that shivered the cities down to the last radio
        with the absolute heart of the poem of life butchered
        out of their own bodies good to eat a thousand years.’

        We should ask who is on the side of the Angels and Madmen in America’s naked and flaming streets.

        In the end times – we are reminded – the young shall see visions and old men dream dreams. Tomorrow – I always thought – belongs to the incandescent visionary. If they can only survive a blazing pyre of youthful visions to dream dreams of the ascent of humanity to the freewheeling stars.

      • Chief, there was a famous poster of Ginsberg with a Karl Marx poster on his wall: Marx and Ginsberg. Well, our neighbour in Newcastle’s grandfather in Leeds was once approached by a trader friend called Marks to join him in a “nothing over sixpence” stall. Ginsberg said “It will never work,” so Marks approached Spencer instead … and the rest is history. I couldn’t help but laugh when I saw the poster. I hesitate to say that I howled with laughter.

        [Historical note: I think that Marks and Spencer might have Anglicized their names after joining forces.]

      • Fellow serf,
        Judith and Johanna , yes, but Beth ..hmmm …matchurity doesn’t
        always correlate with yeers, bit like globul temperachure and CO2,
        but thx, Max.)

        St Joan?
        Strange girl. Hears voices.
        But by Jove, even in death
        she lights up a room.

        H/t David Bader.

      • Beth, that may have been only while she was burning at the stake.

      • Peter Bocking once told me that if Al Gore’s hair were set on fire it would provide enough heat and light for a small English village.

        Aaaannd, I’m inevitably reminded of the gentleman not thoroughly conversant with the early 19th Century warfare, who, on being told that the British had burnt Washington, remarked in surprise ‘Well, I knew we burnt Joan of Arc, but George Washington?’

        Seriously, since when have we not sought totemic sacrificial victims?
        ===================

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Using teeth as kindling?

  39. David L. Hagen

    Judith
    You are also on the leading edge of the next scientific revolution into exploring and quantifying natural variations and uncertainties in climate compared to the simplistic majority “anthropogenic” global warming.
    See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

    • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

      That’s a nice thought about Judith, and maybe it will work out that way, but honestly, if anything valuable comes out of the “pause” and the “uncertainty” about AGW during this episode it will be:

      1) We need to start thinking more in terms of the complete energy system of the Earth and take into consideration how natural variability moves energy around and controls its flow in that system.

      2) AGW did not (from a full Earth System perspective) take a pause over the past 16 years, but our myopic focus on the troposphere has caused a lot of confusion, and this confusion has permitted the uncertainty monster to bite more than a few.

      3) The truth is, our certainty that humans are altering the energy balance of the planet has only increased during the past few years as more data about the full energy balance of the planet has become available.

      • You’re right. We can start by talking about how the total energy content of the oceans has increased by ~0.01% over the last 50 years.

      • R. Gates

        Your point 1 is an absolute no-brainer. In fact, the very structure of the “AGW movement” (under IPCC) was so designed to make this impossible by focusing all efforts myopically on the greenhouse effect and its impacts. This is changing.

        Whether or not AGW has taken a “pause” over the past X years (point 2) is really a moot discussion. Rationalizing that it “really” hasn’t done so could be seen as simply trying to keep the story alive despite the facts on the ground. What is unequivocal is that the “globally and annually land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (which has been used as an indicator of AGW by IPCC and others since the beginning) has stopped warming, in direct contradiction of model projections cited by IPCC and despite unabated GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels.

        Your point 3 goes back to point 2 (we’re really causing warming even if we can’t see it). Yes, humans are causing local and regional changes to our environment, which are likely causing local and regional changes in our climate. Urbanization, land use changes, deforestation, smog pollution, hydroelectric dams, canals and river re-routing, dikes and levees, are just a few examples we all know about. But the jury is still out on whether mankind is really causing substantial changes to our global climate because of AGW.

        Max

      • David L. Hagen

        R. Gates Warmist
        Re: “our certainty that humans are altering the energy balance of the planet has only increased”
        “Show me!”
        Put your “skeptical” hat on and evaluate if/how AGW can be detected, and quantitatively distinguished from alternative models.
        Not just a claim, but hard nosed engineering quality verification and validation. See Lucia & von Storch on statistics of warming
        Von Storch et al: Stagnation in Warming
        Von Storch et al.:

        In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.

        Lucia:

        Like Von Storch, I find HadCrut4 is outside the 95% confidence intervals for the “all weather in all models”. This results holds even if I account for measurement uncertainty. This means fewer than 2.5% of earth trends fall inside the “all weather in all models” spread. The NOAA/NCDC comparison gives similar results to HadCrut4. However, GISTemp has a higher trend and still lies inside my ±95% confidence intervals.

        Warmist, the burden of proof lies on you to show that models incorporating AGW lie within +/- 2 sigma (95%) AND that the majority is due to AGW.
        You also must include ALL major uncertainties per Curry’s explorations.
        e.g. See Dr. Roy Spencer on 75 climate model projections from 1979 ALL exceeding global temperature evidence.
        Severe bias rather than normally distributed results appear to be a major Type B error.

        For further evidence, see
        The Right Climate Stuff; and
        Burt Rutan on climate.

        Puffery does not convince. Hard quantitative evidence does.
        Per the Royal Society:

        The Royal Society’s motto ‘Nullius in verba’ roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

        Show me!

        Kudos to Curry to raise quantitative issues of uncertainty and push climate science to hard evaluation of the models against evidence , not alarmism to generate grants.

  40. Crispin Tickell (One of Principal Godfathers of the CAGW Scam )

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/11/climate-science-sociology/#comment-364124

    Trevor Davies,
    date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000

    Mike, Be aware that Tickell dislikes Tom Wigley; this isn’t hearsay – I know this for a fact. After Tom published that “delaying –emissions cutbacks – scenario” analysis in Nature, Tickell told me that Tom was irresponsible, & had damaged the likelihood of the cc issue being addressed seriously. There is also the baggage about Tickell pinching some of CRU’s ideas & Tom telling him so rather unsubtly. So – he needs to be the “sort of top research scientist we know is interested”.
    Trevor

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2038

    Wigley,
    Fri, 17 Mar 2000

    Grubb is good at impressing ignorant people. Crispin is not only ignorant (in the economics area) but also a *real* snake in the grass. What he will do is vote on the basis of what he can get out of it, not on the basis of knowledge-based and fair judgement.

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5123

    CAGW was always IMO a political agenda In search of a pseudo-scientific justification. That is the most difficult thing to acknowledge, including by yours truly ( I had my big wake up call in 97/98 time frame)

    I don’t know how David Suzuki is perceived elsewhere, however in Canada he’s an environmental icon. Originally his claim to science was as a fruit fly breeder (geneticist). However he’s long been a journalist/advocate.

    In the short clip below, he actually explains exactly what the advocacy process has been. Al Gore tells him in 1988 not to expect action from the politicians on Climate Change, but to go forth (as supposed scientists) and preach the gospel of CAGW until the public demands action from the Pols.

    Notice that the supposed scientist (Suzuki) actually acts as if his scientific mentor is none other than Al Gore!!

    Forecast Earth In Depth: David Suzuki, Part 2

    http://tinyurl.com/n3pkcun

    Suzuki 1972 ( Warns of the Dangers of Anointing Scientists as new High Priests of Society )

    David Suzuki on science, elitism and the apocalypse
    Suzuki talks about the politics of science and the science of politics

    http://tinyurl.com/mas3mkv

  41. Trenberth’s opinions are the product of game theory not science.

    • What do you think your opinions are a product of?

      • A common sense reaction to a hoax perpetrated on a sleepy public by the Left.

        “Meanwhile, as the warmists continue their doomscrying and seeking further hundreds of billions of dollars to carry on their vast charade, the whole economic structure upon which everything depends is teetering on the brink of disaster with little effort to address or to even recognise the very real and present dangers which confront us.

        “All over the developed world, governments have committed to unfunded liabilities and fostered a proliferation of bureaucracy which their increasingly uncompetitive productive sectors cannot sustain. Most are now running on empty with no credit left, no plan B and no apparent recognition that the path they are on leads only to the edge of a cliff.” ~Walter Starck, 2-Jan-2011

      • What’s the notion you have common sense a product of?

      • Max_OK

        What do you think your opinions are a product of?

        My “opinions” of you are “a product of” your blog comments here.

        How ’bout you?

        Max_CH

    • Steven Mosher

      • Einstein said the only real valuable thing is intuition.

        I resist acting on my intuition at times. Perhaps I shouldn’t.

      • Max-OK
        If you look at intuition as simply an amalgamation of millions of observations processed by your brain over a lifetime, it can give your intuition a fresh perspective.

      • It is not hard to figure out why the Left hated George Bush. “Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.” {Emerson)

      • Dennis, intuition certainly works well for animals.

    • Your second comment here is exactly correct. I believe its actually contributed greatly to the worlds economic decline.

  42. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Berényi Péter mocks the “National Religious Coalition on Creation Care. LOL”

    Ayn Rand/Rand Paul! Is that you?

    The Earth is God’s and All That Is In It
    Thou Shalt Not Despoil the Earth
    nor Despoil the Life Thereon

    Since 1999 Christians and Jews have come together annually to represent their environmental positions before Congress, the White House and other government agencies.

    Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals, and Mainline Protestants typically hold similar positions on most issues of creation care. The result is that religious groups enjoy a united front on issues – such as the importance of saving national forests, holding off global climate change, and protecting and preserving wild lands.

    When members of the religious coalition speak to legislators, individuals from different faith backgrounds represent the formal policy declarations of their institutions with perhaps different rationales, but unified conclusions for public policy.

    It’s mighty cool that this coalition of faith is seeking to publish its findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals … and that James Hansen is helping them!

    Gosh, isn’t that plain common sense, Berényi Péter?

    A Serious Question  Is it right for scientists to co-author articles with faith organizations? Is it right for religious organizations to sponsor top-level scientific studies and conferences?

    Or should we all just bow down and worship Ayn Rand’s bankrupt ideology of economic selfishness?

    \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

      Note: the context is Berényi Péter’s mockery of the nineteen-author multi-disciplinary preprint Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature (which is presently wending its way through peer review).

      A Serious Question for Climate Etc Discussion Does it weaken or strengthen the corpus of science, when individual scientists ally themselves with religious coalitions, and then participate in that glorious enterprise — which undoubtedly is chaotic — of creating (what Judith Curry calls) “the best available science”?

      If its cool that some scientists work for corporations, and some scientists work for schools, and some scientists work for conservation organizations, why ain’t it cool too that some scientists work for religions?

      Whose side are you on, Berényi Péter?

      \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}

      • I don’t believe in the existence of Sky-Fairies, but it doesn’t worry me that other people do.
        However, there is no evidence that people who worship Sky-Fairies are more moral than people who do not.
        If you present an argument that we should give weight at an argument because people who think that the universe was created by a supernatural being to bring forth humankind and then judge them on, for instance, their sexual behavior, then I think that you have completely lost the plot.
        Belief in Sky-Fairies, Demons, Spirits and Ghosts is relatively harmless, but the idea that people who believe in Sky-Fairies, Demons, Spirits and Ghosts are ‘better’ than people who do not believe in in Sky-Fairies, Demons, Spirits and Ghosts is an indicator of mental illness.

    • @Doc Martyn

      I couldn’t agree more with you aboy Fan of more discourse. All he/she does is spount total garbage stemming from the delusion that he/she is an intellectual.

      • Fan is also a serial linker and only a small percentage of his links support his contentions. Come to think of it, I doubt he even reads most of his links.

      • “Fan is also a serial linker …”

        Well, if he has nothing original to add….

  43. Death by death, science advances.
    AGW is dead. It was murdered by planet earth’s 16 year temperature stasis proving that CO2 does not control the planet’s temperature.

    If a theory is wrong, no matter who says it or how smart he is, it is WROOOOONG. Richard Feynman.

    • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

      You seem not to understand that basic GH gas theory is about energy balance and not about specifically tropospheric temperatures. AGW is far from dead, and given the continued energy imbalance displayed in the Earth system over the past 16 years, AGW has been most strongly confirmed.

      • R., As a layman I’m not equipped to evaluate this on the merits. But I can’t help wondering why this isn’t being splashed all over the MSM by beleaguered climate scientists who can’t seem to explain the pause…..TRenberth is turning himself inside out trying to explain the missing heat, and the NYT’s is forced to recently admit that the lack of warming over the last 16 years is for climate scientists, “a bit of a mystery.” (Love the “a bit”)

        And why then, have establishment climate scientists been trumpeting the recent rise in temps, as THE SIGNAL of agw, the element in the absence of which it seems to be tacitly implied, we can all pretty much forget it and go home?

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Pockerguy,

        The myopic focus on the troposphere is part historic, part circumstantial. As creatures that dwell in the troposphere, it is the most immediate sphere to us and the easiest to measure. Putting the energy imbalance caused by increasing GH gases in terms of tropospheric temperatures is far more convenient than talking about the ocean gaining 5 x 10^22 Joules of energy! But convenience does not lead to scientific accuracy. The rise in GH gases is all about altering Earth energy balance. This is the basic physics. Where that energy goes in the system is what the models try to figure out, to greater or lessor degrees of success. But the fundamental fact is, to the very best, more accurate level that we can measure, there has not been a pause in the rise in Earth’s energy over the past 16 or 10 or 5 years, only a slowdown in the rate of flow of measurable energy between ocean and atmosphere, likely caused by alterations in ocean cycles. Earth continues to accumulate energy– completely consistent with the basic physics of AGW.

      • Latimer Alder

        @rgates etc

        As you rightly point out, we are born, live and die in the troposphere. Not in the deep oceans.

        And it is the supposed effect of AGW on tropospheric temperatures that has brought it to prominence. Not because anyone gives a tinkers cuss for the theory itself, but because there are claimed to be actual dangers to our troposheric existence as a result.

        Maybe it is the case that energy is accumulating in the deep oceans. and maybe the true AGW believers can draw spiritual consolation from this knowledge. But without some plausible argument that real dangers may ensue – and in a reasonable timescale, – this fact fails the SFW test and gets filed in the drawer marked ‘scientific curiosities’

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Latimer,

        You could label AGW a curiosity, with all its ocean effects, in our rather myopic tropospheric bias, if it weren’t for the fact that our weather and climate are almost completely dictated by those oceans. What happens in the ocean most decidedly does not stay in the ocean. They are basis for life, weather, climate, and pretty much all else that is interesting on this particular planet.

      • Latimer Alder

        @r gates etc

        Please put the amount you so frequenty cite – 5 x 10^22 joules per annum in context.

        How much does that amount warm the oceans?

        And why – in real practical terms – should we care about that amount of ocean warming?

      • “Please put the amount you so frequenty cite – 5 x 10^22 joules per annum in context. “

        That is a big heat sink, see this

        http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html

      • I appreciate all that RG to the extent that I understand it, and I gave it an honest twirl, but that doesn’t really answer my question about lack of emphasis out in the “front lines” I don’t believe. Also, if temps aren’t rising what are we left to talk about it terms of danger. It all seems to have to do with warming, without warming do we even care? I assume you’re going to say it’s just a matter of time before warming resumes? And if it doesn’t in the next say, 20 years?

        By the way, how is energy measured? Isn’t energy heat?

      • Latimer Alder

        @webbie

        I’ll wait for braver souls than me to venture onto your blog. If they survive perhaps they will report back on what your estimate of the ocean temperature rise associated with 5 x 10^22 joules is.

        But I suspect that those courageous souls will find nothing of the sort.

      • Latimer,

        The argument is not that we should be worried by that amount of ocean warming, the argument is that the present accelerated warming of oceans is a temporary state that will be over soon (meaning perhaps 10 years or less) and be followed by the opposite phase of the natural variability that brings back the warming we saw in 1980’s and 90’s.

        Right now that seems the most likely explanation of recent history, and a prediction based on extrapolation of that history. That’s, how Trenberth explained that, and that’s what I do also find plausible.

        I’m not at all certain that the explanation is right, but for me it’s likely enough for being taken as the basis for policy choices.

        It’s likely enough in spite of the fact that I don’t have the same trust in the measurements of ocean heat content as R. Gates. Something that’s as likely to be true as not would be enough for the policy conclusions, and my intuitive estimate of the likelihood is more than 50%.

      • 5.e22 J can warm a kilometer of water over the whole earth by 1/30 degrees C. This would be quite a lot if it is maintained every year. 1/3 degree per decade.

      • Actually the 5.e 22 J isn’t per year, it is over the last decade. So the warming rate of 1/3 degree per decade would apply if the heating was confined to the top 100 meters of the earth’s ocean area. Seems more like it.

      • Latimer Alder

        @pekka

        Thanks for your remarks.

        But since we don’t appear to have any idea why the heat suddenly and unexpectedly started going into the deep ocean, I do not share your confidence that it will equally suddenly and unexpectedly revert in 10 years. why not 3 or 50 or 1500?

        Until quite recently we heard a lot about ‘tipping points’ in climatology. They seem to have fallen out of the alarmists scaremongering toolkit, but how do we know that we haven’t encountered one and that the move to ocean heating (if indeed it is occurring) won’t be a long term one?

        Whichever it is, it is undoubtedly true that the practical effects of this putative change have been to stabilise the temperatures that concern us. Kids now rising 16 have never lived in a warming atmosphere.And so it is more and more difficult to persuade people that we need to spend money and effort ‘just in case’ it starts up again.

      • Latimer,

        The idea is not that it suddenly started to flow into deep ocean but that the natural variability means that heat goes sometimes down, sometimes up. Before 1998 it was coming up, after that it has been going down.

        Is this true? We don’t know. We can only infer from the observation that there are clear signs about quasiperiodic variability with a period around 60 years.

      • Latimer Alder

        @jim d

        Thanks for those numbers. It seems that we are not far apart in our estimates.

        Mine was that it would take 250 years to warm the oceans by 1C..Yours is just over 300.

        Now try selling those numbers to the pollies. Or Joe and Jennie Sixpack who will have to pay for them. Good luck – you’ll need it.

      • Latimer, the warming is not evenly distributed. A high percentage goes into the top few hundred meters with lesser amounts as you go deeper. This is because the ocean circulation is slow and diffusion is very weak. This is why a number for 100 meters depth is a good measure of what would happen at the surface with this OHC added. But, even then, the ocean won’t keep up with the land which is now warming at 0.3 C per decade.

      • Latimer Alder

        @jim d

        The land is warming at 0.3C per decade? Really? Last GAT I saw was that it was pretty static. Where do you find different?

        But its good to know that we can easily measure the temperature of the top 100m of the oceans where all the heat is going. We should be able to confirm (or deny) the ‘ocean warming’ theory very easily and within just a few years,

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        pockerguy, .

        Remember that energy in the Earth system takes many forms, of which sensible heat as measured in the troposphere is just one form, and not the largest or most persistent. Everything from the your child peddling their bike down the street to the kinetic energy of raindrops is energy in the Earth system. Out of convenience we have chosen to measure the energy imbalance caused by increasing GH gases via just one small metric of Earth’s overall energy system. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, our models are just as myopic (and therefore inaccurate). The energy just being stored in the ocean alone each of the past 10 years would add several degrees to tropospheric temperatures. Thankfully we have this buffer, but of course life on Earth would not have developed without it. But there is no free ride here, eventually that energy will cycle back through the atmosphere, the timing of which is based largely on natural ocean cycles, which might be altered in their character by the same energy imbalance that is sequestering so much energy into the ocean.

      • RGates

        I looked at many hundreds of accounts to devise this graph showing the advance and retreat of glaciers over the last 3000 years.

        (a blue closed line at top of page indicates glacier retreat i.e warmth) and a solid blue line at bottom indicates advance in periods of cold.)

        Don’t you think it very likely that on this sort of evidence that the oceans have been warming and cooling on a regular basis? IF it takes hundreds of years for heat to accumulate in the oceans depths, is what is being found in the ocean depths a residue from the last warm period?

        The other lines on the graph are self explanatory. How glacier changes could have been precipitated by the static climate depicted in the Hockey Stick is ‘anyone’s guess. My guess is that it wasn’t static as the other line indicates.

        tonyb

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        That’s a fun and interesting chart Tony. Yep, oceans rise and fall as glaciers retreat or advance respectively, and it all has to do with energy balance of the planet. Add a little more and glaciers retreat, oceans rise and warm– take a little away and you get the opposite. What we are seeing now, is a rapid ocean warming (by geological standards of past warming.) This is far outside any known forcing other than the energy imbalance caused by increasing GH gas concentrations. Could it be something else we currently don’t know about? Absolutely, but the probability for that is extremely low.

      • Lati, I told you that was a big heat sink of it sunk 5e22 joules/year. JimD changed that to per decade, which is about the amount diffusing downward due to the excess infrared forcing function caused by GHG.

        Look to the documented analysis as that holds the key.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Sanity check anyone?

        There is about a 15E+22 J increase in ocean heat content – eyeballing the NODC data – over 30 years to 2010. Sorry that’s about a 0.5E+22 J/yr increase.

        Use the best available data.

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckmannampLTroan2011-fig5PG_zpsee63b772.jpg.html?sort=3&o=39

        You get 0.3E+22 J/yr

        That’s about a 0.006 degree C increase averaged over the top 2000 metres.

        Levitus at the NODC looks distinctly different to von Schuckmann – which looks disturbingly different to JASON altimetry. Karina von Schuckmann is consistent with CERES so I’m going with that.

        Most of this change is caused by secular cloud cover change.

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif.html?sort=3&o=117

        Have you been to webby’s site? It’s totally hilarious.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        When it warms, it’s really really AGW, but when it doesn’t warm, it’s only an apparent non-warming, a non-real non-warming.

        Got it.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | August 25, 2013 at 9:07 am
        … basic GH gas theory is about energy balance and not about specifically tropospheric temperatures … given the continued energy imbalance displayed in the Earth system over the past 16 years, AGW has been most strongly confirmed.
        >>
        So the radiation budget of Earth has finally been reliably and accurately measured ?
        And moves in lockstep with CO2 concentration ?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        d(W&H)/dt = power in – power out

        where W&H = work and heat

        The changes in the individual terms have been more or less well defined. It is a little difficult to put them all together quantitatively.

        The big RH side changes however – and decadal at that – are in power out as feedbacks of ocean and atmosphere circulations.

        ‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf

        Advances in Understanding Top-of-Atmosphere
        Radiation Variability from Satellite Observations
        Norman G. Loeb • Seiji Kato • Wenying Su • Takmeng Wong • Fred G. Rose • David R. Doelling • Joel R. Norris • Xianglei Huang

        There are a few leading lights there and complicated it most certainly is.

      • Have you looked inside Chief Hydro’s mind? It’s completely empty. Hilarious.

        A psychotic psockpuppet is the best way to describe him.

        Hansen predicted the current land-sea warming split in 1981. If there is no heat sink, the transient temperature rise is greater than if there is a heat sink. Other factors will also play a role, but this one is always there.

      • Trenberth said “observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans, owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land”

        Besides being well understood and well cited, this is also a concept that a competent scientist or engineer would be able to intuit if they were presented the premise of a mixed land and sea environment.

        Raise your hand if you can not understand this concept.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. In this study it is illustrated that this land–sea contrast exists also on interannual time scales and that the ocean–land interaction is strongly asymmetric. The land surface temperature is more sensitive to the oceans than the oceans are to the land surface temperature, which is related to the processes causing the land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios. It suggests that the ocean’s natural variability and change is leading to variability and change with enhanced magnitudes over the continents, causing much of the longer-time-scale (decadal) global-scale continental climate variability. Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=11

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1

        Intuit? I intuit that webby is unable to process anything that is not in accordance with his inner ‘intuitive’ narrative, is obsessed with climate trivia and gets that wrong and is tedious in his endless whines and abuse.

        Seriously – he solves ‘climate sensitivity’ with a single line of algebra. Can we conceive of anything more simplistically stupid?

        I prefer Michael Ghil’s solution for sensitivity – ϒ in the next link.

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=0

        Something a bit more nuanced that webby’s inner reality.

        Of course ocean warming at the end of the last century was driven by net toa radiant flux – which was all shortwave.

        e.g. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=129

        Hands up anyone who thinks webby is an idiot.

      • The Chief has never shown any attempt at analytically formulating a model or of simulating anything as far as I can tell.

        Yet he goes on and on with cherry-picked quotes that he has mined from a select few papers.

        No one trusts a fake scientist such as the Chief, as we all have had bosses who could talk the talk, but could not walk the walk.

        Treat the Chief as an impediment to understanding.
        Read what he says and then do your best to ignore it.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Not even Hansen is stupid enough to believe that his ‘box model’ is physically realistic.

        What you call models are simplistic and incorrect climate trivia – such as the heat accumulation in the oceans yesterday. Out by a factor of 10. Insane and not all that interesting a factoid for a number of reasons.

        You have such a shallow understanding of climate. Such as first denying that ENSO reverted to the mean by forcing and then reverted away from the mean by forcing. In both cases it was appropriate to insult and abuse – without admitting what an idiot you are of course.

        It is all very tedious, dishonest and stupid.

      • The first-order physics model always has a basis in reality.

        Chief can’t comprehend this because he is just a garden-variety Civ.

        Students go into CivE because that can’t cut the hard engineering disciplines.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        It is not a physics model but a ‘box model’. No one but webby is stupid enough to think it is anything other than a modelling convenience – even James Hansen.

      • Wrong Cheap Hydrologist,
        Diffusional models are strong climate science, as they apply first order physics known to work.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Wrong Deadhead Dick – the physics of energy flow is from the Sun to the surface, to the atmosphere and back out to space. It is not from the atmosphere to the oceans. Therefore the model is physically unrealistic – it is a ‘box model’ in which virtual diffusion is substituted for more realistic but much more complex physics.

        ‘In science and engineering, a black box is a device, system or object which can be viewed in terms of its input, output and transfer characteristics without any knowledge of its internal workings. Its implementation is “opaque” (black). Almost anything might be referred to as a black box: a transistor, an algorithm, or the human brain.’ Wikipedia

        You are the only one – including James Hansen – who believes that his 1981 ‘box model’ is physically realistic. Hilarious.

      • Nice word salad gibberish ya got going there Chef Waterboy.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        That you continue to misunderstand such a simple concept is pathological and not just down to dumb.

    • “Death by death, science advances.”
      This sounded awkward to me. Also Fan’s version. So I looked it up.

      It’s “Science advances one funeral at a time” Max Planck

    • Chief Hydrologist

      It is not a physics model but a ‘box model’. No one but webby is stupid enough to think it is anything other than a modelling convenience – even James Hansen.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Wrong Deadwood Dick – the physics of energy flow is from the Sun to the surface, to the atmosphere and back out to space. It is not from the atmosphere to the oceans. Therefore the model is physically unrealistic – it is a ‘box model’ in which virtual diffusion is substituted for more realistic but much more complex physics.

      ‘In science and engineering, a black box is a device, system or object which can be viewed in terms of its input, output and transfer characteristics without any knowledge of its internal workings. Its implementation is “opaque” (black). Almost anything might be referred to as a black box: a transistor, an algorithm, or the human brain.’ Wikipedia

      You are the only one – including James Hansen – who believes that his 1981 ‘box model’ is physically realistic. Hilarious.

  44. Chief Hydrologist

    In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.

    The IPCC
    has always agreed with sceptics about the the unreliability of climate models in their current state – along with such illustrious leaders in the field as James McWilliams and Tim Palmer.

    NASA confirms the importance of natural variability in climate. Mojib Latif has just the other day reaffirmed the importance of chaos and abrupt change in climate change. This of course is a favourite theme of the father of climate science Wally Broeker.

    The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.

    It looks like sceptics were right all along and things are not quite so simple – aye FOMBS.

  45. Chief Hydrologist

    Unlike progressives we would like to see approaches that have some likelihood of succeeding. This paper from the hugely influential London School off Economic is an example of humane and practical approaches to carbon mitigation. As is this later Breakthrough Institute publication.

    Unlike progressives we see opportunities and not just problems – such as in retreeing the Sahel. Or in achieving energy efficiency and diversity through research and development.

    What would you do if you had L$75 billion?

    This is not an idle question – this is the most important question in the world aye FOMBS?

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Chief Hydrologist embraces foolish in-group/out-group cognition “Unlike progressives we would like to see approaches that have some likelihood of succeeding. [...] Unlike progressives we see opportunities and not just problems”

      Chief Hydrologist, who is the “we” for whom you speak? Who are the “progressives” whom you demonize? Does James Hansen stand with you or does he stand against you? How about Pope Francis and Wendell Berry; do they stand with you or against you?

      The false dichotomies of your in-group/out-group worldview are utterly nonsensical, aren’t they Chief Hydrologist?

      \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}

      • +(-1)^0.5

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Oddly FOMBS decries insider/outsider dynamics. Is there not a modicum of hypocrisy here? Not surprising I am sure.

        Scientifically I have allowed the IPCC, James McWilliams, Tim Palmer and Mojib Latif to speak for me.

        In policy terms it is the London School of Economics, The Breakthrough Institute, The Copenhagen Consensus and the Millennium Development Goals. These are all worthy objectives although with MDG tainted by association with the UN. Nonetheless – aid programs are directed by individual countries and commitments have been made.

        Technically – I let the American Society of Mechanical Engineers speak for me on energy innovation. I could also point the the LANL, General Atomics, Air Fuel Synthesis, MIT (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/algae-fuel-0524.html) and many others.

        Economically we are more likely to read F.A. Hayek than Any Rand. Maximum economic growth remains essential to human progress this century and people who oppose this are closer to dangerous fanatics than saints.

        ‘For some on the far left, the stock answer is that capitalism is the problem, leaving us stuck in a rut and powerless to move towards a better society. Is economic contraction compatible with capitalism? This is a key question, but one that it is important to answer without resort to dogma, if the real obstacles are to be understood….

        Eco-compatible capitalism is conceivable in theory, but unrealistic in practice. Capitalism would require a high level of regulation to bring about the reduction of our ecological footprint. The market system, dominated by huge multinational corporations, will never set off down the virtuous path of eco-capitalism of its own accord….

        Mechanisms for countering power with power, as existed under the Keynes-Fordist regulations of the Social-Democratic era, are conceivable and desirable. But the class struggle seems to have broken down. The problem is: capital won….

        A society based on economic contraction cannot exist under capitalism. But capitalism is a deceptively simple word for a long, complex history. Getting rid of the capitalists and banning wage labour, currency and private ownership of the means of production would plunge society into chaos. It would bring large-scale terrorism….We need to find another way out of development, economism (a belief in the primacy of economic causes and factors) and growth: one that does not mean forsaking the social institutions that have been annexed by the economy (currency, markets, even wages) but reframes them according to different principles.’ http://monthlyreview.org/2011/01/01/capitalism-and-degrowth-an-impossibility-theorem

        It sounds very similar to things that FOMBS has promulgated along with Jim Hansen and Wendell Berry. So the real question is not about false dichotomies but about which side you are on. Individual freedom, free markets, economic growth, democracy and the rule of law or dangerous fantasies about a resurgent socialism. Isn’t that so FOMBS?

    • The basic dichotomy is between

      – ‘progressives’ (eg FOMD) who want more politics for its own sake, and hitch on to the CAGW bandwagon merely for convenience, exhibiting credulity as regards to it, but having zero interest in whether or not there is actually any substance to it, since it justifies more government interference in society — their real agenda


      – people who want more than IPCC-type hype before accepting even more government interference

  46. “my post-Climagate essay ‘On the credibility of climate research‘ on McIntyre’s blog.” – JC

    Never saw it before

    So, this is interesting;
    “he quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive. Do this and they will quickly run out of steam and become irrelevant” – JC

    There really isn’t that much that isn’t avaiable is there?

    Doesn’t stop the never-ending audit,or quieten down WUWT does it? Why?

    Because such sites have gone far beyond any original motivating issue, to simply exisitng for their own sakes and maintaining an audience.
    There’s no terribly compelling issues in the slowly evolving world of climate science research that needs daily blog-posts.

    It’s primarily about keeping the eye-balls engaged and maintaining the profile of the blog-owners.

    • Latimer Alder

      @michael

      Fear not.

      The Real Climate blog has already faded away into insignificance.

      You needn’t worry about it any more.

    • Latimer Alder

      @michael

      Meant to say that its demise just illustrates my earlier contention that interest in climatology continues to fall. Nobody wants to be lectured by The Team anymore. They have become irrelevant.

    • Devout and gullible alarmism-at-any-cost advocate that he is, Michael doggedly blinds himself as to why people will not let go of Climategate, even though data was eventually prised data out of Jones and the other crooks.

      He urgently needs help, so here it is : it’s because there has never been any recognition from the alarmist establishment that there was ever anything wrong with the whole “why should I show you my data when I know you’ll try and find something wrong with it” approach, and that its ok to corrupt science in order advance political correctness.

  47. A very well reasoned and useful blog. Thank you Dr Curry.

    I agree with the following one caveat, “Virtually all academic climate scientists are within the 97% consensus regarding the infrared emission of the carbon dioxide molecule and the warming effect on the planet. This includes ‘skeptics’ such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, etc.

    [and me, Frank P White, too]

    The caveat I wish to add concerns the role of clouds, which are not well modeled. The physics of clouds and their role in climate are still uncertain.

    There are at least three possiblities (1) that clouds either reduce the positive feedback of water vapour or (2) that cloud formation is driven by factors exogenous to the Earth’s climate systmem (Svensmark and others).and (3) both ot the above.

  48. “I reckon that without climate change, we would not have exceeded thresholds that caused the flooding of the subways in Manhattan and the tunnels from Manhattan to New Jersey and to Brooklyn.”

    Tell that to the people in Galveston Texas in 1900

  49. Trenberth has argued that climate change is affecting all weather now, because the background conditions have changed as a result human-caused global warming. I don’t disagree with this statement; however there is no prima facie reason to think that global warming will make most extreme weather events more frequent or more severe.

    The weather in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods was different than the weather that occurred in the Little Ice Age.

    That is clear and everyone should see that. That is certainly true, but it has nothing to do with the issue. Manmade CO2 did not cause the changes from the Roman Warm Time to the cold time after. Manmade CO2 did not cause the next warming into the Medieval Warm Period. Manmade CO2 did not cause the next cooling into the Little Ice Age. There is every reason to believe that this warming would have happened with or without Manmade CO2.

    Why do climate scientists think this time would be different.

    Only because their models tell them so. Data from the past says warming would have happened on the current schedule. Look at data and if Model output says something different, go with data every time.

    • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

      H. Pope said:

      “There is every reason to believe that this warming would have happened with or without Manmade CO2.”

      ——
      Completely untrue. There is no reason (as in specific physical cause) to think this would have happened. Certainly some of the 20th century warming was natural cycles, but a percentage of it- especially late 20th century has no other known cause but human activity.

      • Phil Jones heself showed me something in that wonderful, just post ClimateGate, interview with Roger Harrabin. Three times in the last century and a half the rate of temperature rise was the same, and only in the last of these was AnthroCO2 also rising. We are witnessing the grandest example yet of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc logical fallacy.

        R Gates, the episodically skeptical alarmist, gives some of it away with ‘no other known cause’, and the rest of it away with his failure to observe those slopes of the Phil & Roger Reality Show.
        =======================

      • kim, yes, but that last step is a doozy. Look at the land temps to date.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:120

      • JimD

        your 9.58. What is your end year for your plot?

        tonyb

      • Gates-
        No other known cause but human activity is not the same as no other cause.

      • RGates

        The warming has been going on for 350 years. In which year did the rise suddenly change from being natural to being man made?.

      • In which year did the rise suddenly change from being natural to being man made?. When they figured out they could make money with man made but there is little money in natural.

      • tonyb, the last 10-year average ends in the middle of 2013, and is assigned to 2008.5.

      • Mainly this rise in the land temperature makes you ask that, at this point, what difference does the ocean temperature make? AMO shmAMO.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        With the slow but continual external forcing that GH increases represent, you can’t identify a single year that suddenly the warming (or rather the alteration of Earth’s energy budget) begins to show up. The best you can do is take decades, and talk about the relative influence in percentage terms compared to natural variations during a period. When doing this, and realizing that the anthropogenic effects are cumulative and increasing, you can say that during the period of 1850-1900 anthropogenic effects on Earth’s energy balance were say less than 10%, from 1900-1950, maybe around 10-20%, from 1950-1975, 20-30%, from 1975-2000, 30-50%, and going forward now, greater than 50%. The anthropogenic influence now dominates Earth’s energy balance compared to natural variability with corresponding effects on climate.

      • JimD

        In that case it would be useful if you redid it on a shorter average so it ends now as it would be interesting to see it brought up to the minute like the Met Office chart you scoffed at yesterday

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

        tonyb

      • I don’t think regional averages are useful unless you also average over at least 30 years. Then it starts to look like the global average that you can do with shorter time-averaging. They are consilient when like is compared to like. Ten year averages get rid of ENSO noise and solar cycles, so I stick with that as a minimum.

      • R Gates, that is a reach. While I am sure man has some impact there are numerous examples of abrupt change in the paleo data provided you don’t let some morons smooth it to death. CO2 has lead some of those changes and trailed others. Having an overshoot of mean recovering from a depressed temperature is not only common but should be expected based on D-O events and the numerous centennial scale pseudo-oscillations, the Pacific Centennial Oscillation for example.

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00421.1

        There are even physical reasons why CO2 forcing is limited on a planet cover mostly with water.

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/08/it-is-greenhouses-all-way-down.html

        If you realize that Earth’s random climate generator has a range of about +/-1.25 C for interglacials, over precision and over analysis are the likely causes for alarm.

      • After having a warm period after every cold period and after having a cold period after every warm period for ten thousand years, why do you think this cycle should stop and now a warm period is unnatural.

        What changed that could stop this natural and very regular cycle?

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Capt.,

        You make good points, but it seems you at least agree to some anthropogenic influence, and certainly you must agree that this influence has been gradually increasing over time, rather than a specific year upon which it suddenly started. We know the effects of GH gases on Earth’s energy budget, and we know these effects increase with greater concentrations. What we don’t know is how this chaotic but deterministic system with all its positive and negative feedbacks will respond to this (geologically speaking) sudden and large jolt, which I have accurately named the human carbon volcano.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        H. Pope asked:

        “What changed that could stop this natural and very regular cycle?”

        ———
        That’s why it is called an external forcing. Life goes on peacefully with season following season, warm periods and cold periods on the side of a volcano for what can thousands of years. The volcano erupting represents an external forcing to the ecosystem and micro-climate near the volcano. The system gets perturbed. Only in the case of AGW, the volcano is everywhere that humans are, with billions of tailpipes and smokestacks equalling the human carbon volcano.

      • R. Gates, but the Human Carbon Volcano has limits. The point should be to rationally determine those limits for which over confidence in artificial precision of reanalyized sparse data is not conducive.

        You yourself noticed that SSW events were just plain missed in the models and energy budgets previously used to “prove” confidence in projections. We haven’t scratch the surface of the math required to figure this sucker out yet. Until then, Carnot and basic thermo indicate that Trenberth’s reliance on models is daft.

      • JIMD

        I disagree. 30 years are an arbitrary human made measure. Civilisations gave fallen in less time than that. Humans operate on much shorter time scales. If climate is changing farmers need to change their cropping plans and all sorts of industries need to adjust their patterns.

        Here is CET graphed in 50 year and decadal set against the Hockey stick.

        The HS (and other paleo proxy reconstructions) give a false impression of climate stability. The real world is not like that. It is local, it is regional it is not Global (as can be seen by CET and other data sets)
        tonyb

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Capt.,

        Trenberth has stated quite clearly that we know the models are wrong. Did you not know this? But he enough of a scientist to know that the basic physics is right, and hence his insistence (from years ago) that there must be missing heat somewhere in the system, or, as he also admitted, it could have just gone into space, somehow undetected. We have since that infamous statement of his, found pretty good evidence that at least some of the heat is indeed in the oceans, as the past solid 10 years of ARGO data clearly shows.

        Related to SSWs, (yes, a favorite topic of mine), the connection of these events with troposphere-stratosphere energy exchanges is indeed an area we know relatively little about, and certainly they are not well accounted for in climate models.

      • Rgates

        Lets just say that somehow the warming is hiding from our surface sensors until it reaches the ocean depths where our imperfect data shows it has suddenly accumulated (perhaps) .

        At the present rate of the energy budget diverting to the ocean how long would it be before the ocean depths (below 200metres to the abyssal depths) increased by a temperature we might notice. Lets generously say that’s as little as 1degree Centigrade.

        Tonyb

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Tony,

        Unless thousands of independent ARGO sensors have simultaneously started having the exact same kind of error, we already know to a very high degree of certainty that the oceans have been gaining energy. Furthermore, the amount of energy being retained by the ocean is far more than the energy lost by the so-called “pause” in tropospheric temperatures in the past decade. To a very high degree of confidence we can say that Earth’s energy imbalance has continued quite steadily, without pause, all consistent with the basic physics of increasing GH gases in the atmosphere.

        The best thing to come from the “pause” may well be that we take a closer look at cyclical ocean-atmosphere energy exchanges, and account for them more fully in future models.

      • R. Gates, “But he enough of a scientist to know that the basic physics is right, and hence his insistence (from years ago) that there must be missing heat somewhere in the system”

        Then why is his energy budget still wrong? Stephens and Stevens didn’t publish on the energy budget just for grins. As for his missing heat, 0-2000 is about half the average ocean depth. Increased mixing efficiency in the southern oceans increases the colder flow down below 2000 meters. If he had the physics down to begin with there would have been no missing heat. Realizing you have screwed up is a good thing, but correcting the screw up is part of the process.

        Now since the NH SSW event magnitude has increased, the rate of even the 0-2000 OH uptake has decreased in the NH. I haven’t heard him making press releases on that subject. That is an indication of a shift in the AMO which he should be all over. Pre-dicting is where the money is. Post-dicting is normally pretty simple and they can’t even get that right.

      • RGates

        2 points.

        Firstly the tiny number of buoys (they are a very coarse sieve) dive down to only 2000 metres (stopping along the way). The average ocean depth is double that so there is an awful lot of water not being sampled.

        Second point. You did not answer my question. How long would it take the ocean to warm from top to bottom 1 degree centigrade assuming current rate of ocean warming?

        tonyb

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Captn.,

        Related to NH SSW magnitude increasing, or even the frequency increasing, you realize this is quite consistent with models showing an enhancement to the Brewer-Dobson Circulation as the result of increased GH gases, yes? Furthermore, this enhanced BDC, which has been measured and is consistent with a weakened QBO, runs exactly against some models which showed a tropical troposphere warm spot as the result of increased GH gases. We had two classes of models, some showing an enhanced BDC, and some showing the troposphere warm spot, and it seems the BDC models were correct, and this ties directly into larger and more frequent NH SSW events. Quite interesting, eh?

      • climatereason, 30 years is not arbitrary. If you have a time series with a standard deviation of random fluctuations and you want to see a signal of a tenth of a degree per decade, you have to knock down the noise level by averaging either over space or time to see these signals. The global annual average temperature has a standard deviation of about 0.1 degrees, so a ten-year average brings that down to where you can see global warming. I would bet the annual CET has a much larger standard deviation and needs more averaging to see the same signal. Typically n-year averages reduce the standard deviation by a factor of root n.

      • R. Gates, ” We had two classes of models, some showing an enhanced BDC, and some showing the troposphere warm spot, and it seems the BDC models were correct, and this ties directly into larger and more frequent NH SSW events. Quite interesting, eh?”

        Yes it is. I started looking into mixed phased cloud impacts and stratosphere response after finding the ~18 Wm-w error in the K&T Earth Energy Budgets. Yep, that’s right, the HVAC guy found a mistake. That should be pretty sad commentary on the state of the science. I also started looking for better ocean models since stratosphere response is directly related to ocean heat transport.

        If you look close at that link to my blog you see ~20Wm-2 from the surface to the free atmosphere. K&T have had 40 in every budget including the last one. They don’t even consider the impact of the ABL which is most of the greenhouse space.

        So as far as I am concerned, the crap models should go in the dumpster, the false certainty based on the crap models should be loudly renounced and the overall state of the climate science should be brought up to date, kind of like it mattered.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Tony,

        I think we all agree that we need more and better and deeper sampling of the ocean, but the over 3500 ARGO floats represent a good enough sample to know what is happening with a high degree of certainty over most of the worlds ocean down to 2000 meters. To this depth, we can, again with a high degree of certainty, say the ocean has been gaining energy.

        Regarding your question about how long it would take to warm the ocean to a temperature we might notice- you said 1C. I haven’t the faintest idea. We are already noticing it through our sensors, which is more important. The oceans are a great heat sink, and 1C over the whole ocean down to the bottom would be a huge amount of energy. As it is, the oceans are storing around .5 x 10^22 Joules per year down to 2000 meters (actually a bit more than this over the past decade). Remember, this is not energy being moved from atmosphere to ocean, but energy never reaching the atmosphere from the ocean as the net flow is always from ocean to atmosphere.

      • Latimer Alder

        @ r gates

        Wow. 5 x 10^22 Joules! Sounds like a real big number.

        But please explain to a layman why that amount passes the SFW test?

        The oceans are big and deep and have a high thermal capacity. Tony asked a perfectly sensible question – how long before this would raise the temperature by 1C. And you have twice avoided answering it. Shouldn’t be hard to do. You know the amount of heat per unit time, the amount of oceans and the thermal capacity. Simple calculation to get a first pass estimate.

        The cynical might wonder if the answer is suitably far away that revealing it would kill any residual concern about the supposed bad effects of AGW stone dead.

        Please answer the question ..and show your working. I have already made my estimate and deposited it in a sealed vault. Once you have made yours, we can compare. And in case I die before you do so, the password to the secret vault is A2253D.

      • RGates

        Firstly, let me agree that I thoroughly approve of the ARGO initiative.

        However it is very early days and as yet we have no real idea if the data is representative as it is so limited and so recent. There is very limited sampling even of the limited amount of ocean-to 2000 metres- that they are set up for

        Argo is a fairly home spun organisation at present. Here is the latest meeting of the Argo steering committee.

        http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/iast14.pdf

        Bearing in mind the vastness of the ocean I would suggest that it will be very many hundreds of years before the temperature rises 1C even if-and it is a very big IF, that is where warming is going.

        Don’t you think that if there is an energy imbalance it is most likely going into space?
        tonyb

      • It is not a simple question because it depends what layer the warming affects. The ocean surface (the part that matters for climate) can warm and cool several degrees in a season. The answer depends on what depth you are talking about and what time scale, which is linked to the depth.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Tony,

        I guess I do put more credibility in the numerous studies showing the oceans to be gaining energy, and related directly to this, more credibility to the data coming from the thousands of ARGO floats. But we must remember that there are still other sampling going on, separate from ARGO. Not as extensive, but the data is completely in line with ARGO findings. I do have a high degree of confidence that the oceans have been gaining energy.

        Could some energy be escaping to space, undetected? Perhaps a very small amount. Satellite TOA measurements seem pretty consistent is showing an energy imbalance of around 0.8 w/m^2 for our planet (+ or – .2 w/m^2). I think most of that is going into the ocean, but am open to the possibility that it could be going to other parts of Earth’s energy system, or even, completely undefected, going right into space through some as yet unknown mechanism.

      • R. Gates,

        I knocked this out for ya.

        When you use the Trenberth OHC switcheroo to deflect attention away from the “pause”, you need to remember that OHC and SST are actually related. Invoking UNicorns to maintain UNtopian fantasies is all the rage in politics, but science is supposed to be different. It is pretty remarkable how well data sets agree and for there to be something “missing” would be an indication of poor understanding of the system physics aka crap for OH transport modeling.

        With the current rate of ocean heat uptake, it would take nearly 350 years for the ocean average temperature to rise 0.8C or about the amount that the “Globle” cooled during the little ice age.

        There is finally a legitimate discussion by real live scientist on the longer term, ocean oscillation and the possibility that there is indeed a long term secular trend unrelated to your scare headline worthy, “Human Carbon Volcano”.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Thanks for doing the math there Captn. Your figure is roughly correct I presume, but we must keep in mind that the rate of heat retention by the ocean is accelerating as GH gases continue to increase. Over the past 40 years we saw a roughly 0.5 x 10^22 joules per year on average addition down to 2000 meters, but during the past 10 years, during our most accurate measurement period, we saw nearly 1 x 10^22 joules per year. If this trend is indicative of what the continued buildup of GH may bring, it could be much sooner than a few hundred years that we see the 1C rise in ocean temperatures. A potential mitigating factor, though hardly cause for great comfort, would be if larger pieces of Greenland and Antarctica ice break off sooner, which, like putting ice cubes in a drink, might serve to cool at least some of the oceans a bit. Whether this small amount of ocean cooling would make any difference for ocean temperatures is dubious, though we would see sea levels rise even faster than predicted for the additional mass transfer.

      • R Gates

        look forward to your comments on my glacier chart.

        As regards warming of the oceans surely the amount of direct sunlight hitting it is key to warming the surface, which then percolates deeper. Why the concentration on trying to prove that Co2 is achieving this?

        tonyb

      • Latimer Alder

        @r gates etc

        So we got there in the end. We have three estimates from three people and they vary from 250 to 350 years to warm the ocean by 1C.

        That’s about it all over for AGW alarmism then.

        I doubt that you will ever persuade anybody to do anything at all on the basis that all the pain will be felt now but the benefits (if any) won’t occur for 250 years. At 20 years you have a chance..but 12 generations away you’re out.

        And having finally established this important pint, I can feel the cold wind of ‘consolidation’ blowing through the halls of academe. From headline poster boys to total irrelevance. It’s taken Mother Gaia just 15 years to show the immodest climos that she still has tricks up her sleeve..and to punish them for their hubris and arrogant certainty.

        You’d need a heart of stone not to laugh.

      • Latimer

        Yes that ocean warming time scale is hardly scary is it? I would point out that I asked the original question of R gates which has killed AGW so should get the Nobel prize. Mind you in my acceptance speech I shall graciously acknowledge that you made some of the calculations.

        So that will make two Nobels I will have. The other because one was awarded to the EU and we are both very happy participants in the great EU project of course, so your consolation is that you do at least have one Nobel prize, which is all that Dr Mann has got.

        Strange end to the cricket

        tonyb

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Tony & Latimer,

        A perfect study in self-fulfilling conclusions. Your assumptions that no effects from warmer oceans will be important until some arbitrary 1C increase is reached was where your game really was pre-ordained to the conclusion you reached (and Tony getting his second Nobel prize!)

        As oceans play such an integral role in weather and climate and the oceans don’t know of the 1C restriction you’ve placed before things get interesting, and given that even small variations of ocean temperatures vertically and horizontally, make a big difference in weather and climate patterns, you can be sure that the additional energy being added to the ocean play a role in weather and climate immediately.

      • Latimer Alder

        @tony b

        I wish you joy of your Peace Prize. Seems to me that it has been somewhat diminished in stature by some perverse awards recently. But I would be very proud indeed to be a fellow laureate with Mikhail Gorbachev and Lech Walesa. If you can arrange an introduction to either I’d be delighted.

        Very very odd end to the cricket. It’s good that England has already won the Ashes. Had this been the decider I imagine that rioting would have broken out. And I doubt the umpires will be on many Xmas card lists this year.

      • R. Gates, “Your figure is roughly correct I presume, but we must keep in mind that the rate of heat retention by the ocean is accelerating as GH gases continue to increase.”

        Actually, there is no evidence of acceleration. Using sea level rise as a proxy for ocean heat content you have the same recovery secular trend with more of a blip i.e. step, than an acceleration. CO2 is a ln(2) function not an exponential. CO2 emissions were exponential, but that is unsustainable. If you ASSUME that 100% of the SST or OHC rise is due to CO2 forcing you can barely eke out a 3C sensitivity, 1.6C fits the instrumental including pause and 0.8 to 1.2 is a better match once you consider exponential CO2 emission growth is unsustainable and include the longer term secular recovery trend.

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-picture-worth-trillion-dollars.html

        Tropical SST has less of the ~60 year oscillation and more of the centennial scale oscillation. If you start with the wrong initial conditions you can get whatever you want, but as is becoming more obvious, the little ice age was not “normal”.

        You can go the abby normal route and be like Webster and JimD and ASSUME CO2 is the sole forcing and that the land tail wags the ocean dog, but that is not all that bright as you know.

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/08/sea-dog-wagging-best-tail.html

      • Latimer, test your theory against the data. The oceans warmed nearly a degree over the last century. How do you suppose that happened? Perhaps because the active part of the ocean where the warming occurred is quite shallow and the deep water doesn’t take part on these time scales.

      • Latimer Alder

        @R Gates etc

        You would have been a lot more convincing if you’d just come out with the numbers up front and explained then why they were still of interest.

        Your great reluctance to do so shows that you (like I) knew the values and also knew that you haven’t a cat’s chance in hell of frightening anyone with them. 5 x 10^22 sounds like a lot more than 1/30C. No wonder you didn’t want to admit that the two are the same.

        And given the triviality of the annual increases, maybe it is worth keeping a few honest climos as observers to see exactly what disasters a 0.2C rise ill have provoked by 2065.

        Otherwise, it’s over. I’ll take a while to wind it all down, but it’s over.

      • Latimer, you are assuming the ocean quickly mixes surface warming down to kilometers, aren’t you? Doesn’t that seem stupid to you, or do you see these deep churning motions in your part of the world? How did the ocean warm by nearly a degree in the past century with forcing a fraction of that to come? These are the questions.

      • Jim D

        How did the ocean warm by nearly a degree in the past century with forcing a fraction of that to come? These are the questions.

        Naw, Jim.

        The questions are: Did the ocean warm by nearly a degree in the past century and how do we know that?

        Max

      • R. Gates
        Certainly some of the 20th century warming was natural cycles, but a percentage of it- especially late 20th century has no other known cause but human activity.
        >>
        So natural cycles are now well understood and quantified, and we rule out the possibility of there being causes we can’t think of. Oh, just forget clouds btw.
        Case closed, let the carbon taxing commence.

      • Gates:
        The anthropogenic influence now dominates Earth’s energy balance compared to natural variability with corresponding effects on climate.
        >>
        Regurgitate dogma of the models a few more times please, I still haven’t found the faith.

      • Gates : We know the effects of GH gases on Earth’s energy budget, and we know these effects increase with greater concentrations. What we don’t know is how this chaotic but deterministic system with all its positive and negative feedbacks will respond to this (geologically speaking) sudden and large jolt, which I have accurately named the human carbon volcano.
        .
        Wow, this is bordering on sensible, very different from the other “Gates” so fond of pious platitudes and certainty.

      • RGates
        “we already know to a very high degree of certainty that the oceans have been gaining energy.”

        How much, and to what accuracy ?

        “To a very high degree of confidence we can say that Earth’s energy imbalance has continued quite steadily”

        How much, and to what accuracy ?

      • RGates,
        The oceans are warming, you say, but “this is not energy being moved from atmosphere to ocean, but energy never reaching the atmosphere from the ocean as the net flow is always from ocean to atmosphere.”

        So nothing to do with CO2 then …

      • There are basically two alternatives explanations for what we have seen (and any combination of the two):

        1) The explanation of Trenberth, i.e. variability in the net heat flux between oceans and the atmosphere.

        2) The explanation of skeptical scientists like Lindzen and Spencer, i.e. variability in the albedo and through that in the net heat balance of the whole Earth system.

        The first explanation says little about the climate sensitivity, but accepting that the earlier rapid warming was partly due to natural variability does lower the best estimate to some extent from earlier estimates. The second explanation would make it more likely that the overall feedback averaged over longer periods is not strongly positive, might be even a little negative.

        There’s certainly additional evidence from satellites, OHC measurements, paleoclimatic studies, etc.. Some of that tells that the climate sensitivity is not very low, while some does also support the conclusion that albedo has a significant role. The more detailed proposals of Lindzen and others in support of the second alternative have not been convincing, but that by itself doesn’t tell, what’s really going on.

      • So nothing to do with CO2 then …

        Right. That’s part of a picture, where the overall temperature change forms as the sum of

        1) AGW caused mainly by CO2
        2) Natural processes, which have little to do with CO2.

        The sum rises sometimes rapidly, but at other times much less (or not at all). The longer term trend is given by 1).

      • @climatereason
        R Gates, As regards warming of the oceans surely the amount of direct sunlight hitting it is key to warming the surface, which then percolates deeper. Why the concentration on trying to prove that Co2 is achieving this?

        Because the basic mechanism of CO2 AGW, is that CO2 absorbs and reradiates outgoing LW – in all directions, some of which (“downwelling”) reaches the Earth’s surface.

      • Jim D, it appears from your arguments that you discount the heat going into the deep oceans as per Trenberth. I agree with you. It is unlikely it ever existed to take a journey anywhere.

      • Thank you, Pekka, for that precis and for ‘what’s really going on’. The first step is admitting ignorance. This is not the same thing as helplessness.
        =====================

      • Kim,

        It’s easy to admit ignorance, it’s much more difficult to judge, how far the ignorance extends, or to judge what science can tell and what not.

        My main argument has been for long that uncertainties are large, but that there’s even so enough evidence on potentially serious future damages to take the climate issue seriously. (If you doubt that I have though so for long, you may visit my site.)

        I’m, however, not at all happy about the approach that leads people into stating that “something must be done urgently”, when they cannot justify any specific action, only “something”.

    • in the past ten thousand years, a warm period always followed a cold period. Why do you think it should suddenly not happen this time?
      Normal Modern Climate is made up of cold periods and warm periods that always follow each other. Now computers have smoothed the data and say that did not really happen and would not again.
      This warm time will be followed by a cold time. that always happens in the modern ten thousand year climate. This Modern Climate is different, and it will stay this way as long as the ocean currents and polar ice cycles turn the snowfall on when Polar Oceans are Warm and Wet and turn the snowfall off when Polar Oceans are Cold and Frozen.

  50. A consensus clique is an evil thing. They defend their current consensus with religious zeal. The current fad can be Flat Earth, DDT, Ozone, CO2, Milankovich or whatever. They decide who is in the clique and who is outside the clique. They rule over what can be published by blackmail and blacklist of Publishers and they control the public information outlets. Any public information outlet that airs an opinion that disagrees is attacked as not worth listening to. They maintain 97% by just not counting more than 3% who disagree. You can read the many blogs and clearly see that they don’t have 97% other than inside their clique.
    As long as they lock themselves in their clique, they will never consider anything outside what they think they already know. They are no longer skeptic. They are no longer Scientists.

    • Dr Curry has been kicked out of the 97% Consensus Clique because she does not share their 97% Certainity. She still believe some of the same things but I don’t know if she is counted as one of their 3% or if they don’t count her at all.
      She would have been kicked totally out and not counted at all, but she has too many credentials.

      • Curious eyes
        Reflect the wisdom
        In dogs’ understanding
        Of individual
        And collective action.
        ===============

  51. With regards to multi-decadal natural internal variability, the IPCC considers this issue primarily in context of detection of an anthropogenic warming signal above the background ‘noise’ of natural variability. The IPCC’s attribution of the late 20th century warming has focused on external radiative forcing, and no explicit estimate of the contribution of natural internal variability to the warming was made. A recent paper by Tung and Zhou suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century. They argue that a natural multidecadal oscillation of an average period of 70 years with significant amplitude of 0.3–0.4°C is superimposed on the secular warming trend, which accounts for 40% of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Tung and Zhou identify this oscillation with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), although recent research suggests a more complex multidecadal signal propagating through a network of synchronized climate indices. Tung and Zhou argue that not taking the AMO into account in predictions of future warming under various forcing scenarios may run the risk of over-estimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the AMO is likely in its down phase.

    Thank you JC.

    That is the main dispute between sceptics and the consensus: the multidecadal oscillation, which is not acknowledged by the consensus science.

    Here is Swanson et al contradicting the consensus:


    Observations suggest the warming of the 20th century global mean surface temperature has not been monotonic, even when smoothed by a 10–20 year low-pass filter. Temperatures reached a relative maximum
    around 1940, cooled until the mid 1970s, and have warmed from
    that point to the present. Radiative forcings due to solar
    variations, volcanoes, and aerosols have often been invoked as
    explanations for this non-monotonic variation (4). However, it is
    possible that long-term natural variability, rooted in changes in
    the ocean circulation, underlies much of this variability over
    multiple decades (8–12).

    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full.pdf+html

  52. The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as 1C and as high as 6C cannot be judged as irrational.

    The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as zero C cannot be judged as irrational.

  53. JC conclusions
    EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!

  54. Antonio (AKA "Un físico")

    Politization of science means that scientist are divided in two sides: skeptics (the bad side) and consensus (the good side).
    Imagine we step appart politics from this debate. Then we will get only good and bad science. The bad science says “climate sensitivity uncertainties go most likely from 1C to 6C”. And what the good science says has still to be seen.
    The bad science’s discredit comes from abusing, once and again, of the “cherry picking” logical fallacy. Best regards to Al Gore.

    • Consensus Science is not Really Science.
      There is only one good Science Side.

      • Righto. The risk of appealing to consensus is that if one of the consensus is wrong about the relevant issue, then they are all wrong.

        Hmmmm.

        Andrew

    • Some of the Skeptic Science agrees with some of the same conclusions of the non science but they hold with a lot more uncertainty and still are skeptical of what they believe.
      A Skeptic can be a scientist with AGW beliefs or not.
      Skeptic Vs Consensus is not all or nothing. Only the Consensus People are all or nothing.

  55. Judith, your sins against orthodoxy are three in number and serious in nature. Everyone focuses on the first one, your challenge of the ‘alarmists’ who claim to be the voice of the ‘consensus.’ And it’s true that that sin alone is sufficient for you to be declared excommunicate.

    However, their passions are inflamed every day because of your other two sins. The first is that you provide a forum for skeptics without being condemning of them. The alarmists are blind to the fact that your blog has helped defuse the conversation and that many skeptics are picking up a pen to speak with you when otherwise they would be picking up a pitchfork. They don’t want a bridge. They liked their moat. They hate that your occasional guest posts also question their point of view and blame you for your guest posters’ writings.

    The third sin is U.S. domestic in nature, testifying before official bodies when invited by the hated Republicans. The Democrats (not the Republicans) succeeded in turning climate change into a partisan issue in the USA, and I say that as a passionate Democrat. My party has been doing this since the 1920s and we show no sign of stopping. Insufficient purity is worse than full-on heresy.

    I actually think that what you’ve done is pretty special and very good. When the students of the future mine the climate blogosphere for future dissertations, you will achieve a level of prominence that you probably don’t now expect.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Tom Fuller claims “Judith, your sins against orthodoxy are three in number and serious in nature.”

      Yah mean, the sin of “unwillingness and/or inability to distinguish science that is strong versus mediocre versus weak“?

      Yes, that triptychal reluctance and/or inability definitely *is* a grave sin against the quest for (in Judith Curry’s phrase) “the best available science.” Because climate-change skepticism that confines its attention to the weakest varieties of climate-change science amounts to a particularly timid, feeble, futile variety of climate-change denialism. Needless to say, that is why ignorant demagogic denialism preferentially cloaks itself in the mantle of this timid brand of skepticism.

      Whereas strong skepticism respectfully and rationally confronts the strongest climate-change science … to the mutual benefit of science *and* skepticism.

      Isn’t that plain common sense, Tom Fuller?

      \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}

  56. Latimer Alder, at the beginning of this thread, asked me if I could, name anyone who agreed with me that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2, was indistinguishable from zero. Thinking about this, I had a discussion with Richard Courtney some weeks ago on WUWT. We did not specifically discuss this issue, but my impression was that, while he might not agree with me, by the same token, he probably would no actually disagree with me. I suspect Christopher Moncton would have similar views.

  57. David Wojick

    It is because beliefs regarding CS range from 6 degrees C down to 1 degree or less that we are all here. This is a science intensive policy and political debate, not just a scientific debate. Political debates are typically nasty and this one is no exception. But scientific debates can also be nasty, especially when they go on for decades, as this one has.

  58. Here is Trenberth:

    “The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record.”

    Complete rubbish, no science. He has not the slightest idea of what he is talking about. The super El Nino of 1998 that he is referring to is undoubtedly the warmest El Nino peak in a century but the source of its warmth is not the ocean bottom nor is it heat flowing back into the air. It is an exceptional phenomenon that has no connection whatsoever with the missing greenhouse warmth that he is trying to explain.

    The warmth of an El Nino is due to the fact that it carries the warm water of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool to South America. On arrival this water spreads out along the coast in both directions and warms the air above it. Warm air rises, intereferes with trade winds, mixes with the westerlies, and gets carried all over the world. For that reason the El Nino peaks from America, Europe, and Japan are in register. The super El Nino follows this pattern too except that the mass of warm water it brought across was greater than normal. On satellite graphs its peak is almost twice as high as the average of the preceding five peaks. But in ground-based temperature curves it is squashed down and its true height does not show. People working with ground-based data don’t even know that it was followed by a step warming that raised global temperature by a third of a degree and then stopped.

    That step warming is the only warming during the satellite era but to them it does not even exist because they invented an alternate warming that takes credit for it. It is called the late twentieth century warming and covers the eighties and nineties. No one could find a physical reason for its existence and this was taken as proof that it was man-made. Man-made it was all right, in the back rooms of temperature guardians. In the course of doing research for my book I used satellite data, discovered that it was phony, and said so in 2010 when the book came out. Result: two years later GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC, all in unison, stopped showing this warming and aligned their eighties and nineties with satellites.

    After the step warming was over global temperature did not go down as I expected and has remained basically unchanged (except for ENSO). The 2004 La Nina also is missing because the warm water apparently blotted it out. The legacy of the step warming is that all of the twenty-first century years are warmer than the preceding twentieth century years. Hansen realized that and pointed out that nine of the ten warmest years happened after 2000. He was right of course but he was wrong to attribute it to global warming by the greenhouse effect. Thanks to the pause, the greenhouse effect was just not working when the century began. Nevertheless, futile attempts to make it seem like warming are still cropping up. Usually they use a baseline that partly or wholly belongs to the previous century. This is dishonest. If you want to measure current temperature trend, use a baseline from this century.

    As to the oceans soaking up heat they do it all the time, not just sometimes. The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, the source of the El Nino waves, is built up by the two equatorial currents driven by the trade winds. Water piles up there because its further passage into the Indian Ocean is blocked by New Guinea and the Philippines. ENSO oscillation entails a sloshing back and forth of the Pacific waters from side to side with turnaround points at this warm pool and at the South American coast. When the ocean level at the warm pool is high enough gravity flow east begins along the equatorial counter-current. An El Nino wave forms that is visible by satellites, moves east, and runs ashore in South America. There it spreads out along the coast and warms the air above. Warm air rises, interferes with trade winds, mixes with the westerlies, and we notice the arrival of an El Nino. But any wave that runs ashore must also retreat. As it retreats, sea level behind it drops by half a meter, cold water from below fills the vacuum, and a La Nina has started. As much as the El Nino warmed the air the La Nina will now cool it and global temperature graph looks like a wave. It is not a perfect sine wave because of other happenings in the ocean. To understand the process, consider what happens when you blow across the end of a glass tube. You get its fundamental tone that is determined by the dimensions of the tube. Trade winds are the equivalent of blowing across the end of a tube and the ocean answers with its own fundamental tone – about one El Nino wave every five years or so. This has been going on ever since the Isthmus of Panama rose from the sea. All global temperature curves as far back as you can go are a concatenation of such El Nino peaks with La Nina valleys in between. They are integral to global temperature, not noise to be blotted out by a computer. Their amplitude has remained the same over the years and provides an opportunity to compare diffrent temperature curves. Because they are universal to all temperature curves global average must be defined by putting a dot at the midpoint of every line connecting an El Nino peak with the bottom of an adjacent La Nina valley and connecting the dots. Computed mean is invalid because it treats these peaks as noise which they are not. Knowing the locations of El Nino peaks has another practical value: it helps you to disabuse yourself of the existence of volcanic cooling which is another current climate fantasy.

    The process I described explains the ordinary, every-day El Ninos, but it does not explain why a particular one in 1998 was suddenly far more powerful than the rest. But consider the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool again. The islands framing it are not an absolute barrier to flow because there is still a narrow passage left to the Indian Ocean that leaks away some of the water piled up by the trade winds. If something should block that temporarily the water level of the warm pool would rise faster than normal and it just might create an exceptional El Nino wave as happened in 1998. A giant storm surge is a possibility but that is just a guess. We know that an unusually large El Nino wave arrived in 1998 and that it had a lasting effect. Some of that 500 million that NASA got for climate research should have been used to investigate this but they have no idea of what causes El Ninos.

    That comes from not reading my book “What Warming?” that is still current and could serve as a tutorial for those needing to understand basics of climate change. It does not cover details of the Miskolczi theory, however, that proves the absence of the greenhouse effect from first principles. Miskolczi proved his theory by using NOAA weather balloon database to study the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. He discovered that absorption was constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This means that addition of this substantial amount of CO2 to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. And that is exactly what the pause is – absence of any greenhouse warming despite the highest level of atmospheric carbon dioxide ever. It has lasted for 15 years now.

    How likely is it that CO2 decided 15 years ago to stop warming the atmosphere? Not very, I would say zero actually. It follows that all climate models using the greenhouse effect are invalid and their predictions of warming are just plain wrong. Furthermore, it is also clear that any warming previously designated as greenhouse warming is simply natural warming, misidentified by over-eager observers who needed to prove that man-made warming exists.

  59. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    timg56 asks “Do you see any irony in Miss Sou’s statement about misogyny in comparison to Dr Curry’s experience in the field of climate research?”

    Upon inspecting (what many regard as) the stronger-than-IPCC scientific summary Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature, there was no evidence of misogyny in it … in striking contrast to Watts/WUWT denialist demagoguery, eh timg56?

    Perhaps its unsurprising … Hansen’s distinguished scientific coauthors Makiko Sato and Camille Parmesan and Lise Van Susteren and Karina von Schuckmann aren’t likely to tolerate expressions of misogyny … *or* bad science.

    Why are so many women scientists allying themselves (as co-authors and colleagues) with Hanson-style “best available climate-change science”, and so few with abusively ignorant Watts/WUWT/Monckton denialist demagoguery?

    It’s puzzling, isn’t it timg56?

    \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,

      with your knack for mis-direction, I wondr if you missed your calling.

      BTW – exactly who are the many who regard the particular Hansen et el paper you linked to as superior science? The folks who autghored it?

  60. So who do think, Jim Cripwell, is nowadays advancing the *best* climate-change science (in Judith Curry’s useful phrase)?

    Apples and bowling balls fan. I’ve got to say though, your hagiographic portrayals of that rogue’s gallery of activist climate scientists as shining champions of truth, justice and the progressive way is a tad nauseating. You’d get more respect of you’d drop the propagandistic tone

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Thermometric Proposition  We’ll know that global warming is over when the seas stop rising.

      So according to your notion of the best available science, when will the seas stop rising, pokerguy?

      \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}

    • pokerguy, you ask “So who do think, Jim Cripwell, is nowadays advancing the *best* climate-change science (in Judith Curry’s useful phrase)?”

      Well, there are an awful lot of candidates, so it is difficult to choose. Off the top of my head, and in no particular order; Marc Morano, Christopher Monkon, Neils Axel-Morner, Henrik Svensmark, Richard Courtney, Richard Lindzen, Bill Kinninmonth, Chuck Weiss, Benny Peiser, Nigel Lawson, Matt Ridley, Alec Rawls, Mike Kelly, Vincent Courtillot. I am afraid the list goes on and on and on, and my memory is failing me in my old age. They all have slightly different approaches, but the message of the denier/skeptics who believe that there is no science to support the hypothesis of CAGW, is “Show us the empirical data. And without that data, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there is a high probability that CAGW is correct”.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246

        Perhaps there is a low probability of catastrophic change within as little as a decade?

      • Hey Chief:
        In the video you see all the small surface circulations, 100s of them:

        Then here, as you linked:

        http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F1.expansion.html

        I see two regimes in each diagram and imagine them circulating like in the video. When we approach the other is unknown I suppose. I see its random in that we may stay towards the middle or be near the edge, however the regime may bring us towards its middle and edge following a circulation pattern.

        That Lorenz diagram has brought me as close as I’ve got to understanding regime changes.
        A comment on the above video. I don’t think I will attempt to model that.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I love the video. Some day we are going to have a 3D virtual Earth – in real time would be good.

        The Lorenz strange attractor is the start of chaos theory. Well done.

        http://www.ibiblio.org/e-notes/webgl/lorenz.html

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      LOL … Chief, did you happen to notice the the PI of the ARGO dataset (that you cite) is none other than Karina von Schuckmann, who is yet another a prominent woman-scientist of (what pokerguy calls) Hansen’s rogue’s gallery,” who co-authored “Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature”?

      It sure appears that Dr. Schuckmann ain’t overly inclined to keep quiet about the meaning of “the best available climate-change science”, aye Chief?

      \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 Hydrologist

        RAOTFFL

        You should be more inclined to accept the ARGO results then FOMBS.
        I don’t know personally but perhaps Karina von Schuckmann has moved on a little.

        Here’s another woman.

        ‘JC note: Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.’

        Here’s a guy – Mojib Latif – just the other day.

        ‘What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of the Earth.’ http://www.science20.com/news_articles/climate_predictions_better_hindcasts_will_lead_better_forecasts-118948

        Here’s NASA with the best available science.

        Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”

        Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

        “Around 2001 the climate began shifting. It’s cooling now. That doesn’t mean that the warming was a fluke,” said Tsonis.

        He believes man could have played a role in the warming the world recently experienced. However, Tsonis says natural forces, particularly ocean currents, are playing a greater role in the world’s climate than man. Tsonis says it’s dangerous to place all the blame for climate change on one or the other.

        “I think both views are extreme, and the truth lies somewhere in between,” Tsonis said.

        Regardless, Tsonis believes mankind should take steps to minimize its impact on climate further. Now that we’re in a period of cooling, we have time to do it right.

        “This could be a blessing,” Tsonis told the MacIver Institute. “I think we need to understand this shift better, instead of taking it out of proportion.” http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2010/01/uw-milwaukee-professor-predicts-50-years-of-global-cooling/

        Cooler heads prevail – aye FOMBS?

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Chief, your long post boils down to embrace the strong (Hansen-style) science, refine the mediocre (IPCC-style) science, ignore the weak (empirical/cycle-driven) science.

        Which is exactly what most climate-change scientists (both female and male) are choosing to do!

        It’s a pretty reasonable choice, eh Chief?

        \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 Hydrologist

        RAOTFFL again.

        You are utterly clueless. The strong science is climate as a non-linear and non-equilibrium system. This is the core of mainstream climate science but that you don’t understand is not to be wondered at.

        Have I quoted Wally Broecker recently?

        ‘The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks!’
        – Dr Wally Broecker

        Perhaps someone needs to poke you with a stick FOMBS.

        The question is what to do about it. Which is where you transform from an ignorant eccentric to a potentially dangerous fanatic. Idiot neo-green/socialist fanaticism or practical and pragmatic?

        The crash of 2009 presents an immense opportunity to set climate policy free to fly at last. The principal motivation and purpose of this
        Paper is to explain and to advance this opportunity. To do so involves understanding and accepting a startling proposition. It is now plain that it is not possible to have a ‘climate policy’ that has emissions reductions as the all encompassing goal. However, there are many other reasons why the decarbonisation of the global economy is highly desirable. Therefore, the Paper advocates a radical reframing – an inverting – of approach: accepting that decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.

        The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.

        It explains radical and practical ways to reduce non-CO2 human forcing of climate. It argues that improved climate risk management is a valid policy goal, and is not simply congruent with carbon policy. It explains the political prerequisite of energy efficiency strategies as a first step and documents how this can achieve real emissions reductions. But, above all, it emphasises the primacy of accelerating decarbonisation of energy supply. This calls for very substantially increased investment in innovation in non-carbon energy sources in order to diversify energy
        supply technologies. The ultimate goal of doing this is to develop non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidised costs less than those using fossil fuels. The Hartwell Paper advocates funding this work by low hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes. It opens discussion on how to channel such money productively.

        To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness –which has failed and will continue to fail. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf

        This makes practical and pragmatic sense – aye FOMBS.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Chief Hydrologist advocates  “developing non-carbon energy supplies funded by carbon taxes”

        Alert! Alert! Paging Latimer Alder and Bad Andrew! `Cuz Chief Hydrologist is defecting to the Hansen side!

        \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 Hydrologist

        This calls for very substantially increased investment in innovation in non-carbon energy sources in order to diversify energy
        supply technologies…

        The Hartwell Paper advocates funding this work by low hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes. It opens discussion on how to channel such money productively.

        We should really expect utter dishonesty from you FOMBS.

        The depressing reality is that current climate policies have failed. Yes, there is a climate problem, but we are throwing huge amounts of money at it to achieve almost nothing. The reason is that green energy is not yet ready to take over, neither economically nor technologically. We need to focus on cheaper technologies for the future. If we could make green energy cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone would switch – including the Chinese.

        At the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, a panel of economists including three Nobel laureates found that the best long-term strategy was to increase dramatically investment in green research and development. They suggested doing so tenfold to $100bn a year globally. This is still much less than just the price tag of the EU climate policy. R&D holds no guarantees, but it has much a better chance of success than continuing our futile efforts of the past 20 years. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a59c270a-f7b0-11e2-87ec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2d1k9lnri

        Even at $100 billion this is 0.0013% of the global economy – with the potential for huge payoffs. Of course it makes sense to leverage this through the private sector. It is a different thing entirely to penalty taxes on carbon fuels or caps on use – each of these leading to trillions in expenses, very little benefit, declining productivity and hunger and blighted lives at the economic margins.

        The former makes moral and intellectual sense and the latter none at all. Isn’t this so FOMBS?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        My apologies – 0.14%

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Scientists never found insecticides cheaper than DDT, nor propellants/refrigerants cheaper than fluorocarbon gases.

        Yet the world switched anyway.

        That was a smart idea, eh Chief Hydrologist?

        And it was driven by “the best available science”, ain’t that right?

        And these changes were opposed by willfully ignorant denialists, eh?

        Gosh, these themes sounds familiar!

        \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 Hydrologist

        DDT was approved for use as a surface spray by the WHO in 2007. It’s use as an agricultural chemical had wound down well before banning in the US in 1972’s – the banning had the effect of limiting access to a cheap and effective tool for malaria control globally. There is little doubt that a more measured response and better – less hysterical – science would have saved lives.

        So too with climate science. Less hysterical science and a more measured response – as in the Hartwell Paper and many other places – will produce better and more effective results and save lives.

        Perhaps if there were a little more rationality we would not have the unedifying spectacle of one Chinese factory making hydrofluorocarbons
        in one factory only to burn them in another.

        I certainly agree with Hansen. I think these new generation nuclear systems – in fact an old idea – are the way to not only supply relatively cheap energy but to transform 270,000 tons of high level waste to a far more tractable form while harvesting 100’s of years of otherwise wasted energy.

        e.g. http://www.ga.com/energy-multiplier-module

        Good on you James Hansen and General Atomics. Well – more GA than JH.

        Some people I also agree with are Wally Broecker, Mojib Latif, Anastasios Tsonis, Tim Palmer and Judith Curry.

        ‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)

        Don’t you agree that this is far more sophisticated science FOMBS?
        There is a mathematical poetry of state space here that I find compelling.

        Returning to your tired old theme of ignorant and repugnant deniers seems a little odd. Clearly very odd. Does it apply to me? Although the core of mainstream climate science is non-linear and non-equilibrium dynamics – these seem difficult concepts. Threshold concepts if I might put it that way – without which a proper appreciation of the more advanced and important elements of the field is not possible. It is still core science and can found anywhere you look in the field – if you have have the capability of looking close enough.

        Here – http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nonlinear+and+nonequilibrium+processes+in+climate+science

        Don’t say I am not helpful.

        I have quoted Wally Brooks on angry beasts and many others. More than that I have discussed practical and pragmatic ways forward many times in this forum.

        e.g. http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/07/soil-carbon-permanent-pasture-as-an-approach-to-co2-sequestration/

        Shame on you FOMBS – if I didn’t know better I might assume purposeful dissimulation and obfuscation of your true motives.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Wally Broecker of course.

        ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Chief Hydrologist advocates “We should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities.”

        Chief, yer idea is embodied in Boltzmann’s transport equations (1872) which have been widely applied in climate science ever since Langley’s work in 1881.

        Conclusion  In applying Boltzmann’s transport equations to CO2-driven climate-change, James Hansen and colleagues got there “firstest with the mostest” in 1981

        \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}

      • Hey Chief:
        “Some people I also agree with are…”
        What about Stefan Rahmstorf?
        Trying to understand that chaos part is killing me. Lol.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘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/F2.expansion.html

        http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full

        We should think more in terms of Navier-Stokes on the side of numerical models and of Lypunov exponents in the case of climate itself. Aye FOMBS?

        I am not rejecting basic radiative physics but putting it in a nonlinear and nonequilibrium context suited to the Earth’s climate system. Isn’t that right FOMBS.

  61. Well Arctic ice is declining faster than expected. Sea level is rising faster than expected. Global temperature is rising slower than expected. CO2 rise continues to accelerate and emissions are up.

    Mixed bag, but overall things are heading in the direction climate scientists had predicted decades ago and the science indicates that man’s CO2 will be the primary driving of global temperature over the 21st century.

    So I would say I am more on the realist side of the climate “debate”.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Arctic ice has multidecadal regimes – just like climate. Sea level rise in ARGO is 0.69mm/yr from 2005 to 2010. Global surface temperature is likely not to rise for 10 to 30 years more.

      Climate shifts are a robust feature of climate – as more and more people are realising. See my comment above.

      This was all predicted decades ago? Utter nonsense.

    • The actual data over the next few years is not going to support your side.

      • The actual data over the next hundreds of years is not going to support your side.
        The actual data over the last thousands of years does not support your side.

        You have no data to support your side. You only have computer model output that has been wrong for decades.

    • Well Arctic ice is declining faster than expected. Sea level is rising faster than expected. Global temperature is rising slower than expected. CO2 rise continues to accelerate and emissions are up.

      I have been studying climate for over five years and I expected all of this.
      Climate is following in the same path of every other warming period of the past ten thousand years. The only thing different is a man-made fraction of at trace gas and that may make a trace of a difference that no one will ever be able to verify.

    • lolwot, you write “Well Arctic ice is declining faster than expected.”

      Sorry, this statement is wrong. It is correct to use the past tense, and say “Well Arctic ice WAS declining faster than expected.”, but not to use the present tense.

      • Record low sea ice events are almost never back to back. Record low sea ice causes record high snowfall and the year following, or years following are generally cooler. We will bounce along here with above average snowfall until the ice volume gets so large it must advance and cool earth again.
        The time with warm and wet polar oceans are necessary to rebuild ice volume for the next cold period.

    • These changes are on the same schedule as the Roman and Medieval warming schedule. if it is not what you expected, you have not looked and understood data from the past when this same thing happened.

      • If it turns, the millenial scale changes, I’m going to find it remarkable that the panic peaked at the tipping point.
        =======================

      • “I’m going to find it remarkable that the panic peaked at the tipping point.”
        Classic bubble Kim. They’re all pretty much the same.

    • Latimer Alder

      @lolwot

      ‘faster than expected’, ‘slower than expected’

      Sounds like the problems are with the expectations, not with Mother Gaia. She’s just doing what she does.

      And you can’t average ‘slower than’ with ‘faster than’ to say ‘pretty much in the right direction’. Both are wrong. The don’t cancel out.

      • Well of course both are in the same direction, so I can. predictions will never be perfect, but 30 years ago Dr James Hansen predicted the world would warm. This was before we even had proper global surface temperature records.

        Time has proven Hansen right. Great care is needed at this point if we are to avoid making a huge blunder…there is only so much I am allowed to warn/hint.

      • lolwot,

        “…30 years ago Dr James Hansen predicted the world would warm.”

        Come on now. Don’t sell Jimmy short. 25 years ago James Hansen didn’t just predict the world would warm, he told us by how much. CO2 followed his scenario A, so his prediction was about .7C to date. Even before the pause, as of 1997, warming had fallen far below his predictions. We were supposed to be .45 degrees warmer by then, and were only about .11 (leaving aside for the sake of argument the issue of claiming such precision in “global average temperature”).

        Then of course we have the pause, which somehow escaped Hansen’s predictive powers when dealing with the presumed effect of additional CO2 emissions.

        So trumpeting that “Hansen predicted it would warm” is, well, technically true, but wholly irrelevant and laughably misleading.

        (Although, if you slightly reframe Hansen’s prediction in scenario C to read “rise in temperature if CO2 has no substantial effect on global average temperature,” rather than if emissions are significantly curtailed, then he’s got the pause right there in his figure 3 for all the world to see. He just misses the start date by about 2 years. Isn’t Hansen 1988 thus a good argument for a CS of 0? If he got everything else right, then his model shows that CO2 emissions have virtually no impact on global temperature.)

      • It was his 1981 prediction which is proving correct, but that was because its sensitivity was only 2.8 C per doubling which is still close to today’s consensus center. Remember in 1981 it was the end of a long flat period, so it was daring to say it would warm noticeably above the noise level in the next decades.

      • Hansen’s 1981 prediction isn’t “proving correct.”

        “Projected global warming for fast growth is 3° to 4.5°C at the end of the next century, depending on the proportion of depleted oil and gas replaced by synfuels (Fig. 6).”

        Figure 6 shows no pause, rather constantly accelerating warming. And about .5C increase by today.

        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

      • GaryM, explain why you think this model should show a pause? Its ocean is very simple, and it is designed to get the big picture, which is climate change over a century.

      • Jim D,

        I didn’t say it should show a pause. I simply stated what Hansen incorrectly predicted for future temperatures. And did note that only his 1988 scenario C, the one with no CO2 impact, is the only one that does show any break in the predicted relentless increase in temperatures.
        Now here’s a question for you. Apart from the fact that Hansen 1981 is almost as badly wrong as Hansen 1988, why would you pose the earlier Hansen prediction as “correct” in any event?

        Even if it were, it would just mean that the more Hansen learned, the wronger he got.

        This is what Mosher would call poor marketing.

      • Hansen’s 1981 model warmed by 0.5 degrees by 2010, and it really warmed by 0.5 degrees by 2010, pause and all. Not bad. I mention this model because it agreed with the Charney consensus of 1979 which was 3 C per doubling. Hansen’s later model ran hot, but skeptics (had they existed then) would have predicted zero warming in 1988 so it beat them. Even today’s models have a range of sensitivity as you might have seen if you were paying attention to a thread about a week or two ago.

      • skeptics (had they existed then) would have predicted zero warming in 1988 so it beat them.
        Skeptics are not that stupid. Skeptics believe in natural variability. Skeptics believe that this warming should have happened just as the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods happened. Skeptic forecasts are right on track. Skeptics look at past data and they know that this warming is natural and normal.

      • Jim D,

        If you move the goal posts any further, they will be in a different stadium.

        Your comment was “It was his 1981 prediction which is proving correct.”

        That is false. His ’81 prediction was false,, his later, supposedly better ’88 prediction was even worse.

        And skeptics would not have matched predictions with Hansen. Skeptics aren’t making predictions now. Because skeptics don;t think we know enough about the climate to model it and make accurate predictions.

        But keep digging. Maybe if you take climate science back far enough in time, you will find a point where the consensus was that the climate is too complex and chaotic, with too many known unknowns and unknown unknowns, to make any realistic predictions about future global average temperature.

        You know, back when they got it right. Of course, that would be before “climate science” became a political movement….

      • Latimer Alder

        @lolwot

        ‘Thirty years ago Hanesn predicted the world would warm’

        And seventy years before that so did Arrhenius. Is Hansen’s prediction any better than Arrhenius’s? Nope.

        Its all been a total waste of time and effort. There is almost nothing useful about climate that we know now that we didn’t know in 1980.

      • Jim D,

        “Hansen’s 1981 model warmed by 0.5 degrees by 2010, and it really warmed by 0.5 degrees by 2010, pause and all.”

        That’s not true at all. The Real Climate article shows..5C warming, but from 1950. From 1981, you get a little more than .2 from 1981 to 2010. If you plot the temps at WFT, you get the same. Around .2C.

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

        If you look at the RC graph, you might notice that the hot pink line to show recorded temps, stops around 2008-9, even though the later recorded are plotted inn this 2012 article. The fact that the next two years showed a drop in temps had nothing to do with the graphic truncation, I am sure.

      • Latimer Alder

        @gary m

        For no apparent reason ;-) your remark about graphic truncation suggested that this old song deserved another look

      • “If you look at the RC graph, you might notice that the hot pink line to show recorded temps, stops around 2008-9, even though the later recorded are plotted inn this 2012 article.”

        The pink line is a running mean, but you knew that didn’t you?

      • “The pink line is a running mean, but you knew that didn’t you?”

        The RC article linked to the GISS Land Ocean Index which provides a running mean up to the year before. So they could have included the mean up to 2011 in that 2012 article.

        But you knew that, didn’t you?

      • Exactly, so you knew full well they hadn’t truncated anything.

      • RE: lolwot’s “there is only so much I am allowed to warn/hint.”

        So, there is a conspiracy after all. Who knew? (Besides Cook & Lewandowski.)

      • This is what Hansen predicted in 1981 and what transpired up to the year 2000.

        The land surface temperature follows a curve which is closer to the “No ocean heat capacity” model.
        The ocean surface temperature follows a curve which is closer to a heat capacity model featuring a nominal vertical diffusive layer of around 1 cm^2/s.

        This model is elementary physics based on a thermal forcing function. You can quibble about the amount of variability but in 1981, Hansen surmised correctly that the two curves would start to diverge. And they did.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The oceans and the land are heated by shortwave radiation. The oceans warm until the losses to the atmosphere are approximately equal to the gains from sunlight. The oceans provide a source of warmth that is there regardless of changes in incoming and outgoing energy. Land gains and loses energy with very little thermal inertia. It warms and cools with higher ranges and retains little warmth. The oceans moderate global temperature.

        This is the real science of the land/ocean contrast. The ‘model’ of heat diffusing form the atmosphere to the ocean is delusional.

        ‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. In this study it is illustrated that this land–sea contrast exists also on interannual time scales and that the ocean–land interaction is strongly asymmetric. The land surface temperature is more sensitive to the oceans than the oceans are to the land surface temperature, which is related to the processes causing the land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios. It suggests that the ocean’s natural variability and change is leading to variability and change with enhanced magnitudes over the continents, causing much of the longer-time-scale (decadal) global-scale continental climate variability. Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=11

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1

        Emphasis mine. Continental warming is 80% to 90% forced by ocean warming.

        Although ‘contemporaneous ocean warming’ at the end of the last millennium seems more driven by positive changes in net forcing at toa – which is entirely in the shortwave.

        e.g. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=129

      • GaryM, are you really saying that between 1980 and now has only had 0.2 C warming? It has in fact been nearer 0.5 C. In fact most of the warming since 1950 occurred in 1980-2000.

      • Jim D,

        First, pick a comment thread. If I hadn’t been reading now I would not have seen your question. This thread is up to almost a thousand comments. Your last was on the new thread.

        As to the substance:

        Looking at the graphs, it looked to me that the reported rise from 1981 to 2010 was right around .2C. None of the graphs I found were very high resolution.

        But looking at the GISTEMP table referred to in the RC article, it shows the change was about .39C. What is also shows is that you cherry picked the year.

        Hansen’s 1981 model did not make a prediction for 1981 to 2010. That would be kinda odd, would it not? 29 years? Why such an odd prediction? But of course it didn’t, and he didn’t.

        A closer look at the GISTEMP reported data shows why you picked that particular cherry. (I forgot 2009-10 was a strong el Nino, as you clearly did not.)

        Reported annual means:
        1981 – 28
        2006 – 59
        2008 – 49
        2009 – 60
        2010 – 67
        2011 – 55
        2012 – 57

        So the increase over 25 years? 3.1 Over 30 years? 2.7 Over 31 years? 2.9

        Nary a .5 to be seen.

        I will say again. Hansen was wrong in 1981. He was wronger in 1988. He is wronger still today. He will be even more wronger tomorrow.

      • Hansen was right back then and he was right now.

        Chief couldn’t analyze himself out of a paper bag. Don’t listen to a thing the Chief says, as the physics is all wrong.

    • Which agrees with Manns hockey stick and other reconstructions and suggests warming today may have already surpassed the medieval warm period.

      • lolwot, give it up with the Hockey Stick already. It just confirms your ignorance. No responsible scientist believes it. Hello,lolwot, it is 2013.

      • You are confusing irresponsible climate deniers with responsible scientists.

        Check the link I posted. Compare the Loehle reconstruction with Mann’s. Then explain which one is wrong.

      • lolwat, here is he simplest explanation to for the data obtained for dendroclimatology.
        The width of tree rings follows a normal distribution and are largest when conditions are ‘warm’ and narrow when temperatures are ‘cold’ or ‘hot’.
        The decline in tree ring widths during the current warming, as in the decline in ‘hide he decline’, is the signature of what happens to tree ring widths in trees growing in temperatures higher than their optimum.

        This decline in growth occurred throughout the whole tree record.

    • I enjoy Tony Brown’s work.

  62. Dr. Curry, I worry that you will end up like Dr. Drapela of OSU for being seen as a heretic.

  63. On the AGW side of the argument are the UN and the Eurocommies (which includes the Western secular-socialist Government-Education establishment). Opposed are everyone else. The Left is essentially engaged in economic genocide against the poor while blaming the problems in the world on the productive.

  64. Latimer Alder

    @jim d

    How’s those 2 refs coming along good buddy? According to your recent claims:

    1. Land temperatures rising at 0.3C per decade
    2. Oceans warming at 1C per century?

    References please.

    Did you miss this btw

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/rss-flat-for-200-months-now-includes-july-data/

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      LOL … so when will the oceans stop rising, Latimer Alder?

      Thermometric Proposition  We’ll know that global warming is over when the oceans stop rising.

      Scientific Realities  Hansen and colleagues explain in Section 13.6.1 (pages 31-32), titled “Measuring Earth’s energy imbalance”, of their review Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications the technical reasons why satellite-borne radiometric thermometry is an *inaccurate* method for observing global energy balance.

      Conclusion  More flimsy faux-skepticism from WUWT demagogues.