Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest

by Judith Curry

Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok have published a new report on climate sensitivity.

The title of the report is “A sensitive matter:  How the IPCC buried evidence showing good news about global warming.”  The report is published by the GWPF.  The long version of the report is found [here]; a short version is found [here].

From the press release issued by the GWPF:

A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate models are estimating.

The clues for this and the relevant scientific papers are all referred to in the recently published Fifth Assessment report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, this important conclusion was not drawn in the full IPCC report – it is only mentioned as a possibility – and is ignored in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

For over thirty years climate scientists have presented a range for climate sensitivity (ECS) that has hardly changed. It was 1.5-4.5°C in 1979 and this range is still the same today in AR5. The new report suggests that the inclusion of recent evidence, reflected in AR5, justifies a lower observationally-based temperature range of 1.25–3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75°C, for a doubling of CO2. By contrast, the climate models used for projections in AR5 indicate a range of 2-4.5°C, with an average of 3.2°C.

This is one of the key findings of the new report Oversensitive: how the IPCC hid the good news on global warming, written by independent UK climate scientist Nic Lewis and Dutch science writer Marcel Crok. Lewis and Crok were both expert reviewers of the IPCC report, and Lewis was an author of two relevant papers cited in it.

In recent years it has become possible to make good empirical estimates of climate sensitivity from observational data such as temperature and ocean heat records. These estimates, published in leading scientific journals, point to climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 most likely being under 2°C for long-term warming, with a best estimate of only 1.3-1.4°C for warming over a seventy year period.

“The observational evidence strongly suggest that climate models display too much sensitivity to carbon dioxide concentrations and in almost all cases exaggerate the likely path of global warming,” says Nic Lewis.

These lower, observationally-based estimates for both long-term climate sensitivity and the seventy-year response suggest that considerably less global warming and sea level rise is to be expected in the 21st century than most climate model projections currently imply.

“We estimate that on the IPCC’s second highest emissions scenario warming would still be around the international target of 2°C in 2081-2100,” Lewis says.

I was asked to review this article prior to publication, and then was subsequently asked to write the foreword.  The text of my foreword:

The sensitivity of our climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is at the heart of the scientific debate on anthropogenic climate change, and also the public debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon.

The complexity and nuances of the issue of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide are not easily discerned from reading the Summary for Policy Makers of the assessment reports undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Further, the more detailed discussion of climate sensitivity in the text of the fullWorking Group I reports lacks context or an explanation that is easily understood by anyone not actively reading the published literature.

This report by Nic Lewis andMarcel Crok addresses this gap between the IPCC assessments and the primary scientific literature, providing an overview of the different methods for estimating climate sensitivity and a historical perspective on IPCC’s assessments of climate sensitivity. The report also provides an independent assessment of the different methods for estimating climate sensitivity and a critique of the IPCC AR4 and AR5 assessments of climate sensitivity.

It emphasizes the point that evidence for low climate sensitivity is piling up. I find this report to be a useful contribution to scientific debate on this topic, as well as an important contribution to the public dialogue and debate on the subject of climate change policy.

I agreed to review this report and write this Foreword since I hold both authors of this report in high regard. I have followed with interest Nic Lewis’ emergence as an independent climate scientist and his success in publishing papers in major peer-reviewed journals on the topic of climate sensitivity, and I have endeavored to support and publicize his research. I have interacted with Marcel Crok over the years and appreciate his insightful analyses, most recently as a participant in climatedialogue.org.

The collaboration of these two authors in writing this report has resulted in a technically sound, well-organized and readily comprehensible report on the scientific issues surrounding climate sensitivity and the deliberations of the IPCC on this topic.

While writing this Foreword, I considered the very few options available for publishing a report such as this paper by Lewis and Crok. I am appreciative of the GWPF for publishing and publicizing this report. Public accountability of governmental and intergovernmental climate science and policy analysis is enhanced by independent assessments of their conclusions and arguments.

JC comments:  I did think twice about writing a foreword for a GWPF publication.  I try to stay away from organizations with political perspectives on global warming.  That said, GWPF has done some commendable things, notably pushing for inquiries into the Climategate affair.  And there really are very few options for publishing a report like this.

I think it is important to put forward alternative assessments of the key elements of the climate change debate — alternative to reports issued by the IPCC, the UK MetOffice, and the RS/NAS.

474 responses to “Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest

  1. Pingback: El IPCC (2007) ha ocultado las buenas noticias. Lewis y Crok lo explican, con prefacio de Curry. | PlazaMoyua.com

  2. Plausible.
    ======

  3. “Good news! It is not as bad as we thought.”

    Now how hard is that to say? I have only seen a small handful of “real” climate science papers that said that “clearly”. Buried in many papers is the same message but with a typical dire warnings made prominent.

  4. Looks like a smoking gun to me. This is consistent with Richard Lindzen’s recent comments re. the veracity of the actual IPCC technical work as opposed to the Summary for policy makers. Judith Curry’s foreword helps give credibility to a report issued by what most of the consensus mongers would view as a fringe denier group.

  5. “It emphasizes the point that evidence for low climate sensitivity is piling up”

    I’m still waiting for just one of the C.E. resident alarmists to concede the case for CAGW is weakening. That none of you can do that is prima facie evidence of an entrenched bias that arguably borders on bad faith…

  6. Is there some reason this study wasn’t submitted to a peer reviewed journal?

    Frankly, it’s impossible to take it seriously, because it looks simply like an attempt to bypass normal scientific channels because it couldn’t compete there.

    • Utterly typical, apple. Guess you didn’t read the climate-gate emails.
      It’s clearer by the month that you guys are are sickeningly dishonest, and irredeemably corrupt

    • it looks simply like an attempt to bypass normal scientific channels because the normal scientific channels have failed to function. Norman Science considers Skeptic Opinions. Consensus People do not.

    • Norman Science should have been Normal Science.

    • It’s impossible to take you seriously; your response is as predictable as the Sun rising and setting each day.

    • Real scientists don’t seem to have any problem getting such things published:

      “A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series”
      R. B. Skeie et al
      Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 4, 785–852, 2013
      http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/785/2013/

      Only fake scientists have to resort to a vanity press.

      • David Springer

        David Appell (@davidappell) | March 5, 2014 at 7:20 pm |

        “Only fake scientists have to resort to a vanity press.”

        I hear ya. Just like only fake science journalists have to resort to writing their opinions in blogs.

      • Or hawking (or shilling – but then that is an English coin!) their never visited blog.

    • So Appell, where are they going wrong? Your side uses pal-review and press-releases to “advance” climate science but Lewis is a “fake scientist.”

    • Real scientists don’t seem to have any problem getting such things published:

      “Energy budget constraints on climate response,”
      Alexander Otto et al,
      Nature Geoscience 6, 415–416 (2013)
      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html

      Only fake scientists have to resort to a vanity press.

    • Chuck L wrote:
      where are they going wrong?

      How would I know? Why would anyone waste time on a non peer reviewed article by a couple of amateurs, when there is so much good, real science coming out every week?

    • Apple and Stokes are both up to the same disingenuous game. Their function is to provoke and stoke, though I’m not sure what they think they’re accomplishing. . Best to just enjoy them for their entertainment value.

    • What I’m trying to accomplish is pointing out reality — there are standards for good science, and this paper doesn’t satisfy the most basic of them. It’s just something you accept because you like their conclusions, not because of any inherent quality to their work.

      It’s just fodder for deniers. Grub in the trough.

    • David, Nic Lewis is listed on that paper by “real scientists”. This paper is more about the “real politics” part of which is the limited acceptance of boring papers that have nothing particularly new to say about the “science”..

      What’s in this paper? Sensitivity is lower than previously assumed, not new science. The IPCC screwed up, not .new science. Scientists and the IPCC are over playing the over sensitivity of climate, not science – politics.

      The “real” climate science is being hanged by its own “projections”.

    • Curious George

      David – what reality?

    • Matthew R Marler

      David Appell: It’s just fodder for deniers.

      It is an improvement over the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers, just as it is intended to be. Whenever SPM is cited, this (or “these”) should be cited along with it. When they are or seem to be in conflict, Lewis and Crok is a more reliable guide to the primary science literature that they both cite.

    • Appell is not so ignorant as to be unaware that all of the basis of what Lewis is citing has been published in peer-reviewed journals, usually cited in the IPCC report itself. The NAS/RS summary of climate science, aimed at providing a summary for the public, was not peer reviewed either. Appell’s comment here wasn’t peer reviewed either, so by his logic it should be disregarded.

    • Apple and Stokes are both up to the same disingenuous game. Their function is to provoke and stoke, though I’m not sure what they think they’re accomplishing. . Best to just enjoy them for their entertainment value.

      PG makes an excellent observation. Obviously, comments on “skeptic” blogs are so devastating that action needs to be taken.

      You know, comments like where PG hypotheses that Nick is getting paid for expressing his opinions in blog comments.

      Because, you know, such speculation from PG is so important to world events. Comments like those PG writes accomplish so much (it’s hard to even express their importance in words) – in obvious contrast to those from Nick.

      Poking and stoking are necessary.

    • As far as I can see, neither author even listed their email address in their document. Why not? Are they afraid people might write with questions?

    • So, DA, the summary for policy makers wasn’t peer reviewed. Toss it out as well?

    • You have probably forgotten that Nic Lewis officially notified the IPCC that they had made a mistake in handling Forster and Gregory in AR4. They didn’t take that issue seriously. Now several papers have confirmed that observational evidence is consistent the low climate sensitivity Nic attributed to Forster and Gregory. In addition, Nic has asserted that AR5 didn’t apply the reduced estimate of aerosol forcing consistently and he has made the case that the IPCC’s use of uniform priors for calculating climate sensitivity is incorrect (and biases the results upward). I presume that Nic made these points in his GWPF article to the authors of AR5 as an expert reviewer and he believes they have only partially recognized and reported the dramatically lower estimates of climate sensitivity and/or future warming. How should this situation be handled? Wait for AR6, if there is one? Appeal again to the IPCC, after you’ve been ignored three times. If this were a science paper, Nic could complain to the editorial board or th journal sponsor about the mistreatment of his work. We’ve seen editors canned for mishandling skeptical papers. However, the only authorities above the IPCC are the governments that created it. Are the target the GWPF wants to reach with this article.

    • Given the recent revelation (over 120 fraudulent papers in peer reviewed journals), you are merely parroting a red herring.

      Peer review does not appear to be worth much.

    • Steven Mosher

      Its a review of a summart document.
      Checking all the journals I know none would
      Consider a review of secondary literature as science.
      In short the ipcc document is not science a review of that
      Document isnt science

    • I do have to say, though…

      As far as I can see, neither author even listed their email address in their document. Why not? Are they afraid people might write with questions?

      The one “realist” who makes some of the most “skeptic”-like arguments is David.

      Really? You go from their emails not being listed to they don’t want to get emails with questions?

      Leave that logic for the “skeptics,” David. They are very, very good at it.

    • The NAS/RS summary of climate science, aimed at providing a summary for the public, was not peer reviewed either.

      Of course it was. And was written by NAS and RS members — the cream of the scientific crop.

      Lewis and Crok? Hardly. I suspect they avoided the peer reviewed journals because they knew their work wasn’t of that standard. And that denialists wouldn’t know that, or care if they did, but would snort it up no questions asked.

    • Sorry – I shouldn’t say “the one.” Substitute “One of the….”

    • It smells of science spirit, though, moshe.
      =================

    • Whenever SPM is cited, this (or “these”) should be cited along with it.</i

      Dream on. A couple of amateurs associated with a biased activist organization, against scores of the best climate scientists in the world. People know the difference.

    • Really? You go from their emails not being listed to they don’t want to get emails with questions?

      Real scientists publish their direct contact information with their papers.

      Why didn’t these fake scientists?

    • Why didn’t these fake scientists?

      Their might be many reasons – and I’d say that your explanation is among the least plausible.

      Not to mention, the label of “fake scientist” is similarly problematic (in different ways for both Lewis and Crok).

      IMO, it is better to read the “skeptics” arguments, notice their logical weaknesses, and then to avoid making arguments like theirs – not imitate their arguments.

    • Did you read Judith Curry’s foreword?

    • the summary for policy makers wasn’t peer reviewed.

      False. The IPCC ARs are perhaps the most peer reviewed documents in the world. Didn’t even Monckton brag that he was an Expert Reviewer of them?

    • There’s evidence that David Appell sees SPM and reads AR.
      ======================

    • I’m not surprised that some important papers have not been through the ‘peer review process’ (yet). Especially when the papers involve controversial subjects like climate science.

      “The peer review process may suppress dissent against “mainstream” theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views …”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Allegations_of_bias_and_suppression) .. (Brian Martin, “Suppression Stories” (1997) in ‘Fund for Intellectual Dissent’ ISBN 0-646-30349-X) .. plus 4 other citations.

      The history of science shows that a new hypothesis and new papers are not necessarily incorrect if they don’t follow the “mainstream” theories. This is especially relevant if the mainstream theories seem to largely ignore the empirical evidence and real-life observations for at least a decade and a half.

      I think we should not forget the wise words of our old teachers :-
      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it is wrong.” – Richard Feynman.
      “When [Kepler] found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science.” – Carl Sagan.

    • Peter: Contrarians are fond of quoting Feynman, but not so good at doing science like him.

      Winning the debate is easy — just provide superior science. That always wins, every time.

      Do far, you have not. And there’s no indication this is changing, or will change.

    • I’ll side with David Appell with this. As a layman, I don’t see why we should bother with “grey literature” from activist organizations — no matter if GWPF or Greenpeace. The peer-reviewed literature and reports from the major climate agencies are already too much for most of us to follow (let alone make sense of).

      Climate scientists might find grey literature of use. But to the slight extent I can tell, it seems to have little effect — since read mostly by people on that “side” of the debate.

      As a layman, more context by Prof Curry would be useful. For instance, how credible is this analysis, esp vs the papers on this subject and the IPCC’s view?

    • David, you are so much a pompas ass…..same old BS…why don’t you get it published in a journal that the team controls…what a joke. And the specific points in the paper you take exception to are ? Yeah. I know, it’s beneath you to even read a paper that wasn’t “condoned” by the almighty team. Disgusting what you boys have done to science. The game is up my friend..it will only get harder and harder from here on in. You are a fraud on science…but you already know that.
      You are doomed to spent your retiring years as a shunned fraudster…..I look forward to watching you jump off the ship with the best of the Mannian Rats.

    • Seriously?
      I would like to suggest that the concept of “peer review” in climate science borders on the laughable. Let’s see now . . what Journal would you suggest? Hmmm. I know . . Nature Climate Change! I’m quite certain they would have gotten a fair and objective hearing there.

    • Latimer Alder

      @david appell

      Here, then, is a superb opportunity for ‘real scientists’ to do their own ‘peer review’ of this contribution.

      The paper is published, available to everybody to read. No paywalls, no subscription. And this blog provides a superb, open, forum, available worldwide to everyone for the ‘real scientists’ to give their view. And for those views to be seen and commented upon.

      It takes us back to the early days of the scientific societies where ‘peer review’ was the open discussion by all present. Here’s the modern day, internet-enabled version of that process.

      I – and many others – look forward to yours being one of the first detailed contributions to the review of the paper. Go for it!

    • David Appell

      And was written by NAS and RS members — the cream of the scientific crop.

      Logical fallacy = argument from authority.

      Max

    • David Alder

      +1.

      And why would smart Alecs like Appell, Joshua and other CAGW doomsayers avoid actually critiquing the document?

      Because they are trying to avoid defending the indefensible, and trying to avoid exposing themselves to ridicule.

      The fact they do not critique the facts and assumptions in the document persuades me they have no case and they know it. They cant argue the facts so they use ridicule and pejorative comments instead.

    • David,

      As far as I can see there is no new research here, Lewis is essentially rehashing his own previous work which has already been subjected to peer review and drawing from other previously published studies, so I don’t see that there was any need for the report to be subject to formal peer review. And although Lewis may be an “amateur” the fact that he has actually produced research which has made it into respectable peer reviewed journals should be acknowledged.

      And I don’t see anything wrong in principle with advocacy organisations issuing this kind of report. If they claim to have a scientific basis for the policies for which they advocate it is fair enough for them to lay it out. Obviously one has to approach such reports from obviously partial sources with caution but they can still be the basis for a sensible discussion.

    • andrew adams, “Obviously one has to approach such reports from obviously partial sources with caution but they can still be the basis for a sensible discussion.”

      Hurray for double a

    • “Only fake scientists have to resort to a vanity press”
      Peter Mitchell published his work on the Chemiosmotic hypothesis in the ‘Gray Book, back in 1966, so his work didn’t have to go through peer-review.
      He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, in 1978, for his “contribution to the understanding of biological energy transfer through the formulation of the chemiosmotic theory.”
      Even at the end of his life he hated referees.

    • Ah, litchurchur. Some mornings with the Java, I listen to the birds go ‘litchirpchirp’.
      ============

    • @ Editor of Fabious Maximus. So, if you side with DA, then you would agree that much of the IPCC AR4 report should be thrown out. From Donna LaFramboise research on papers cited, the final score for 18,531 references in the 2007 report was 5,587 (one third) not peer reviewed. In 21 of the 44 chapters the score for peer reviewed references did not reach 60%. This would not be so bad if it was admitted up front and in public, also if there were clearly defined and properly policed rules for vetting the grey matter (not peer-reviewed) for use by the inner circle of authors.

      Among the sources used to support IPCC recommendations were newspapers and magazine articles, unpublished theses, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund documents, and yes, press releases.

    • Traditional peer review may be more passe than truly broken, but I like the irony that the compound brokeness of climate science peer review has helped midwived an improved method of review. With an instrumental delivery by an inept obstetrician, climate science has delivered a mangled body but a brain summering indominably.
      ==============

    • I just did a check for citations of Richard Dawkins, non-peer reviewed book; ‘The Selfish Gene’.
      It has been cited 97,770 times in the pubmed search.

    • Peer review!!! The IPCC is not so fussy. LOL.

      Speech by Rajendra K. Pachauri – IPCC
      “Most of the Committee’s recommendations can be implemented during the fifth assessment process and should be considered at the upcoming Plenary. These include recommendations to strengthen, modify, or enforce IPCC procedures, including thetreatment of gray literature, the full range of views, uncertainty, and the review process.
      PDF – IPCC

      New Scientist – 26 June 2012
      Climate panel adopts controversial ‘grey’ evidence
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21940-climate-panel-adopts-controversial-grey-evidence.html#.UxihIpx9CHQ

      If gray literature is good enough for the IPCC then it should be good enough for you. If it has problems then point it out.

    • David Appell, can you address your peer review complains to the IPCC or take your own advice and ignore the IPCC!! :-)

      IPCC – October 2010
      REVIEW OF THE IPCC PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES
      Notes on the Informal Task Group on Procedures
      (Submitted by Mr Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of Working Group I
      on behalf of the IPCC Chair, Vice-Chairs and Co-Chairs)

      2. Questions to help determine the appropriateness of including a non-published/non-
      peer reviewed reference
      ……….

      3. Accessibility of non-published/non-peer reviewed referencesNon-published/non-peer-reviewed references need to be accessible by the reviewers at the time of the review. In order to ensure a minimum level of accessibility of all sources used in ther eport,authors MUST provide a copy of each source of information that is not publicly available(preferably as a non-editable electronic document) and the additional information specified in the IPCC principles. These must be received by the TSU by the time that the First Order Draft(FOD)and Second Order Draft(SOD)respectively are due to the TSU

    • I hate to post in this dispropriate thread, but:
      andrew adams | March 6, 2014 at 5:50 am | “Obviously one has to approach such reports from obviously partial sources with caution but they can still be the basis for a sensible discussion.:

      How do YOU judge biased sources Andrew? Perhaps from their founding documents?: “The ultimate objective…we… may adopt is to achieve …., stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

      Where does that statement of purpose tell you about the objectivity and impartiality of the group? Is it any less biased than the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “We are an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.”

      I know which one I would go to for a more impartial view on global warming.

    • It’s already getting scrutiny and comments from other climate scientists with some good give and take: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/gwpf/

      Given the problems with traditional peer review, this is probably the future of scientific publishing. A recent Nobel prize winner recently said he will only publish in open access now.

  7. I hate to be Banquo’s ghost and all, but I will repeat my tiresome mantra. 1.25-3C is really, really good news and will be a help to planners everywhere if other findings support it.

    But for any positive level of sensitivity–even 1.25C–our increased consumption of fossil fuels going forward will make AGW an issue for certain regions of our world.

    Kim, it’s plausible–as a non scientist what else can we say? As a Lukewarmer, it fits with both my beliefs and what I have read on the subject. And Captain Dallas, it may indeed not be as bad as alarmists have preached–and hooray for that!

    But I hope this issue does not disappear before we take cognizance of the effects of future emissions.

  8. . . . updating a reference to an old article about the oldest tree in the world–i.e., The tree has rewritten the history of the climate in the regionand a good read too about how the area was far warmer 9500 years ago than was previously known or ever imagined and warmer than today.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3339982/Worlds-oldest-tree-discovered-in-Sweden.html

  9. I take this as a positive step – the debate on anthropogenic climate change is now finally shifting away from distractions such as whether warming is “statistically significant”, or whether warming has gone away, or whether humans have an influence on climate, and has moved into the area where it really needs to be – i.e.: exactly how strong is the human influence, how much change can we expect in the future, and what sort of impacts/risks does this imply?

    I note that Lewis & Crok expect the political target of 2 degrees C warming to be exceeded under RCP8.5. We now need to figure out what a 2C+ world will/would look like….

    • If this finding was real science, it would be published in a real journal. It was not. The authors look afraid to have even tried.

    • Bernd Palmer

      davidappell: how about doing some of your own peer-reviewing of this paper (here’s your chance) and judging it by its contents instead of its credentials.

    • Because there’s too much other good, real science coming out all the time to pay attention to a couple of guys who aren’t willing to do the work (submit their work to peer review) to get it on the first step to legitimacy.

      It’s amateurish stuff, on the level of a WUWT blog post.

    • Matthew R Marler

      David Appell: It’s amateurish stuff, on the level of a WUWT blog post.

      How do you rank it compared to the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC AR5? It looks to me like a serious improvement, something quite valuable to policy makers and to voters.

    • The self-contradiction, it burns. “I haven’t read it.” “It’s amateurish.”

    • Dream on. No policy maker will give this document the slightest glance. Because it’s fake science, not real science. The authors didn’t even have the confidence to submit their work to peer review. It’s just another bloggy emission from an obviously biased organisation.

    • Wait — I thought the peer review process was all biased, bought off, with Michael Mann personally telling editors what papers can and can’t be published?

      Now you’re giving me a list of skeptic papers published in peer reviewed journals.

      So which is it????

    • And, if these skeptic papers were published in the peer reviewed literature, why couldn’t Lewis and Crok’s be?

    • Matthew R Marler

      David Appell: No policy maker will give this document the slightest glance.

      Formerly you said that it was fodder for deniers, some of whom are policy makers. I think this paper will be read and cited by policy makers all over the world. Even true believers will want to know whether, and how much, they were misled by the SPM.

    • Steven Mosher

      Thanks richard.

      I will note that the illustrious appell is underwhelmed. I take that as a good sign

    • It’s sort of fun to watch him underwhelmed and tremendously excited.
      =================================

    • Formerly you said that it was fodder for deniers, some of whom are policy makers.

      Not really, John Baez reports: “In international diplomacy, there is no questioning the reality and importance of human-caused climate change. The question is just what to do about it.”
      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/11/in-diplomacy-no-questioning-manmade.html

    • Mr. Appel, it is good to see you perform your assigned tasks as a Crusher so diligently. I don’t recall you advocating the abrupt dismissal of the findings of Svante Arrhenius, none of which were peer-reviewed.

    • Matthew R Marler

      David Appell: Not really, John Baez reports:

      Reread what you wrote. Reread what I wrote. There will be many policy makers who read Lewis and Crok, not necessarily all of them.

    • Matthew, “policy makers” aren’t stupid. They can easily recognize scientific fluff when it is presented to them. Lewis & Crok doesn’t even smell like it’s serious.

    • Richard Betts makes a simple and interesting point for discussion. This is followed by 15 replies, mostly inane skwaking by Appel and people responding to the inanity. This is what is wrong with Climate Etc., too easy for the professional derailers to take over

      So, what would a 2C+ world look like? Where I live, the summers would be slightly more pleasant and the winters would be slightly less unpleasant.

    • Dennis -

      Do you assume that if the mean of global surface temps increased by 2C, the surface temps would increase by exactly 2C everywhere?

    • Hey apple, the Republican U. S. House of Reps. and the coming Republican Senate will give it a second look. Lewis and Groc will be sitting next to Judith in the hearings. Your worst nightmare. Ain’t that why you are so agitated. Even joshie smells the fear.

    • I don’t believe there is any point in responding to Appell, but I’ll make an exception for once. DA says “Dream on. No policy maker will give this document the slightest glance.” I’m not surprised that his ignorance stretches to policy-making, an area in which I have a long background. Many countries who have adopted anti-emissions policies with great fervour are back-tracking because of the state of their economies. How can they justify this in light of their previous passionate support for CAGW? A document from people involved with the IPCC process demonstrating that the prospective temperature rise has been exaggerated would be ideal.

    • An Appell a day keeps the doctor away.

    • Richard

      Great to see you posting here.

      Here are the figures from your own organisation.

      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

      The peak for the UK warmth has passed. I suspect CET was running a tenth or two warmer than reality which is why the CET stations were changed. However, do you sincerely believe that the last decade was the warmest in the Holocene for the CET area? If so it is a very depressing thought and should lead to long lines of people wanting to emigrate.

      In reality there have been many periods in our history as warm or warmer than today. Phil Jones believes the 1730′s were very similar. It is apparent the Early 1500′s also were. There was a very warm spell around 1300. The period prior to 1200 to around 850 was uniformly warmer as a trip to nearby Dartmoor will testify. The bronze age was substantially warmer-again there is evidence for that on Dartmoor.

      Why all these warm and cold periods? I don’t know, but research in your own archives demonstrates that generally our weather extremes are worse during the cold periods than the warm ones.

      tonyb

    • Tony.

      Why all these warm and cold periods? I don’t know, but research in your own archives demonstrates that generally our weather extremes are worse during the cold periods than the warm ones.

      Yes. Definitely. There’s plenty of evidence that the climate was much more variable, with much faster and larger swings, when the planet was colder than when it is warmer. This shows how Ireland, Greenland and Iceland (and presumably UK) warmed from glacial temperatures to near modern temperatures in less than a decade twice (around 14,500 and 11,500 years ago) and how life loved the warming. http://eprints.nuim.ie/1983/

      Climate scientists would have to blind or biased to ignore such evidence of past rapid warmings and of the the benefits for life for such rapid warming.

    • manacker : “An Appell a day keeps the doctor away.”

      But 50 gives one indigestion.

    • Globally, human influence is zero. What a waste, trying to figure out what a 2C+ world will look like! Why not a 2C- world? It’s much more likely.

    • HaroldW

      manacker : “An Appell a day keeps the doctor away.”

      But 50 gives one indigestion.

      It’s worse than that.

      50 result in diarrhea

      (of the mouth?)

  10. My respect for you Dr Curry is further increased by your willingness to both publicise and to write a foreword to this paper.
    I can recall very well the quite cynical reaction you received from the WUWT denizens including myself, when you first posted on WUWT in your attempts to bring the two sides of the climate argument together.
    It must have been and probably still is, a long hard road that you have travelled from where you were only a few short years ago to where you are today.

    • +1

    • +2. Dr. Curry deserves respect for standing up for science, no matter the source.

    • +3

      Science stands or falls by its’ predictive ability.

      Thank you for practicing science.

      • Bull poop, we happen to love this world we have around us, including all the fun modern stuff. The think is we have enough intellectual honesty to appreciate that we are damaging the very things we depend on for a happy healthy life, such as a healthy biosphere and predictable weather patterns – but we’ve pretty well kicked that one out of the realm of reality.

        And now you think arguing about the exact climate sensitivity number is a good reason to further ignore the geophysical reality of our warming globe… all in order to refusing making any changes to a suicidal situation.

        We already know that the world’s coastal cities, as we knew/know them will be getting destroyed over the course this century. What more do you want… Yea, yea, you want to see the proof… Our kids are going thank you for that… you think…
        ~ ~ ~

        Incidentally, Climate sensitivity is an ‘estimate of our speed of warming’,
        at this point we already know we are going way the heck too fast !
        What you folks are doing is akin to being stuck in a car careening at tree, arguing about your speed, rather than doing anything about it.

        Shame on the whole lot of youz

        http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com

  11. R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

    Dr. Curry states:

    “I did think twice about writing a foreword for a GWPF publication.”
    ____
    Commendable, but the horse is already long out of the barn it would seem.

    • IMHO you should have thought a third time.

    • So Gates, the self avowed skeptic, would rather attack the GWPF than discuss the merits of the paper itself…

      Why am I not surprised…

    • Matthew R Marler

      David Appell: Who funds GWPF?

      That’s irrelevant to the comparison that I have mentioned. Lewis and Kroc have written a better “summary for policy makers” than the official IPCC SPM from AR5.

    • False — funding is never irrelevant in this game.

      So who funds GWPF?

    • Matthew R Marler

      oops, I meant “Lewis and Crok”.

    • David Appell, “So who funds GWPF?”

      How much funding do you think they get?

    • Matthew R Marler

      Appell: False — funding is never irrelevant in this game.

      It is irrelevant to the comparison: which is a better summary of the science?

      Funding is asserted to be relevant by people who avoid discussing the science.

    • Funding is always relevant, especially of denialist activist groups like GWPF. But I can understand why you are trying to pretend otherwise.

    • R. Gates - The Skeptical Warmist

      “So Gates, the self avowed skeptic, would rather attack the GWPF than discuss the merits of the paper itself…

      Why am I not surprised…”

      Odd, I did not see an attack on the GWPF on my post. Judith knows full well what it means to have added her name to a paper for this institution. No attacks on my part necessary. That’s exactly why she had to think twice.

    • Steven Mosher

      David. What does gwpf deny

    • Asking a third time: Who funds GWPF?

    • Matthew R Marler

      David Appell: Who funds GWPF?

      Whoever they are, I am sure they are happy that the GWPF has produced a more accurate summary for policy makers than what the IPCC produced.

      You could prove me wrong, or at least try, and show that the IPCC SPM was more accurate than this. You seem to be avoiding the single most important issue for scientists and policy makers.

    • In pondering over the funding, it struck me that the GWPF did a better job for far less, shall we say far far far less, money than the IPCC took to do its delinquent job.
      ============================

    • Steven Mosher

      It doesnt matter who funds them. The article either dissects ar5 accurately or not. Its not hard. No math required. Read document X. Then read their critique. The use your tiny brain to dissect their dissection. Any college student could do it.

    • Who funds GWPF? Of course it matters. Koch brothers?

    • We don’t know, or care, who funds GWPFCQ, or whatever. We are just grateful that since the Team has redefined/rigged the peer review process, there is somebody willing to publicize dissenting research/opinions on the climate science. Why you so mad about it?

    • David Appell

      Who funds the GWPF?

      Who cares?

      Who funds the IPCC?

      (As long as it’s not me, I couldn’t care less.)

      Max

    • Mosh – Read source document. Read crituque. Think.
      Methinks you are obviously a pawn of said funding organization.

    • philjourdan | March 6, 2014 at 4:50 pm |

      Max, it is you! You are paying for the IPCC.

      Can I withhold my payment?

      (I’m not getting my money’s worth.)

      Max

  12. Judith -

    I try to stay away from organizations with political perspectives on global warming.

    Which explains why you testified at the behest of Republicans ideologues in Congress?

    hmmm.

    But it is certainly clear that you see fit to make some exceptions to which advocacy groups you don’t exactly “stay away” from. You know, in a non-”advocacy” kind of a way, of course.

    So what uniform criteria do you use to determine which kind of advocacy you will associate yourself with, Judith?

    As time goes on, it seems (to me, at least) more and more like you work backwards from whether you agree with the scientific analysis to determine which kind of advocacy you associate with, and which kind you think undermines science and the public’s faith in science.

    But maybe I’m wrong. So what is it about the GWPF that makes them “responsible” advocates as opposed to other climate policy advocates, Judith? What are your uniformly applied criteria?

    Personally, I see nothing wrong with advocacy, and you aligning yourself with policy advocates. It is certainly your right, and in the end, I think that advocacy does far more good than harm. I’m not a big fan of selective reasoning about advocacy, though. That seems too tribalistic to be of much benefit. More like just more same ol’ same ol’.

    If you get my drift.

    • Joshua, I eagerly await your criticism of those scientists invited to the party by Democrats. Everyone gets your drifting… get a rudder and a sail before you drift any further. Reality is over here.

    • Gees your a biased fool Joshua. Why don’t you stop whingeing about every post Judith posts?

    • Joshua wrote:
      So what is it about the GWPF that makes them “responsible” advocates as opposed to other climate policy advocates, Judith?

      A good question. Are the UCS equally responsible? Why or why not? What about ED? 350.org?

      • Yawn. My concerns about advocacy are related to advocacy statements by scientific professional societies.

        My concerns about advocacy do not extend to organizations that are privately funded advocacy groups or individuals (particularly individuals that are not government funded researchers)

    • Tom -

      Joshua, I eagerly await your criticism of those scientists invited to the party by Democrats.

      I don’t criticize scientists for being advocates. So I am being consistent.

      Judith criticizes scientific advocacy only from one tribe. Not only does she fail to criticize advocacy on the other side…. such as this:

      –snip–

      “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

      –snip–

      …in a rather striking example of inconsistent standards, she actually actively participates in advocacy on the other side.

      But anyway, Tom, whether I am consistent or not does not, in any way, alter the degree to which Judith applies consistent standards. But I do respect your loyalty.

    • David -

      A good question.

      I suggest that you not hold your breath waiting for an answer.

      Judith has consistently failed to present consistent criteria by which she differentiates good advocacy from bad advocacy. As near as I can tell, she works backwards from the scientific opinions of the “advocates.”: Good advocacy = advocacy that is in line with her opinions. Bad advocacy = advocacy of those whose opinions she disagrees with.

      Notice how, despite that “skeptics” line up to attack me for expressing my observations, none of them step up to offer evidence that Judith uses consistent standards.

    • Steven Mosher

      Shes pretty clear. Advocacy for science qua science is ok. Advocacy for specific policies is not ok.
      Its not that hard.
      It would be a better argument if you didn’t pretend that
      She hasnt made the distinction. It would be more forceful to accept her position and attack it

    • Once again – the divide between what I say and what you respond to is wide.

      …none of them step up to offer evidence that Judith uses consistent standards.

      I’m still waiting, and your comment doesn’t get the job done. Feel free to try again.

    • Joshua, with regard to your words, “at the behest of Republicans ideologues in Congress:” With politic stances and positions of the parties being as hardened as they are, would you expect Democrats to invite Judith to testify?

      In a more reasonable world, they should and maybe even would. Judith is nothing if not thoughtful and reasonable. But the D’s wouldn’t ever invite Judith to speak in the excessively tribal state politics is in right now. Ideologues are on both sides, and not enough reasonably people in either party.

    • John -

      No, I don’t think it likely that Dems would invite her. And I would suppose that if they did invite her, she would give testimony – (perhaps something that distinguishes her from scientists on the other side of the climate fence, who perhaps would not testify before Congress if invited to do so by Republicans).

      But I’m not sure why you think that is relevant. Given the real world context of Judith testimony, it serves as advocacy for specific policy stances. I think that is her right. I think it is a good thing, even if I don’t agree with certain aspects of her testimony (most specifically, the selectivity in her emphasis of uncertainty). Advocacy is a good thing, IMO, and scientists have an important role to play in advocacy on issues that rest upon scientific evidence.

      My point is rather simple. Standards should be applied evenly. Standards about how to treat uncertainty. Standards about how to treat triablism. Standards about advocacy. An uneven application of standards is a basic sign of bias. We are all biased. What’s important is our openness to, and how we address, our biases.

    • Joshua, thank you for responding so quickly to my comment.

      There might be a little more to this. Put yourself in Judith’s position, someone who believes from her experience that there is a lot more uncertainty in what we have been told by organizations such as the IPCC who are represented as reporting the state of the art science on climate change. Uncertainty that on the whole goes in one direction.

      If you want to get your ideas out, how do you do it?

      Her blog put her views on the map, great start. But Democratic politicians will never hear that there are reasonable objections to the IPCC viewpoint unless people like her testify. And the Dems won’t invite her.

      Do you recall when Roger Pielke Jr. testified about no increases in half a century or more in major tornado, drought, or hurricane frequency or losses (once inflation and increased economic development were taken into account)? At the end of his testimony, a Senator, perhaps Sen. Whitehouse from Rhode Island, asked the witnesses if anyone took issue with Pielke’s testimony. Nobody did. And that I’m sure was a shock to the Dems, that their own witnesses did not say Pielke was wrong.

      That example is why Judith will accept invitations to testify from Republicans, ideologues that they are. It is the only way some people who need to hear what she has to say, will hear what she has to say.

    • John -

      I don’t think that Judith should not testify before Congress – no matter who invites her to do so. In fact, I think that her advocacy is a good thing in the long run. Advocacy, as a rule, is good (although it can reach diminishing returns contingent on whether the advocacy is fallacious)

      I think that:

      (1) when she does testify before Congress, she should be more even-handed in her treatment of uncertainty, and,
      (2) I think that she should be more even-handed in her treatment of advocacy.

    • Joshua, when you say Judith isn’t even handed in her treatment of uncertainties, can you please spell that out for me?

      Same thing for advocacy.

    • Joshie, what is Judith advocating?

    • John -

      Judith spoke a great deal about a “hiatus,” without discussing aspects such as OHC, the questions related to statistical significance, the fact there is no mechanistic explanation for why, if you think that there is a GHE from ACO2, there would be a “pause” if we’re continuing to emit ACO2, etc.

      “Skeptics” like to quote Feynman. Well…

      Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
      given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
      anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
      make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
      you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
      as those that agree with it.

      I’m quite sure that Judith feels that the standards in that quote should be applied to the IPCC. Then shouldn’t she apply them to her own Congressional testimony?

      As for advocacy. Judith first started denouncing scientists acting as activists in a general sense. For example, she felt that they shouldn’t do things like write Op-eds. Then when she wrote her own op-ed, she modified her stance to one where some kinds of advocacy are OK but some aren’t. As mosher refers to, the standard that she claims should be used to distinguish between good and bad advocacy should be whether the advocacy is to advance particular policies. There are a couple of problems with that.

      The first is that she doesn’t apply that standard evenly. When the scientists she agrees with act as advocates related to specific policy outcomes, she turns a blind eye.

      The second is that, IMO, her distinction is, essentially, arbitrary. In the politicized context of the climate wars, the science of climate change is inherently political and policy-related. But even more than that, it is quite apparent that Judith’s scientific advocacy has very direct policy implications. There is no meaningful distinction to the policy-related impact of her advocacy and the policy-related impact of the advocacy of the scientists whose advocacy she criticizes.

      IMO, such selectivity is counterproductive. It hardens the battle lines by (1) enhancing the vindication of “skeptic” tribalists and (2) enhancing the sense of defensiveness among “realist” tribalists.

      I’d be open to evidence otherwise, but IMO, her advocacy serves to perpetuate the same ol’ same ol’ status quo. I believe that with a more even-handed approach, she at least would be more likely to have a differentially more positive impact. Of course, she is only one participant in a very large scale and complex and polarized dynamic. But she pulls a lot of weight.

    • I see what Joshua means about not being evenhanded about uncertainty. Whenever IPCC estimates are discussed here, uncertainty is front and center, while when the hiatus and low-sensitivity studies are discussed, uncertainty in these barely gets a mention. Should we not be uncertain about the hiatus given what has happened to every past hiatus? Should we not be uncertain about low sensitivity, given the simplifications of the global climate system that are needed to come up with it. Complexity discussion is another thing lacking in the Lewis endorsement while at the same time saying that GCMs can’t possibly work because the climate is too complex for them. Uncertainty and complexity should be applied equally to both sides of the argument.

    • Jimmy dee et al, why do you spend so much time here, instead of haunting realclimate, sks, or some of the other non-fossil fuel funded blogs frequented by birds of your feather? You are all so unhappy here.

    • Actually this is more fun, and sometimes funny.

    • You are almost always funny, jimmy. But why do you find what you do here to be fun? Do you enjoy being ridiculed?

    • Thanks, Joshua, again for your quick response. I’m not quite sure what you mean by a few things, but let me try. You say in your first graf:

      “Judith spoke a great deal about a “hiatus,” without discussing aspects such as OHC, the questions related to statistical significance, the fact there is no mechanistic explanation for why, if you think that there is a GHE from ACO2, there would be a “pause” if we’re continuing to emit ACO2, etc.”

      If OHC means ocean heat content, hasn’t Judith spoken a great deal about it? Her presentations to the APS talked about a couple of things relating to OHC, one being that vertical transport in the tropics around Indonesia isn’t very fast, and the other being that if the waters become well mixed, it is hard for much heat to return from ocean to atmosphere because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Maybe I misinterpreted, and OHC doesn’t mean ocean heat content?

      With regard to statistical significance regarding the hiatus, I would have thought that the reason the climate change community has come around and agreed that there is a hiatus is that it is now outside the bounds of a 95% confidence interval. Isn’t that where statistical significance comes into the picture regarding the hiatus?

      As to whether the hiatus is a pause in which heat is building up somewhere, or whether heat for some reason isn’t entering the system as much as models predict, Judith brought that up as an uncertainty. The IPCC people, with their different theories — some are even thinking that solar just might have an influence (I’m agnostic) — certainly seem uncertain about the causes. It seems possible that even with increased CO2, heat might not be entering the system as fast, or it might be leaving the system at a faster rate than suggested by models. The implication that I take from your graf that I copied and pasted is that if CO2 is increasing, there MUST be more heat accumulating somewhere. Perhaps I didn’t interpret it correctly. But if I did, I wonder if you aren’t recognizing the extent of uncertainty?

    • I will help you, John. You are Costello, and joshie is Abbott. Check it out on youtube.


    • Don Monfort | March 5, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
      You are all so unhappy here.

      May be right, consider the idea of the “hate buzz” which the comic Marc Maron coined a few years ago. Or as PiL said way back when, “Anger is an Energy”.

      Whatever it is, this place works out swell. Skeptics provide so many own goals that are ripe for winning arguments. Just have to pay attention to what they are trying to hide. That’s where you find the nuggets.

    • Don Monfort

      You are only winning arguments in your own mind, webby. How is Dennis? Don’t you have some curves to fit?

    • John, when the OHC is mentioned, it is not stated that it has an equal footing as the pause in terms of climate forcing effects. A rising OHC is like a rising surface temperature, but we don’t get the argument that the temperature has paused, but this effect is countered by a rising OHC, at least not put clearly. A lot of people remain confused about the relation of both surface temperature and OHC to forcing.

    • Joshua

      Some definitions:

      “Good advocacy” = advocacy for messages with which Joshua personally agrees

      “Bad advocacy” = advocacy for messages with which Joshua personally disagrees.

      Pretty straightforward.

      Max

    • “So what uniform criteria do you use to determine which kind of advocacy you will associate yourself with, Judith? ”

      Gee Joshua, maybe – just maybe – Judy is staying away from grouping herself with advocates of any kind, and just endorsing what she believes is the best, most accurate science and/or summary of the science. You know, going where the data leads her, regardless of what position that puts her in – politically, socially or professionally.

      That would certainly align with several things she has agreed with from BOTH sides of the argument, wouldn’t it? You know, giving Steve Mac the benefit of the doubt and actually investigating his claims before deciding up front he was just a denier. Or tearing chunks off those who refuse to acknowldge the radiative effects of extra CO2. Or talking about “the pause” well before the mainstream would even acknowledge it’s existence. So she’s seriously “ahead of the pack” for at least a decade – not bad, eh Joshie?

    • “Jim D | March 5, 2014 at 11:51 pm |
      I see what Joshua means about not being evenhanded about uncertainty. Whenever IPCC estimates are discussed here, uncertainty is front and center, while when the hiatus and low-sensitivity studies are discussed, uncertainty in these barely gets a mention. Should we not be uncertain about the hiatus given what has happened to every past hiatus? ”

      Er, no. You see the scientific method is based on hypothesis testing. One attempts to destroy the prevailing hypothesis. One takes the orthodox position and questions it.
      Now the orthodox position has evolved by taking the slings and arrows of of criticism to emerge into its present form. All new arguments and data that are irreconcilable with the orthodox position are going to be new, and also based on new data. New data will always be questionable, because it is new, and has not been honed into a resilient form, because it is new, and has not been confirmed by many people.
      Essentially, the job of the scientists is to stab the beast. Many of the blades turn out to be made of Jello, but every now and again, you get one of steel, and the beast dies or at least bleeds a little.
      Science is asymmetric. new tests cannot be as robust as previous ones, because they have to be performed uniquely, and then reported.

    • Kneel -

      “Gee Joshua, maybe – just maybe – Judy is staying away from grouping herself with advocates of any kind, and just endorsing what she believes is the best, most accurate science and/or summary of the science. You know, going where the data leads her, regardless of what position that puts her in – politically, socially or professionally.”

      I would imagine that is how Judith views her approach. I would imagine that is also that is how those that she disagrees with about the science, and that she criticizes for advocacy, also view their own approach. I would imagine that all the scientists involved see themselves as endorsing what they believe to be the “best, most accurate science.”

    • John -

      If OHC means ocean heat content, hasn’t Judith spoken a great deal about it? Her presentations to the APS talked about a couple of things relating to OHC, one being that vertical transport in the tropics around Indonesia isn’t very fast, and the other being that if the waters become well mixed, it is hard for much heat to return from ocean to atmosphere because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Maybe I misinterpreted, and OHC doesn’t mean ocean heat content?

      Yes, by “OHC” I mean ocean heat content.

      I have been referencing, primarily, Judith’s spoken Congressional testimony – where she spoke often of a “hiatus in global warming” by referencing a relatively short-term flattening out of a longer term-trend of statistically significant warming of surface temps, without mentioning the uncertainties related to the statistical practices used to determine that “hiatus” or the uncertainties related to the elements that are a part of “global warming” in addition to surface temps.

      With regard to statistical significance regarding the hiatus, I would have thought that the reason the climate change community has come around and agreed that there is a hiatus is that it is now outside the bounds of a 95% confidence interval. Isn’t that where statistical significance comes into the picture regarding the hiatus?

      A “hiatus” in what? A hiatus in “global warming” (which is how Judith has described it)? What does a “hiatus” mean? Lines on a graph don’t take a “hiatus.”

      Has the physical mechanisms of the GHE of ACO2, the physics of which Judith accepts as fundamental knowledge, taken a “hiatus?”

      Yes, the climate science community is interested in whether the trend in the GSATs fits within the 95% CI of projections. That is why further investigations of the methodologies used to derive that 95% CI are entirely in order, IMO, as are investigations of all the other uncertainties involved, such as whether short-term variation in the longer-term trend of GSATs equates to a “hiatus in global warming.”

      As to whether the hiatus is a pause in which heat is building up somewhere, or whether heat for some reason isn’t entering the system as much as models predict, Judith brought that up as an uncertainty.

      Again – why didn’t she discuss the uncertainty of whether the “hiatus” is a pause in which heat is building up somewhere” in her Congressional testimony? Or the uncertainties related to the statistical analysis (such as discussed in Cowtan and Way)? Are these not materially relevant uncertainties? My point is that by leaving out those uncertainties, Judith is not merely reporting the science, but acting as an advocate trying to steer policy-makers in a particular direction. That is her right. In the end, having that right is far more beneficial than not having that right, IMO. But it is what it is.

      The IPCC people, with their different theories — some are even thinking that solar just might have an influence (I’m agnostic) — certainly seem uncertain about the causes. It seems possible that even with increased CO2, heat might not be entering the system as fast, or it might be leaving the system at a faster rate than suggested by models.

      Agreed. Even Mann has acknowledges those uncertainties (see his article discussing England et al.)

      The implication that I take from your graf that I copied and pasted is that if CO2 is increasing, there MUST be more heat accumulating somewhere.

      No. What I’m saying is that if the GHE of ACO2 has “paused” then there must be a mechanistic explanation (if you accept that there is a GHE of ACO2). A statistical process that shows a short-term moderation of a longer-term significant trend should not be described as a “hiatus in global warming.” It should be described as what it is. To do otherwise, IMO, is does not sufficiently acknowledge the uncertainties involved. A explanation of a mechanistic phenomenon, that was occurring previously and has stopped occurring, might be appropriately called a “hiatus in global warming.”

    • max -

      “Bad advocacy” = advocacy for messages with which Joshua personally disagrees.

      Skepticism (as opposed to “skepticism”), would show that I have not called anyone’s advocacy as bad advocacy. In fact, I have repeatedly said the opposite.

    • “I would imagine that is how Judith views her approach. ”

      Indeed. And her actions appear to bear that out. For instace, the paper this post is about – she apparently thought long and hard about being involved and decided that it was worth endorsing as “significant” and “valuable” for the intended audience even though she knew she’d cop flak for her actions. She didn’t “adjust” the wording to make it bow to the consensus like so many others would. And yet, despite this you accuse her of motiv… reaso… or bias or whatever it was, even though you agree she is simply going where her judgment of what is “good science” takes her.
      Really?
      Seems to me that this acusation is only leveled at people who appear to disagree with your point of view. Which is, err, umm, let’s just call it “interesting” for now.

    • Joshua

      You chide our hostess for testifying before a political body (the US Congress), but don’t worry about another political body (the IPCC) hijacking the entire climate debate?

      Ouch!

      Max

    • manacker -

      What does it mean that some “skeptics” make the same, wrong, arguments over and over despite having their error made clear?

      You chide our hostess for testifying before a political body (the US Congress),

      I am not chiding her for testifying before Congress. I am chiding her for testifying before Congress, in an activist manner, after making selective arguments criticizing scientists for taking activist stances. (And also, a bit, for her selective attitude about the importance of according people respect by virtue of their “authority” as “experts”).

      And I am also chiding her for the nature of her testimony (leaving out uncertainties related to a “hiatus in global warming”).

      All the more power to her, in testifying before Congress. Of course if invited to speak, by Republicans or Democrats or anyone else, it her right to tell them her impression of the state of the science. She has earned the notoriety and respect, and there’s no reason why she shouldn’t use it as she see fits (as an authority). I wouldn’t suggest that it be any other way.

    • Sorry – not “notoriety” in the sense of being notorious. I mean she has earned respect and is notability (prominence).

    • Yawn -

      climate scientists should avoid advocacy related to public policy related to climate science research findings.

      I have long stated that scientists advocating for public policy can lead to distrust of scientists and their scientific findings.

      Scientist involvement in climate policy advocacy doesn’t seem to be needed at this point (as per Amy Luers), and is arguably making things worse (not to mention damaging the integrity of science). So I remain with Tamsin Edwards on this one: climate scientists should avoid advocacy related to public policy related to climate science research findings.

      Given the overall lack of effectiveness of climate policy advocacy by climate scientists to date, scientists should reconsider what the heck they are doing in this regard.

      Yawn.

  13. Climate sensitivity = 1.42 deg C

  14. Which is it: the last topic, or this one?

    Either “The Pause” on such an absurdly short time scale and with such high Uncertainty is a real effect of the multiple causes proposed last topic, and thus Climate Sensitivity is unaffected by them as they all are short-lived phenomena and will vanish, or the Nonexistent Pause is nonsensical and Climate Sensitivity is much higher than this GWPF fantasy reflects.

    Maybe it’s both? Maybe “The Pause” is no more than “The Mirage”, and Climate Sensitivity in the Complex Mind is not likely so narrow or so low.

    You can’t have it both ways, you can only have one, the other, or neither.

    Neither looks likeliest.

    • Yes, the pause is a mirage, just the same old, usual fluctuations around the long-term trend:
      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-pause-that-aint.html

      In fact, this slowdown isn’t even as steep as the one that occurred 20 yrs ago:
      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-lesser-of-two-pauses.html

    • Curious George

      Can you kindly point out the pause for me in the Hockey Stick graph?

    • Do you not realize the hockey stick doens’t go past about 1970-1980, due to the divergence problem?

    • Curious George

      In Wikipedia it goes to 2004. Check your “facts”.

    • Read the original papers, George (if you can), instead of secondary sources like WIkipedia.

    • That’s because it’s YOU that ignored those papers, I prefer to look at data and history: http://pindanpost.com/2014/03/06/today-we-have-air-conditioning-and-cooler-weather/

    • Curious George

      What papers are you referring to? Link, please..

    • Tom Harley: If you link has something to say, then present it here. I’m not going through it all just to try and guess what your point is.

    • The MBH papers, George. Obviously.

    • Curious George

      Would you accept IPCC AR3 as good enough? There it goes to 2000. And Dr. Mann got his Nobel prize for the work on AR3.

    • George: Go read the MBH papers, instead of trying to change the subject.

    • Curious George

      MBH Fig. 3 goes to 1998. Check your “facts”, genius.

    • Bart R

      It’s the observations, stupid!

      (The bane of all modelers.)

      Max

    • manacker | March 6, 2014 at 3:01 am |

      Cowtan and Way, and BEST, and pretty much 99.9% of peer reviewed published studies with observations say what’s “stupid” is to pretend sensitivity can be pigeonholed in any range that excludes 2.95 +/- 0.1, (high or low). Failing to recognize that the odds of a climate sensitivity range including numbers significantly above three are large enough to consider a serious risk is “stupid”. Pretending for whatever reason this side of the climate sensitivity question isn’t there? That’s more “stupid” than we need.

      BUT YOU BRING MORE!

      There’s too much Uncertainty in climate observations limited to weather stations to claim the wiggle lines since 1998 amount to a pause on climate timescales. Everything that reduces observational Uncertainty significantly diminishes the Nonexistent Pause. The more observations are collected as time passes, the more the Pause doesn’t exist. The more surface measurements are included either in terms of total surface area or number of observing sites, the more the Pause doesn’t exist. The more the statistical methods on the observations are improved, the more the Pause doesn’t exist. The deeper measurements are taken, the more the Pause doesn’t exist. The more changes in continental and sea ice observations are counted, the more the Pause doesn’t exist.

      The more accurate, the more nearly true, our inferences from observation, the more Nonexistent the Pause gets.

    • Barty, you need to inform all those panicked 97% consensus climate scientists, who are frantically writing writing papers to explain away the Pause, that there ain’t a Pause to worry about.

      The Pause is killing the Cause.

    • THe Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Bart R:

      You can’t have it both ways, you can only have one, the other, or neither.

      You must embrace the cognitive dissonance, Bart.

      Judith is the Red Queen…

      “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

      Dr Curry is not an advocate – but she advocates for Republican policy.

      Dr Curry is against appeals to authority – but she is happy to lend her qualifications to the GWPF.

      Dr Curry is a skeptic who is fond of uncertainty – but she is convinced by paltry evidence that there is both a “hiatus” and a “stadium wave”.

      It’s funny. And I am certainly not the first to point this out…

      https://lh3.ggpht.com/-KQZeDmYcgI0/UkspKcR_haI/AAAAAAAABg8/qLc9t22PdiU/s1600/redqueen.JPG

    • Don Monfort | March 6, 2014 at 10:35 am |

      If I can’t convince people writing peer-reviewed papers from the under 2.7% minority and their fans that something that isn’t really there isn’t really there, what chance to I have to convince the 97.3%+ authors of published, peer reviewed science papers and their better educated readers that.. oh.

      Wait.

      They already know because they looked at the data and did the math.

    • Bart R

      The pause is on a relatively short time scale (2001-2014 = 13 years).

      As a matter of fact, so is the late 20thC warming blip (1976-2000 = 24 years), which IPCC has used as its “poster period” to prove its CAGW premise.

      Duh!

      If the “pause” lasts another 9 years, Bart, the two blips will be tied for length.

      Food for thought (provided one is capable of thinking).

      Max

    • Bart R

      Face the facts, Bart.

      There is an increasing body of observation-based evidence, which points to a 2xCO2 ECS of around 1.8C, rather than 3C, as predicted by the models cited by IPCC.

      At an ECS of 1.8, there is virtually no chance that our planet could warm by as much as 2C over the next century (as economically and environmentally viable alternates for fossil fuels are developed by human ingenuity and as a reaction to economic pressures resulting from their increasing scarcity and cost).

      And, as the Richard Tol study points out, the next 2C warming above today’s level are most likely to have a net beneficial impact on human society.

      So it’s all good, Bart.

      Rejoice!

      You can bury your gloomy doomsday vision – it’s an imaginary hobgoblin.

      Max

    • manacker | March 6, 2014 at 2:52 pm |

      What are you talking about?!

      2014 doesn’t exist in any sense on any smoothed climate trend line, other than contributing less than three months to the endpoint of the smoothing. Even accepting an absurdly short five year smoothing, that’s one thirtieth of the endpoint. Even leaving out what we know of the inadequacies of adapting weather stations to observations (per Cowtan and Way, and BEST, and others):

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:29/mean:31/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:168/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:384/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1969/to:2001/trend

      And 2001? What sort of Space Odyssey ‘facts’ have you been reading?

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/mean:29/mean:31/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:168/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:384/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1969/to:2001/trend

      2001 0.381273 2010 0.482251
      2001.08 0.386278 2010.08 0.483043
      2001.17 0.391581 2010.17 0.483565
      2001.25 0.397048 2010.25 0.483808
      2001.33 0.402594 2010.33 0.48377
      2001.42 0.407974 2010.42 0.483323
      2001.5 0.413553 2010.5 0.482222
      2001.58 0.419055 2010.58 0.480572
      2001.67 0.424889 2010.67 0.478591
      2001.75 0.430519 2010.75 0.476524
      2001.83 0.435887 2010.83 0.474177
      2001.92 0.441007 2010.92 0.471846

      #Selected last 168 samples
      #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00367489 per year
      2000.08 0.438018
      2014.08 0.489467
      #Data ends
      #Number of samples: 2
      #Mean: 0.463742

      #Selected last 384 samples
      #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0163422 per year
      1982.08 0.0503575
      2014.08 0.573306
      #Data ends
      #Number of samples: 2
      #Mean: 0.311832

      #Selected data from 1969
      #Selected data up to 2001
      #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.015399 per year
      1969 -0.144674
      2001 0.348093
      #Data ends
      #Number of samples: 2
      #Mean: 0.101709

      Sure, the last thirteen years comes out only to be rising a quarter as fast as the overall 32 year trend on weather stations in the HadCRU, and C&W’s rate is about 3/4′s the 32 year rate for the same period, but if you’re deciding a start date for the pause on the data, you must acknowledge:

      2005 0.492782
      2005.08 0.494802
      2005.17 0.496575
      2005.25 0.498211
      2005.33 0.499637
      2005.42 0.500696
      2005.5 0.501294
      2005.58 0.501529
      2005.67 0.501313
      2005.75 0.500927
      2005.83 0.500067
      2005.92 0.498912

      The longest your “Pause” could be is from 2005.58 thru 2011.58 (the last month in the 5-year average curve).

      That’s a SIX year ‘pause’, not thirteen years.

      The only way to get a thirteen year ‘pause’ on the data would be for so much time to pass that you can’t tell the apex of 2005 apart from 2001, which would require something like a CENTURY of falling trend in a future that we have yet to see 87 years of so far.

  15. Someone needs to clue in the argument-from-authority addict that everybody on the alarmist team is concerned about explaining the pause. They’ve even published in peer-reviewed journals about it.

  16. JC comments: I did think twice about writing a foreword for a GWPF publication. I try to stay away from organizations with political perspectives on global warming. That said, GWPF has done some commendable things, notably pushing for inquiries into the Climategate affair. And there really are very few options for publishing a report like this.

    Isn’t it disgraceful that Judith feels she has to write a justification like this. Why does a top scientist have to justify where they publish? This just proves beyond any doubt that the CAGW band orthodoxy are dangerous people. They have a dangerous, ideological agenda. And they want to stop free speech. Disgraceful!

  17. Matthew R Marler

    Professor Curry: thank you for reviewing the papers (I assume you read them both, one a simplification of the other), for writing the introduction, and for presenting the papers here.

    Your “advocacy”, as far as I can tell, is always for more accurate representations of the scientific knowledge, especially but not exclusively for the systematic presentation of information about what is known not to be known.

  18. Head on over, Pekka. The water’s fine, but oh, how wet we get.
    =================

    • The water’s fine, but at an added 1.4 x 10^22 Joules per decade it’s warming at 0.015C per decade – so Pekka better hurry, before it gets too hot.

  19. JC wrote: And there really are very few options for publishing a report like this.

    I get lots of journal TOCs. Several of them regularly publish review articles, on the scale of this one.

    So why didn’t they submit their work to one of these journals?

  20. OK, Sacajuditha.

    Strike a Double Eagle with her image.
    ====================

    • Well, somebody had to make a bad joke about the Lewis and Crok Expedition being guided through the difficult pass.
      ====================

  21. We can take large comfort from history and from paleontology; warming has always been of net benefit, yea, even great net.
    ==========================

  22. Dr. Curry, it is clear to me that you recognize science now takes place outside of ossiffied former peer review channels. Dr. Wyatt’s stadium wave is an example to which you have contributed. This post is another. It will surely be severely ‘peer reviewed’ by me and many others.
    That is the whole point of the paradigm change you help lead. Every one of my prior guest posts you have been so kind to put up has been severely critiqued. That is invaluable feedback.

  23. Berényi Péter

    With no general physical understanding of quasi stationary non equilibrium thermodynamic systems at all, especially the irreproducible case (when microstates belonging to the same macrostate can evolve to different macrostates in a short time), current climate modelling paradigm is doomed to failure anyway.

    I would not trust “observational” estimates of climate sensitivity either, because all datasets were tempered with based on the same flawed computational models.

    Let me introduce a fat example. Figure 2.5 (at bottom of page 55) of http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12024&page=55“>Energy and Climate Studies in Geophysics (1977) shows “Recorded changes of annual mean temperature of the northern hemisphere”, according to the caption (between 1880 and 1975). If we compare it to HadCRUT4 Northern Hemisphere Temperatures, a current dataset, which contains the inteval for which data were known in 1977, shows only one third of the cooling in 4 decades between the mid thirties and mid seventies compared to the dataset assembled by Budyko (1969) and updated after 1959 by H. Asakura of the Japan Meteorological Agency.

    Now, history is not supposed to change, but in climate science it does. And all this because reductionist computational climate models had insurmountable difficulties in hindcasting the mid 20th century cooling. Solution? Rewrite datasets retrospectively, make that inconvenient cooling all but disappear. Huh.

  24. westcoasttiger

    “Yes, the pause is a mirage, just the same old, usual fluctuations around the long-term trend”

    So the pause and its 17-year or so existence is just a usual fluctuation but a trend in the direction you appear to embrace more readily, one of which is of the same duration or twice as long as the pause, is long-term, as compared to hundreds and thousands-year long trends in the geological past.

  25. Jim Cripwell

    I have had this sort of discussion with Max Anaker in the past. I cannot find the specifics, but I strongly suspect that somewhere in the analysis by Lewis and Crok is an assumption as to how much of any observed warming is caused by increased amounts of CO2. If this is correct, then I suspect that any numerical values that they quote for CS are more in the nature of maximum values, rather than actual values. We need to know ALL the causes of temperature changes before this sort of analysis can be considered valid.

    I stand to be corrected.

    • We need to know ALL the causes of temperature changes before this sort of analysis can be considered valid.

      No — that’s not what climate sensitivity is.

      It is the equilibrium temperature change from a doubling of CO2. That doesn’t mean CO2 is the only factor that can affect temperatures, or that the equilibrium temperature will ultimately be that predicted by climate sensitivity. That depends on other factors as well, such as solar irradiance, orbital factors, etc.

    • Solar irradience and orbital factors may be needed as positive feedback assumptions, if the water vapor thing don’t pan out. Right, apple? It could be way worse than we thought.

    • Solar irradiance or orbital changes aren’t feedbacks, dummy. Learn some science.

    • Over your head, apple. You are too angry to have fun. It must really suck, being caught up in the cause.


    • Don Monfort | March 5, 2014 at 11:29 pm |

      Solar irradience and orbital factors may be needed as positive feedback assumptions,

      That would be a good question on a climate science final exam : name some direct forcing factors.

      Too bad you failed.

    • webby, webby

      I am trying to help you guys. If the positive water vapor feedback assumption doesn’t show up soon, you all will need something else with which to frighten a populace that is paying less and less attention to your sky is falling BS. I know that solar irradiance and orbital mechanics ain’t feedbacks, but the hoi polloi don’t know it. You can fool them for a little while longer. What else have you got? GCMs? LOL!

    • Jim Cripwell

      It’s in the fine print.

      No doubt the “observation-based” studies cited by the authors and several recent ones that were not mentioned, are better than the purely “model-based” studies cited by IPCC in both AR4 and AR5 and still being used as the basis for ECS and TCR estimates.

      BUT, they are only partly observation-based, in that they still ASS-U-ME values for natural factors, which influence global temperature.

      These natural factors are poorly understood.

      IPCC itself has stated that its “level of scientific understanding of natural (solar) factors is low” and that “clouds remain the largest source of uncertainty”.

      The IPCC models also have difficulty factoring in the possible impacts of PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc. on the kind of timescales for which we have any meaningful temperature data.

      So it is very likely that the climate impact of these natural factors is being underestimated (or ignored), rather than overestimated.

      In view of the unexplained warming of the late 19th and early 20thC it seems logical to ASS-U-ME that these unknown factors cause warming on balance, rather than cooling.

      As a result your statement seems logical:

      I suspect that any numerical values that they quote for CS are more in the nature of maximum values, rather than actual values

      So they may still be “guess-timates” with a bit of “argument from ignorance” tossed in, BUT they are arguably better than the earlier model-based estimates used by IPCC IMO.

      Max

    • Feedback’s and Forcing’s secretaries are texting each other over the timing of the luncheon meeting @ Ristorante Finaprinta.
      ======================

    • David, that’s what Jim Cripwell said.

    • A well paid disciple of the Moon, er of Loon Grantham.
      ======================

    • My comment on Ward at WUWT:

      At LSE from 1961-64 I was taught by giants of the economics and statistics worlds. Almost all of those who taught me were not only leading academics, they were also advisers to governments and/or business. I learned to see economics not as an academic pursuit, but as a tool to change the world.

      I have the impression that that once-great institution has become less rigorous in recent decades. If Bob Ward is an indication, the rot has gone far further than I feared.

  26. Robert I Ellison

    ‘The global climate system is composed of a number
    of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability,
    all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’ http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf

    Natural variability is neither short term or likely to further add to warming this century. On the other hand the warming from greenhouse gases is minor – subtract the 1976/77 and 1997/98 ENSO events and about half the remainder from 1776-1998 warming and you have the maximum greenhouse gas warming – and is likely to be reversed.

    Sensitivity is one of those odd concepts. Near as I can figure it is the temperature increase from greenhouse gases all else being equal. Ceteris paribus as they say in economics – and of course all other things are never equal.

    In climate things change abruptly.

    e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1

    And ‘sensitivity’ is dynamic and depends on the nearness of tipping points. Sensitivity is γ is the following.

    http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=76

    All in all a linear sensitivity – high or low – seems a fairly useless concept.

    • Please, it bears repeating. That goes for the both of ya.
      ==============

    • Robert I Ellison

      I wasn’t particularly complaining about Lang’s tedious, misguided and repetitive commentary – but about the abuse that comes with disagreeing with his simplistic notions.

    • Robert I Ellison

      Lang’s comment has predictably been disappeared.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “Natural variability is neither short term or likely to further add to warming this century.”
      —–
      Are these your words Robert Ellison? If so and if you wrote them this century then they are pure nonsense. If someone else wrote them, say around 1999, then it was a pretty safe bet.

    • Robert I Ellison

      You got some rationale for that gatesy – or is this simply more empty verbiage.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      You answer my question first, and then I’d be more than happy to answer yours in great detail if necessary.

    • Robert I Ellison

      You don’t have a question – merely some vague insinuation.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      I guess your reading comprehension is faltering a bit:

      You wrote: “Natural variability is neither short term or likely to further add to warming this century.”
      —–
      And I asked : Are these your words Robert Ellison?

      Pretty obviously a question there, eh Robert Ellison?

    • Robert I Ellison

      No – pretty obviously a silly little snark. Get on with it if you have something to say – something that seems fairly unlikely given past experience.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      Skippy, if you can’t even answer a direct question, why would it be worth my time to illuminate your other shortcomings.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      There is absolutely no basis to suggest that natural variability is unlikely to add to warming this century. No climate model could forecast this and there is no science behind it. Major smoke blowing from down under.

    • Robert I Ellison

      As I said – flimsy narrative with not a shred of science.

      We would expect solar activity to decline from a 1000 year grand maxima and be amplified through the system in various ways.

      ‘Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example — would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output.’ http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf

      This is a fairly elemental observation aye Randy?

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      The paper you linked to makes no long-term analysis of natural variability in the climate system that might lead to a century ahead during which natural variability does not add to no warming. You are back to your old trick of cutting and pasting research that lends no support to your contention. The best computers and models can’t tell is what natural variability will be doing in 10 years, let alone them rest of the century. The certainty of your pronouncement has no basis in fact or science, and is more Robert Ellison fiction.

    • Robert I Ellison

      ‘Almost all of the UV radiation is absorbed in the stratosphere. In particular, wavelengths below 300 nm alter stratospheric chemistry and control production and destruction of ozone. Effects of the associated stratospheric heating in the underlying troposphere, such as slight modulation of the separation of the jet streams, have been noted and modelled (Haigh 2007; Simpson et al. 2009), and recent work is beginning to help explain how non-linear radiative and dynamical coupling may work via perturbation of internal modes of climate variability such as the El-Niño–Southern Oscillation, ENSO, and the North Atlantic Oscillation (Lean & Rind 2008; Rind et al. 2008; Simpson et al. 2009). Foukal & Bernasconi (2008) and Foukal et al. (2009) have studied historic images of the chromospheric features responsible for much of the UV variation and argue that there is no long-term change. However, the images are far from a homogeneous dataset, and this conclusion does not agree with the studies by Tlatov et al. (2009) and Ermolli et al. (2009). Hence, long-term change of the solar UV remains likely, if poorly understood.’ http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303.full

      Lockwood suggests an 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum conditions within 50 years.

      What you want me to quote every bit of relevant science? At least try and put things in a broader perspective Randy. Substituting pompous pontification and smarmy superciliousness for actual understanding is a little tedious .

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “What you want me to quote every bit of relevant science? ”
      —-
      It would be nice if you quoted any relevant science to back up your unsupportable and broad sweeping claim. Additionally, you seem unfortunately and ignorantly locked in the mindset that solar variability is the only form of natural variability that can affect climate over the century ahead. Where do you get such notions Skippy?

    • Robert I Ellison

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist

      Hence the quote on top modulation of ENSO. Did you fail to read it or merely fail to understand the significance?

      e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=147

      More salt in the Law Dome ice core is La Nina. Yet you continue with your pathetic quibbling?

    • David Springer

      I was very interested in changes in the power spectrum of sunlight with high correlation to solar cycle. Obviously a shift in power to or from UV, without commensurate change in total power, means some other frequency band gets more or less. I read the change in UV power can be as much as 10%. Suppose near infrared is on the other side of the trade. UV is absorbed in the stratosphere while near IR is absorbed in the troposphere. That’s a pretty radical change in where in the column the energy is being absorbed. And that doesn’t even address the changes in ozone chemistry or implications thereof. This needs a lot more investigation and I would like to thank Ellison for bringing it up.

    • maksimovich

      I was very interested in changes in the power spectrum of sunlight with high correlation to solar cycle.

      Lets put it another way, ie how well constructed is the lean model in relation to observed changes in spectral irridiance.

      http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/Haigh%20Nature_files/nature09426-f1_002.jpg

    • We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know, but it may well be at least a century if the Livingston and Penn sunspot effect heralds a cooling climate.
      =============

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      Rather than misrepresenting what Lockwood thinks about any potential new “ice age”, from a sleepy sun, best to let him speak for himself:

      http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/solar-activity-and-the-so-called-“little-ice-age”/

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      Just to highlight the point, as many fake-skeptics love to selectively point to Lockwood as calling for a new LIA. Here’s his words directly;

      “Unfortunately, I now find myself in the position of being cited as predicting that the current rapid decline in solar activity will plunge the world into a “Little Ice Age”.

      This is very disappointing as it is not at all supported by the science.”

    • Robert I Ellison

      ‘precise measure ever of the solar cycle, which ultimately yields more profound physical limits on past irradiance variations. Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem
      to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example — would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output.’ http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf

      I quoted this earlier. Lockwood’s blog entry downplays it – but you can’t have top down modulation of ENSO and NAO – as he suggests in the paper I quote -without having an impact on climate. The question to ask is how solar variability amplifies through the system – and solar UV/ozone interactions is one of the important answers.

      Sun activity is headed down – a 20 to 30% chance of Maunder Minimum levels within 50 years according to Lockwood – with Dalton Minimum almost guaranteed. So the point is fairly obvious – natural variability is heading down over centuries.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      Unfortunately Skippy Ellison, for most of your broad brush and unsupportable comments, I think that Lockwood’s reply is quite on point:

      “This is very disappointing as it is not at all supported by the science.”

    • Robert I Ellison

      Typical silly and smarmy snark. Solar variability is heading down – now gatesy suggests what irrelevant quibble?

    • Robert I Ellison

      ‘Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years throughout the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified, primarily from fluctuations in ice-rafted debris. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events,[1] with a magnitude of perhaps 15–20% of the glacial-interglacial temperature change.

      Gerard C. Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, was the lead author of the paper published in 1997 that postulated the theory of 1,470-year climate cycles in the Holocene, mainly based on petrologic tracers of drift ice in the North Atlantic.[2][3]

      The existence of climatic changes, possibly on a quasi-1,500 year cycle, is well established for the last glacial period from ice cores. Less well established is the continuation of these cycles into the holocene. Bond et al. (1997) argue for a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years in the North Atlantic region, and that their results imply a variation in Holocene climate in this region. In their view, many if not most of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events of the last ice age, conform to a 1,500-year pattern, as do some climate events of later eras, like the Little Ice Age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, and the start of the Younger Dryas.’ Wikipedia

      These are caused by small changes in a control variable feeding into internal variability. Volcanoes and an unspecified mode of internal mode of variability operating at such long periods just don’t add up. We have crossed the threshold of Bond Event Zero and natural variability is heading cooler. Although it does seem to be heresy to say so.

    • Robert I Ellison

      I in no way misrepresented Lockwood – and I resent the allegation that I did. Lockwood’s discussion of solar intensity speaks for itself.

      That he says in a blog that this has little effect on LIA temps – despite the other musing on top down modulation of major climate systems – is neither here nor there. As Palle says – an amplification of the solar signal through climate systems – and especially through the effect on cloud cover – seems more likely.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

      For pretty much all of your posts Robert Ellison, I echo Lockwood in reply to your nonsense:

      ““This is very disappointing as it is not at all supported by the science.”

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      ‘Unfortunately, I now find myself in the position of being cited as predicting that the current rapid decline in solar activity will plunge the world into a “Little Ice Age”.

      This is very disappointing as it is not at all supported by the science.’ Lockwood

      Gatesy’s nonsense is pretty predictable guff. Solar activity is declining from a 1000 year high – so is ENSO. Coincidence? Perhaps so – but then we would need to look elsewhere for the solar amplification mechanism. And we do need to explain millennial climate and correlated ENSO activity.

      e.g. http://www.terrapub.co.jp/onlineproceedings/ste/CAWSES2007/pdf/CAWSES_231.pdf

      Randy continues his line of tedious and ill-informed quibbling conflated with nasty little jibes. It is very boring.

  27. Jim Cripwell

    I would like to point out to David Appell that reports of data are NEVER peer reviewed. Once the method of collecting the data has been thoroughly vetted by the scientific community, the actual data is what if is. It can be reported immediately, with no problems.

    • Nope — even the data takers publish papers when their data models change.

    • Back on line, serf living on the littoral, lucky this time!
      Say, what value peer review if it overlooks, innoculates,
      obfuscates regardin
      *failure of… er… projections ter correlate with observations
      * evidence fails ter materialize regardin psitive feedback
      mechanisms fer CO2
      * hot spot signature is missing
      * deep ocean heat is missing
      * Gaia menopause or what?
      …falsification ?

  28. The new report suggests that the inclusion of recent evidence

    They pick four papers (two of which Lewis contributed to) and claim we can ignore of all of the others.

    • Joseph

      Yes. The authors cited four papers.

      But there are several other recent independent observation-based studies, which also point to a 2xCO2 ECS of around 1.8C, rather than 3C.

      If you are truly interested I can cite links.

      Max

    • But there are several other recent independent observation-based studies,

      Please do.

  29. Do peer reviewers receive remuneration for reviewing articles. If they are remunerated how is rate calculated?

  30. David Appell:

    There is mainstream climate economics that concludes that CO2 emissions are a positive externality on net to about a break-even point of 2C (world). See here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.masterresource.org%2F2010%2F05%2Fa-positive-human-influence-on-global-climate-robert-mendelsohn-meet-gerald-north%2F&ei=SOUXU-6UJaHL2gXdqoG4Ag&usg=AFQjCNElcCQ7FCe5rusMTgw_ZX0QdfZrMw&bvm=bv.62577051,d.b2I
    Robert Mendelsohn of Yale is probably the most respected single person in his field of cost/benefit analysis with all aspects of CO2 (agriculture, recreation, etc.).

    One of his findings is that freer, wealthier countries adapt better to climate change, which warns against government carbon rationing programs.

  31. Lewis & Crok are giving loaded report also. T

  32. “I did think twice about writing a foreword for a GWPF publication. I try to stay away from organizations with political perspectives on global warming.”

    Shoot, does that mean we won’t get any more posts on the IPCC’s publications?

  33. Scott Scarborough

    So if CO2 continues to rise and temperatures don’t the estimated “sensitivity” will continue to fall. At what point does someone look at this situation and say: “CO2 does not seem to be effecting temperature.” When the calculated sensitivity gets to 1.5, 1.0, 0.5, 0.1?

    • Jim Cripwell

      Scott, you write “At what point does someone look at this situation and say: “CO2 does not seem to be effecting temperature.””

      This is the 64 trillion question that I have posed as “Who will bell the cat”. If adding CO2 to the atmosphere has a negligible effect on climate, then at some point, this will become too obvious to ignore. But, and there is always a but, someone who matters has to have the gonads to stand up and be counted. When is this going to happen, and who will that person be?

      I have been thinking of this in connection with the review the APS is carrying out. There are about half a dozen senior physicists who will recommend to the APS what any new statement should say. If these people, who have nothing to do with CAGW, were to recommend what I am suggesting, this would be a real bombshell.

    • Jim

      I think it would be interesting for those living in countries with a long instrumental record to carry out the same exercise as we did with CET, which might give us some idea of Co2 sensitivity and the stage we are at with the logarithmic effect

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/

      tonyb

    • Since the Little Ice Age, CO2 rise was best correlated with temperature rise only in the last quarter of the last century. Why shouldn’t we expect the naive to panic at the correlation, but why shouldn’t we also expect them to learn from the experiences, both their naivete and their panic?
      ===========================

  34. R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

    This part from the paper:

    “The best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate scientists had previously thought.”

    ——-
    Is at the very beginning and immediately separates this paper from a neutrally scientific paper, or even simple rational skepticism. Had they even said, “…indicates our climate is possibly less sensitive to greenhouse gases…”

    The certainty in their opening statement is why the paper is on GWPF. The best observational evidence indicates our climate system is likely being strongly affected by the geological rapid increase in greenhouse gases.

    • R. Gates

      The best observational evidence indicates our climate system is likely being strongly affected by the geological rapid increase in greenhouse gases.

      Sez Gates, the not-so-skeptical warmist.

      Problem is, the observations don’t seem to support Gates.

      Max

  35. You were right to write a foreword. These guys are serious people and the fact that Lewis is an IPCC reviewer and has published in the right journals is important to the decision. You will get a lot of ignorant criticism because of the political agenda of the GWPF, but they are only the publisher. What counts in the decision to write the foreword is the quality of authors and their work.

    The problem with the tribalism of the global warming advocates is that it gradually converts the many diverse somewhat sceptical views of various aspects of climate into exactly the group of focused opponents that they were afraid of. Their own tribalism has created an opposing tribe. The problem with cries of ‘for us or against us’ is that a lot of people do end up getting together against.

    • Michel makes a good point.

      The “realists” made them do it.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “You were right to write a foreword. ”
      —-
      Again, the horse is already out of the barn for Dr. Curry and so there’s no real harm in waving good-bye.

  36. Reviewing threads like this one is like looking into a worm hole.
    ~ ~ ~

    Scott {…Curry}, please stop for a moment and take your mind out of the text book – take a look assessment the state of the Global Heat Distribution Engine today as compared to a half century ago…

    I say this because I think you all have lost your perspective – “climate sensitivity” is a scientific construct for scientists to use as a tool for understanding what is happening upon our planet.

    Just like models are tools,

    Neither was ever meant to pretend to be a flawless representation of our infinitely complex really. But, that is what your type seems to be demanding.
    ~ ~ ~

    A look at the geo-physical world outside reveals that whatever the actual “climate sensitivity number” is – the past half century has seen a profoundly radical alteration of global climate/weather behavior that is directly attributable to humanity’s gargantuan injections of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. You know the stuff that makes our atmosphere a better insulator, thus holding in more heat.

    The crazy-making of this type of obsession, misdirection can best be analogized with obsessing over whether you are careening towards that tree at 55MPH or 65MPH, rather than focusing on steering away from the tree.

    Shameful, truly shameful :- (

    • I’m in NSW. Please don’t tax/regulate/stabilise us back to the climate of the first half of the 20th century. 55 years of rain deficit. No thanks. And I don’t want most of what came before that. I’ll settle for some early 1950s wet ‘n cool. Or maybe 1970s. Or the few years before spring 2012.

      Above all, Mr Challenge, don’t dial the climate back the the 1790s or 1895-1903 or the 1910s or WW2 years. That sort of sustained heat and drought in Australia is more than I could take. The Millennium Drought was bad enough.

      Oh, and no 1851. Don’t want to burn down a whole state again.

      By the way, if you’re in North America I’d advise against any of the climate either side of that 16 year Pluvial back in the 19th century. And I’d watch out for Pluvials. They can be unrelentingly soggy. If I can find a climatic era that wasn’t pretty brutal and extreme I’ll let you know and you can adjust our CO2 accordingly. So far no luck. Definitely not the 1930s – anywhere!

    • citizens challenge said;

      A look at the geo-physical world outside reveals that whatever the actual “climate sensitivity number” is – the past half century has seen a profoundly radical alteration of global climate/weather behaviour that is directly attributable to humanity’s gargantuan injections of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. You know the stuff that makes our atmosphere a better insulator, thus holding in more heat.”

      Climate did not begin when you were born. The world has seen many profound alterations. The 9th to 13th century were profoundly different (warmer) than the period 14th to 17th century.(colder) The Roman warm period was profoundly different to the Dark Ages cold period. The Minoan warm period was substantially warmer than any of them.

      This was without ‘gargantuan injections.’

      History shows us that the worst weather extremes occurred during the cold periods not the warm ones. There is nothing in the modern era to compare with past events

      tonyb

    • mosomoso

      Since our friends here believe that man has only affected the climate since around 1970 they should be very pleased to live in any era prior to that.

      I nominate 1680 to 1700. Or the 1560′s.

      tonyb

    • Don Monfort

      Let’s send them back to the idyllic times about six million years ago, tony. They’ll swing joyously through the trees eating bananas and lice. I am pretty sure that Big Oil will provide finance.

    • I suppose if heat and drought are a concern, I wouldn’t want to be in Europe for the years around 1540. Took ‘em till 2003 (or maybe 1976 in England) to match that period for reported heat. Cherries in May, grapes in July. I wonder if anything has matched it since for drought in Europe. Maybe. Anyway, as Tony has mentioned, they soon had different concerns.

      Climate! It’s worse than we thought and it used to be worse than we used to think. And the dang thing changes! Why does it do that?

    • citizenschallenge fell off the edge of the flatulent earth with ‘directly attributable’. But I don’t think he knows he’s falling.
      ====================

  37. Lewis keeps calling his method “observations” when actually he needs, and has, a model to get from observations to a climate sensitivity. His model says that the world climate can be represented by a single fixed sensitivity, and that past changes can be used to express future values of this one sensitivity. As Kyle Armour has pointed out, this model is flawed. Climate change occurs at different rates globally, and depending on how it unfolds, these estimates based on a single past sensitivity will be underestimates. One way to see this is through the way global warming has unfolded so far. The areas warming fastest are the land and the Arctic, areas without much water vapor feedback, while the tropical oceans have lagged. Given longer, the tropical ocean signal will become a larger fraction together with its substantial water vapor feedback, that the simple past-based ECS model will have underestimated. Armour shows that the single-sensitivity world should be replaced by several surfaces with different time responses to give a more accurate picture. What Lewis has is still a kind of transient sensitivity, not an equilibrium one.
    Given this, what uncertainty would you attach to Lewis’s 2 C for 2100? Should policymakers rely on this or maybe play it safe and add 50% as a safety margin. Bottom line is that Lewis has a model for sensitivity, not observations, which are just fed into his model, and that model is too simplistic and rigid for future projections.
    I am glad Armour also had a presentation at the APS, as those paying attention would have been clear on the weaknesses of single-global-parameter approaches such as Lewis’s.

    • The areas warming fastest are the land and the Arctic, areas without much water vapor feedback

      This is non-sense, they might be the fastest warming but it isn’t from Co2, otherwise they wouldn’t cool as fast as they do at night. They are the fastest night time cooling locations on the planet and there’s absolutely no evidence of any loss of cooling in the temperature record.

    • Mi Cro, you assert that the land and Arctic are not warming because of CO2. Give your reason for this level of certainty. How can you be so sure? One thing that doesn’t apply to land is natural variability (no deep currents). It responds to positive forcing, and fast. The forcing increase we know about in the last 30 years is that from CO2. Name some others.

      • Co2 interferes with IR at the speed of light and on clear nights over dry land the temp drops the fastest of any place on the planet.
        And the second part is just as much non-sense, the jet stream enters the US 300 or so miles further north than it did a few years back, which led to one of the coldest snowiest winters in a long time. Ocean temps alter the jet stream which alters storm tracks, which alters surface temps.

  38. Judith, somewhat dismayed at the trolling allowed in the comments. What a wonderful topic to have a thorough scientific discussion of CS. Nope, Appell and Josh show up and completely hijack the thread. Typical of Appell – show me, proof it, cite it, you lie, not peer reviewed, who funds them, etc, etc.

    • Thanks for reading, Bob. I can’t tell you how much it means to me.

    • We know how much it means to you, joshie. You are not fooling anybody.

    • You got me, Don.

      In reality, my world revolves around whether Bob reads my comments or not.

      When will I ever learn that you and your buds are just too smart for me? Why mosher clearly knows what my opinions are even better than I do. Just ask him, he’ll tell you that he does. He has a “window into [my] soul.”

      You boyz are hilarious.

    • You are pathetic, joshie. We don’t need any windows to see that.

    • Anyway, have a nice night, Don.

      I’ve done enough of my important work for one night, of distracting you from writing your deeply impactful and scientifically profound blog comments (it’s why they pay me the big bucks).

      I’ll sleep better knowing that due all my distraction, we have averted the dismantling of the statist/eco-Nazi/fraudster/capitalism-hating/poor children starvation-loving cabal at least until tomorrow morning.

      Oh. My freakin’ sides.

    • Anyway, have a nice night, Don.

      I’ve done enough of my important work for one night, of distracting you from writing your deeply impactful and scientifically profound blog comments (it’s why they pay me the big bucks).

      I’ll sleep better knowing that due all my distraction, we have averted the dismantling of the statisti/fraudster/capitalism-hating/poor children starvation-loving cabal at least until tomorrow morning.

      Oh. My freakin’ sides.

    • You are in dire need of a window on your soul, joshie. Mosher has been trying to help you. You don’t deserve his sympathy.

    • Steven Mosher

      Josh forgets that the window into his soul was about a single particular issue.

      That issue was related to his interaction with a particular class of women.

      The issue had to do with a very very distinctive change in his writing style when he addresses these women as opposed to when he addresses men who are similarly situated.

      As for his beliefs on climate? I dont think hes smart enough to have them.
      As for his beliefs on other matters? not too interested.

      But I do observe what I observe about his change in style when addressing a particular class of subject. One school of stylistic analysis suggests that these changes in style reflect or illuminate various psychological aspects of the writer. For an example see Blooms map of misreading. Essenetially the presence of particular tropes indicate various defense mechanisms ( it’s an extension of freudian psychology). Now finding the trope once or twice tells you nothing, but a repetition compulsion particularly in the same type of primal scene provides an insight. And its actually an insight you can test.
      His repeated referencing of this “window” incident and the way he mis remembers it, is also instructive.

  39. typo corrections:

    “take an assessment the state of the Global Heat Distribution Engine today as compared to a half century ago…”
    ~ ~ ~
    “Neither (climate sensitivity calculations or climate models) was ever meant to pretend to be a flawless representation of our infinitely complex reality. “

  40. Bob, care to define “trolling” ?

    • Alan Millar

      David Appell (@davidappell) | March 6, 2014 at 12:29 am |
      Sure, suck up this report, no questions asked.

      “That’s exactly why you are losing the scientific debate, and have been for decades — lack of critical analsis”

      So do some, stop running away!

      I posed you a query before, answer it.

      Of course you are going to have to use your own brain for once as you will not be able to google the answer and rely on someone else’s critical analysis. Hop to it!

      David Appell (@davidappell) | March 5, 2014 at 12:18 am |

      “I never said that. Look, it’s a fact that models project, not predict. They can’t predict — it’s impossible, since no one knows the precise future of energy use or anthropogenic emissions (including aerosols).

      That’s why backpredictions can be especially useful — because we know a lot more about the emissions pathways. And the models do a pretty good job:”

      You have just described why the Models are wrong. This is a fact not an opinion and it is a fact that can be proven rather easily.

      Of course you cannot falsify them yet by just checking their projections against the real world as not enough time has passed to be definite. Also you cannot run an experiment with the Earth to falsify them.

      However, there is another way to disprove any hypothesis. All you need to do is show that it produces an impossible result.

      So what would be an impossible result for an accurate and correct model?

      Well what does it output? It outputs a climate signal quantified by the Earth’s global temperature. This output is compared and graphed to past actual temperature data and is then taken forward to predict the future.

      All the current climate models do very well on the back cast against data. Remarkably so really, over the 20th century as the temperature data shows rises and falls so do the models track it with little variation except for the shortest periods. Is that good?…….. NO!

      You see the models average out a lot of the natural variation factors, mainly ENSO. The designers original argument for this was that it made the models simpler (true) and that anyway natural variation was so small it did not affect the main signal significantly. (false)

      Now they say that ‘of course natural variation is strong enough to mask the true signal and for quite long periods, way longer than a decade’. They have to say that now of course because if they maintained their previous line, that it was too weak to have any significant effect, they would have had to ditch their models already.

      So now both sceptics and warmists agree that natural variation (mainly ENSO) can completely alter the underlying modelled climate signal. Indeed the modelled climate signal, of a greatly accelerated warming rate, as compared to the 20th century, has been masked completely since 2001. Indeed it has cooled very slightly over this period. However, the warmists say ‘hey trust our models this is just natural variation doing its obvious thing’.

      So we can see that the models and the temperature records are outputting different signals. One, a climate signal plus averaged variation and the other, the climate signal plus actual variation. It is now accepted that actual variation causes the models to drift well away from reality for quite lengthy periods. Therefore the fact that the models are currently drifting well away from reality does not prove they are wrong. Indeed it is a behaviour that only an accurate model would display in anything other than neutral variation. It doesn’t prove it is correct but it certainly doesn’t prove it is incorrect

      So what would be an impossible result for an accurate and correct model to output. Well clearly that would be a signal that does closely match the actual temperature data over the short to medium term. An apple doesn’t equal an orange no matter how you cut it. Only in the long run would the signals align. In the short to medium term an accurate model must run either hot or cold

      So, given that ENSO has been doing its thing over the 20th century, the fact that on the back cast run the models track the temperature record very closely in all its up and down movements proves that these models are in fact false. That is an impossible result for an accurate model. QED.

      In their hubris, the warmists when fiddling with their free parameters to make a great fit with the historical data, overlooked that they were trying to fit an apple to an orange! Or perhaps they didn’t think anyone would take much notice of them if they couldn’t even match the past.

      So what say you Appell?

      Alan

    • Bob Ludwick

      @ Alan Millar

      Climate Science tells us that:

      a. Atmospheric CO2 is the ‘control knob’ for the Temperature of the Earth (TOE).

      b. It has been rising monotonically, except for periodic seasonal variations, since we began measuring it.

      c. The ostensible cause of the rise is the injection of ACO2 into the atmosphere as a byproduct of producing the energy required to maintain our civilization.

      d. The ACO2, by raising the concentration of atmospheric CO2, is causing the TOE to rise precipitously and dangerously.

      e. Recent TOE data has shown that the slope of the TOE trend is near zero, with ongoing debate as to whether it is slightly positive or slightly negative, for the last 17 years. And counting.

      f. The official explanation for the ‘pause’ is that ‘natural variation’ has masked the precipitous rise in the TOE that is driven by ACO2.

      f. appears to contradict a. and implies that if CO2 DOES influence the TOE, the influence is minor compared to natural climate fluctuations. A control knob which, when turned in one direction, can result in a output which goes up, down, or remains the same is not much of a control knob.

      All of the above is supportive of Jim Cripwell’s oft stated opinion that if the sensitivity of the TOE to CO2 is other than zero, it has not been demonstrated by empirical TOE data.

  41. Dang, you guys have let Appell ruin another good thread. Don’t let him succeed and divert the discussion away from the material in the post!

    • Sure, suck up this report, no questions asked.

      That’s exactly why you are losing the scientific debate, and have been for decades — lack of critical analsis. Because your real priority isn’t science.

    • Bernd Palmer

      davidappel – have you read and peer-reviewed already, this report? Show us the flaws and errors (I’m sure there are errors).

    • Whaddya bet David Appell cold-cocked his nanny with the hairbrush one fine Saturday afternoon in the long ago nursery. And all she wanted to do was brush his hair.
      ==================

  42. David in Cal

    The nice thing about this paper is that it agrees with the actual data. Look at the Lower Troposphere temperature anomaly back to 1979, which is as long as we have it. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ During a period of rising greenhouse gases, temperature increased at a rate of about !.2 degrees C per century. I trust my own eyes more than either side. My eyes tell me that a good estimate of future warming should be not too far from 1.2 degrees per century.

    • Actually UAH LT’s trend is 0.14 C/decade — and you make a big mistake by projecting that to a century. There is no science suggesting the trend will be linear over such long periods of time.

    • David Springer

      Not as big as the mistake made by the “peer reviewed” IPCC first assessment report in 1990 which projected 0.3C warming per decade in the 21st century for business as usual CO2 emission.

      How’s that working out? hahaha

  43. The world has really gone insane if we put our trust in 4 lords, 2 sirs, a right reverend bishop, and a baroness.

    To top that off you have a person that is aggressively stupid as Lewis writing this report. He believes that what he has written is the way you calculate TCR. No, you calculate TCR by parametrically comparing the sensitivity of changes in temperature to the logarithm of CO2 change over the course of the time period under study, which is over 130+ years,
    It is very difficult to get a number that strays from 2 C.
    By the same token, the number for ECS is 3C which you can get by looking at land temperatures.

  44. Having read through the whole list of comments to date, I am saddened and very much disappointed. I was actually hoping to see some real review of this paper on here, but instead see a lot of childish bickering by the same old factions. But I will make a few notes:
    - David Appell, you claim you didn’t read the paper, so kindly keep your non-relevant opinions to yourself. If you actually have a real response to this paper, other than baboon arm waving, then lets hear it. Saying your not going to read it is simply an admission of your closed mind and open mouth. To an outside observer, you just look ridiculous.
    - Too commenters that post weird or fringe theories in comments in almost every story, your not making any headway and you also look ridiculous. Stating something and proving it are two different things. Learn the difference. This applies to many other comments here as well. If you are not prepared to actually defend your ideas with real information, don’t expect anyone to listen or care.
    - JC, I appreciate your openness to work like this, but it will never get any airing in the circle of climate science unless they publish it in a journal. So if this paper is well written, the publishing should be the first priority. Otherwise it just gives a ready made excuse for biased people to ignore it.
    - For all the talk about peer review, it is a ridiculous system that doesn’t actually provide much additional validity to most papers that go through it. It is simply a gatekeeping exercise and always will be. One only needs to look at the body over retracted and overturned papers to realize it is nothing more than a cursory error check at best and a gatekeeping device at worst. There is also no point in arguing that just peer review the paper and it will be taken seriously. There are peer reviewed papers that support both sides of this argument and everyone has shown they are more than prepared to ignore peer reviewed papers they don’t like either.
    - The internet and blogs, love it or hate it, is where useful dissection of science is starting to happen more and more. If this wasn’t true then nobody would be on here attacking or defending papers on sites like this. If the paper was really irrelevant then people like Appell wouldn’t be spending so much time telling everyone it is irrelevant. So instead of attacking the delivery method or funding, which in the terms of actual science don’t matter squat, point out the errors in the paper. If the paper is properly done it doesn’t matter who funded it or where you saw it, period. If you can’t grasp that then your not qualified to do science. If you can’t find a fault other than funding or delivery method, then go home and pout. Throwing fits on the internet because you don’t like it diminishes your standing and undermines any credibility you may have had. We can all point to funding of the various groups by vested interests on both sides, deal with it. If we had to throw out every article written using money from a company or vested interest, There would be precious little to talk about.

    I used to enjoy the comments on this site because There used to be actual relevant commentary on the subjects JC presented. This comment section has been almost completely irrelevant and stupid.

    JC, thanks for being fair and even handed. Keep up the good work. Almost everyone else, grow up and act your ages. If you want to be taken seriously in any kind of scientific capacity, then stop acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. You are convincing nobody with your attacks and pouting. How about people try actually talking about science for change. The sad part is I think the various people on here might actually have some insights and ideas worth considering, but it is frankly not worth sorting through your verbal diarrhea to find them anymore.

    And don’t bother attacking my comment, or me. I don’t care one whiff what you think about me, your wasting your breath. Lets try science discussions for a change.

    • Brandon, you misunderstand Appell’s function here. He is trying to deflect conversation of the paper. He is a Crusher, one of those trolls who have banded together, divvied up the climate blogsophere and infests this blog for no other purpose. Everybody’s got to have a hobby…

    • Bob Ludwick

      @ Brandon C

      Thank you. Well said, although I am probably one of the ‘offenders, ‘.

      I am one of the posters who is not qualified to comment on the actual science. i. e. ‘ What is the ocean heat content below 2000 m?’. Don’t know and don’t care. My comments are often based on my experience in measuring ‘stuff’. If, for example, you claim to have measured the ‘Temperature of the Abyssal Ocean’, the whole ocean, with a precision of millidegrees, and furthermore claim to be able to establish century long trend lines based on ocean temperature shifts in the milli/centi degree range ‘proving’ something or the other relative to ACO2, my first reaction is ‘You are not doing science, you are propagandizing.’. If Climate Science claims such, I will need more convincing beyond ‘We are experts and we said so.’.

      Another example was a post that I made on the previous thread. I made a statement paraphrasing what I thought represented the position of Climate Science on ACO2/sea level change, as argued here, with the expectation that someone would point out that it was beyond stupid. At which point I could reply, ‘Of course my comment was stupid, but it was a fair summary of what we are being asked to believe.’. To my surprise?, the only follow up comment was ‘Right on, bro!’. With that I dropped out. Possibly proving that I am the stupid one.

      At any rate, good post.

  45. This Lewis and Crok estimate of climate sensitivity is still too high because as I understand it still uses an estimate of the trend in the OHC which bears little relation to the current best estimate.
    The best analysis of the changing OHC is at
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
    Look at table1. This shows that the heat flux from 0-100 m dropped 90% when the period 1983 – 2011 is compared with 2004-2011. The flux at deeper levels also declined substantially. Trenberth’s hidey hole for the “missing ” heat is in reality non existent. This shows that, as one might expect on a cooling earth, the oceans are cooling from the top down.
    Another problem with the Lewis and Crok analysis is that it follows the IPCC modelers simple minded and almost certainly wrong assumption that the natural trends can be projected forward on a straight line basis. This total disregard for the quasi periodic quasi repetitive periodicities in the temperature record perpetuates the gross scientific malfeasance which vitiates the entire IPCC modeling program and all the impact studies which derive from them.
    Furthermore computer models are inherently useless for forecasting a system with as many variables as climate has , let alone the fact that the IPCC models are structured so badly that their range of outputs is likely mostly outside the range of the real climate system.For the inherent model limitations see

    A new forecasting paradigm is required. The IPCC model outputs are not really worth discussing except to try to convince the politicians that their climate policies have no sound foundation. For estimates of the probable coming cooling based on the 60 year and 1000 year quasi periodicities in the temperature data and the neutron count as a proxy for solar “activity” see several posts at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.

    • You have found about eight reasons “skeptics” should be skeptical of Lewis and Crok, based on previous lines of argument that they have used, and yet they aren’t at all skeptical, and this proves a simple fact that it is the bottom line ECS that counts, and it doesn’t matter how you get there as long as the number looks better for their purposes. Inconsistency of argument doesn’t matter to them, but thanks for trying to put them straight.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “… and this proves a simple fact that it is the bottom line ECS that counts.”
      —-
      Yep, it’s where all the feedbacks really start to kick in. And beyond that, the Earth system sensitivity is what we are committing future generations to.

    • Jim D

      The reasoning by Lewis and Crok seems very logical and well-founded.

      It is simply that observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity give results that are considerably lower than model-based estimates.

      This was true for the only observation-based study cited by IPCC (Forster + Gregory) and is even more so for more recent studies, which incorporate the years of the “hiatus”.

      The many recent observation-based studies (some of which were cited by the authors) point this out very clearly.

      This suggests that 2xCO2 ECS is closer to 1.75C (1.25-3.0C), rather than 3C (1.5-4.5C) as predicted by the models.

      TCR is closer to 1.35C (1-2C) rather than 1.75C (1-2.5C).

      This should be good news to you Jim, since you will no longer have to fret about the potentially negative effects of future AGW.

      Rejoice and be happy, Jim!

      Don’t be a sourpuss.

      And, if you want to be rationally skeptical, be so of the IPCC AR5 report, which apparently ignored these new studies.

      Max

    • manacker, I have complained elsewhere about his use of the term “observations” for his model. It is a model, and a rigid one, that has a globally fixed, and time-fixed sensitivity, fitted to the observations. His model turns out to be a poor approximation to the way transient responses behave. It doesn’t allow that the land may warm faster than the ocean at first, but the observations already show this assumption to be wrong.

  46. Judith Curry

    Thanks for posting this very interesting study.

    The Lewis and Crok study is truly good news for anyone who is concerned about damaging effects of future anthropogenic global warming. I hope we will see some rejoicing among those who have been so worried in the past.

    Recent observation-based studies are showing that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is much smaller than was previously predicted by climate models, and that expected future warming will be much lower than previously estimated, based on these model-based estimates of climate sensitivity.

    Comparison of latest observation-based estimates with model-based estimates:

    2xCO2 ECS
    Observationally-based ‘likely’ range: 1.25ºC to 3.0ºC
    Best observationally-based estimate: 1.75ºC

    Model-based ‘likely range: 1.5ºC to 4.5ºC
    Best model-based estimate: 3ºC

    2xCO2 Transient Climate Response (70 years) – TCR
    Observationally-based ‘likely’ range: 1ºC to 2ºC
    Best observationally-based estimate: 1.35ºC

    Model-based ‘likely range: 1ºC to 2.5ºC
    Best model-based estimate: 2ºC

    This is a major difference.

    The authors write:

    The purpose of the IPCC is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change’. We believe that, due largely to the constraints the climate model orientated IPCC process imposed, the WGI report and the SPM failed to reflect satisfactorily such an assessment in the case of climate sensitivity and TCR, arguably the most important parameters in the climate discussion.

    The authors give a good summary of the background and evolution of the 3ºC best model-based estimate for 2xCO2 ECS.

    They point out why paleo-climate studies contain little meaningful information due to the very large uncertainties involved.

    They present an interesting comment about how IPCC in AR4 “fudged” the data. The observation-based studies have always given lower estimates for ECS than the model-based studies. The Forster and Gregory observation-based data (the only observation-based estimate cited by IPCC) showed a best observation-based estimate for 2xCO2 ECS of 1.6ºC, with an observation-based range of 1.2ºC to 2.5ºC. This was misrepresented by IPCC in AR4 as a range of 2.5ºC to 5.0ºC (almost double the actually observed range) with a best observation-based estimate of 2.4ºC, in order to put it in line with the model-based estimates!

    In reviewing the projections of future warming in IPCC’s AR5 report, the authors write:

    It can be seen that the climate models greatly overestimate the amount of warming in the future relative to what a best observationally-based estimate of TCR implies. Comparing the two sets of projections of future warming (from 2012 to 2081–2100), and excluding the low RCP2.6 scenario, the model-based projected warming is between 1.7 and 2.0 times higher than the projected warming based on the best observational estimate of TCR. On the RCP6.0 scenario and using the TCR-based method, total warming in 2081–2100 would still be around the international target of 2◦C, with a rise of 1.2◦C from 2012 rather than the 2◦C rise projected by the GCMs.

    This is very good news, indeed.

    You once wrote that there would be repercussions if IPCC swept all the recent observation-based findings on ECS under the rug (they did so in AR5, by retaining the old higher model-based estimates and ignoring the lower estimates from the many new observation-based studies).

    This may only be the beginning of these repercussions.

    Max

    • Judith Curry

      I forgot to reiterate what Mark Silbert expressed upthread:

      Judith Curry’s foreword helps give credibility to a report issued by what most of the consensus mongers would view as a fringe denier group.

      Indeed.

      Max

  47. David Springer

    Judy Curry, serial climate Miss Informer, strikes again.

    Maybe in the heat of twitting or whatever Michael Mann meant to say “Miss Informer” rather than “misinformer”.

  48. David Springer

    JC comments:

    “I did think twice about writing a foreword for a GWPF publication. I try to stay away from organizations with political perspectives on global warming.”

    I did a double take seeing the “publisher” as well. To be consistent I can’t endorse GWPF any more than I can Skeptical Science.

    • David

      Agreed. Not that anyone would ask me to write a foreword to GWPF, Skeptical science, Heartland etc, but if they did I would not do so. Politics and science are uneasy bed fellows.

      tonyb

    • David Springer

      Yup. Pointing to papers published on GWPF by fake scientists just gives ammunution to fake journalists like David Appell to bash it. ;-)

  49. One thing I think being overlooked in evaluation of this ‘climate sensitivity’ is incorrect use of OLS regression. One common way to measure it and AFAIK this is the main way that it is assessed for the various models, it to plot dRad vs dTemp and work out the slope by linear regression.

    By convention it seems that dRad gets to be y axis.

    Now this is NOT a legitimate use of OLS, which assumes and requires a “controlled variable” (ie negligible error/uncertainty) on the x-axis.

    The very few people who are aware of this basic restriction seem to sweep it under that carpet as some kind of purist’s, pedantic knit-pick that doesn’t really “matter”.

    Well, guys, it does “matter”.

    What happens if this is not respected is called “regression dilution”. If you have significant error in the x variable the slope will (usually) come out less that the true slope. How much less depends upon the ratio of the respective x and y errors. The difference can be huge, easily a factor of two on noisy data – like climate for example.

    So if we do a dRad vs dTemp plot the fitted slope will be notably less than “best unbiased estimation” of the slope we believe it to be.

    A quick check is to plot the data as dTemp vs dRad and do the OLS that way around. If the result is consistent one slope will be the reciprocal of the other. When you do it on low noise data they are close when you do it on noisy data there is a huge disparity.

    Since climate sensitivity is the inverse of this slope we get a spuriously high CS.

    This is something I have been intending to write up in detail with example data to demonstrate it. Perhaps now would be a good time.

  50. David Springer

    David Springer | March 6, 2014 at 2:53 am |

    David Appell (@davidappell) | March 5, 2014 at 7:20 pm |

    “Only fake scientists have to resort to a vanity press.”

    I hear ya. Just like only fake science journalists have to resort to writing their opinions in blogs.

  51. According to Mr Appel this report shouldn’t be taken seriously and nobody should waste any time on it. Unfortunately for him some real scientists seem to disagree.

    http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/gwpf/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=gwpf

    Also the Stern report is often quoted all over the place – it wasn’t peer reviewed either.

  52. Pingback: How the IPCC hid the good news on global warming | The IPCC Report

  53. Lauri Heimonen

    Judith Curry:

    ”From the press release issued by the GWPF:
    ‘A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate models are estimating.’”

    I regard necessary to repeat what I have already earlier stated: ”In my comment http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/08/week-in-review-9/#comment-452079 I have focused to prove that any increase of anthropogenic CO2 emissions does not dominate the increase of CO2 content in atmosphere, and that any increase of total content of CO2 in atmosphere does not control the global warming: a) a mere annual, record-breaking increase of anthropogenic CO2 emissions should have increased the atmospheric CO2 content only about 0.005 ppm in the recent annual total increase of about 2 ppm; b) the real annual, anthropogenic CO2 increase of 0.08 ppm is controlled by warming of sea surface on the ocean areas where sea surface CO2 sinks are; c) the warming trends of the sea surface on the areas of CO2 sinks are caused by ocean currents during periods of decadals when natural El Niños are dominating; and d) the recent increasing trend of CO2 content in atmosphere has followed warming and not vice versa.”

    This explains why the ‘climate sensitivity’ adopted by IPCC can not have been empirically distiguished from zero.

  54. Let’s see if this report gets as much coverage as the Chipotle-is-running-out-of-avocados-because-of-global-warming story. The newsroom intern charged with finding “sexy” stories to air is going to miss this one completely.

  55. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Don Monfort foresees “The Republican U. S. House of Reps. and the coming Republican Senate will give [Lewis and Groc] a second look. Lewis and Groc will be sitting next to Judith in the hearings. Your worst nightmare.

    •  Far-left ideologues confidently believed that antioxidant supplements would prevent disease and prolong life; the numbers proved far-left ideologues wrong.

    •  Far-right ideologues confidently foresaw congressional majority and presidential victory; the numbers proved far-right ideologues wrong.

    •  Ideologues of many stripes deny the sobering realities of climate-change; the numbers prove ideology-driven denialism wrong.

    It’s Obvious  Ideology-proved-wrong-by-science is *EVERY* denialist’s “worst nightmare” … that’s why ideologues cling to the five elements of Diethelm-McKee denialism (2009):

    •  The first is the identification of conspiracies.

    •  The second is the use of fake experts.

    •  The third is selectivity [cherry-picking].

    •  The fourth is impossible expectations.

    •  The fifth is misrepresentation and logical fallacies.

    Conclusion  The Lewis and Groc white paper exhibits all five Diethelm-McKee denialist elements; that’s why the Lewis and Groc white paper is a denialist manifesto … not 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}

    • Bernd Palmer

      FOMD, your analogy with anything tobacco shows that you have never grasped that anti-tobacco IS a conspiracy, funded by taxpayer’s money and pharma grants, fueled by rent seeking “scientists”. I don’t want to go off-topic in providing links to prove my assertion but google ‘mckee velvet glove’.

    • ceresco kid

      During colonial times the Militia used to have a system signifying the level of threat to the community and the mobilization would be commensurate to that level of threat. Today David Appell was called up to address an ominous threat. He made 52 comments. Clearly the movement detected a full broadside and it was all hands on deck.

      Simply watching how David reacted tells me the level of trouble these findings are to the peace and tranquility of the Warmist community. The paper must have hit a raw spot.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Bernd Palmer foresees “FOMD, your analogy with anything tobacco …”

      •  Neither my comment nor any of the links in it mentioned tobacco-cancer denialism and/or industry-sponsored astroturfing and/or outright racketeering — ubiquitous as these tobacco-industry practices may be!

      •  Neither did my comment mention the accelerating science-versus-denialism storm that is associated to scientific studies like DDT exposure echoes through the generations via epigenetic inheritance — although the Heartland Institute’s take on epigenetic science surely will be fun to see!

      •  The *BEST* path to remediating Diethelm-McKee denialism is to respectfully, persistently, rationally, and clearly present good science.

      These things are common-sense, eh Bernd Palmer?

      As for the zero-science Lewis and Groc white paper … it’s irrelevant to public discourse, eh?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Tom Fuller likes the term ‘crushers’. I like ‘flying monkeys’. FanFan, I don’t think we’re in Cancun anymore.
      ====================

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      LOL  Tom Fuller the bodybuilder?

      Climate-blogger self-images: (left to right)  Kim/(aka Beth), Michael Mann/(aka FOMD?), James Hansen/(aka Anthony Watts?), Judith Curry, Donna Laframboise/(aka FOMD?), and Bob Tisdale/(aka Lord Monckton?)

      At least folks are having a good time!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • “As for the zero-science Lewis and Groc white paper … it’s irrelevant to public discourse, eh?”

      The thing you basically full time, lunatic fringe alarmists don’t realize…people like Fan of more divisive diatribes, Apple-a-day keeps-the-truth-away, NIck Stokes, pokes, provokes, and smokes, is that you strengthen the skeptical case simply by virtue of how ridiculous you sound.

      Even after 5 years of following the climate wars, I still tend to give people the benefit of the doubt…I don’t know why, but I do. Apple’s a good example. I knew he had a blog, and I think he’s got an advanced degree in physics, and I knew he was an alarmist. OK fine, my default assumption was that he was a sincere guy with an honest difference of opinion. All one has to do is scroll through his comments on this thread to realize what a laugh that is…

      ONe might just as profitably have a conversation with a bulldozer as any of you people. It has to be intentional. BUt what do you think you’re accomplishing? If you’re changing anyone’s mind, it’s in the direction of skepticism.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      pokerguy (aka al neipris) complains “One might just as profitably have a conversation with a bulldozer as any of you people [scientists].”

      YES  History shows plainly that scientific progress *does* bulldoze anti-science ideologies … very effectively! … and has done so for centuries.

      That’s *good*, eh 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}

    • “YES History shows plainly that scientific progress *does* bulldoze anti-science ideologies … very effectively! … and has done so for centuries.”

      Bleh…

    • The Lewis paper hit a raw spot due to its incompetent scientific analysis.

  56. D o u g   C o t t o n   

     
    The truth of the matter is that there is no valid physics which confirms the greenhouse effect or any warming sensitivity to carbon dioxide..

    If the radiative forcing concept were valid then it should be possible to apply it on other planets, because physics is universal. But no one – I mean absolutely no commenter on any climate blog out of a dozen or more where I have posed the question – can answer in any other way than what is in my book.

    The world should not be spending a trillion dollars over the next few years when it cannot answer this question using the same greenhouse conjecture that they use to justify that expenditure. Failure to answer means failure of their GH conjecture.

    I have only just found (this week) one other paper that says what I do about the valid physics which can be used to answer the question, and that physics completely debunks the GH hoax. Note that the solar radiation reaching the Venus surface is less than 20W/m^2.

    The trillion dollar question is …

    How does the required additional thermal energy actually get into the surface of Venus in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees (from about 732K to 737K) over the course of its 4-month-day, after it has cooled by 5 degrees during the Venus night?

     

  57. I don’t like the assumption that any of the climate sensitivity methods are of any use. Frankly human influence is still most likely negligible. There are no fingerprints whatsoever of a human effect. It crucially depends on how much you assume that natural variation contributes. When scientists can predict a plateau correctly than I’ll believe they are doing more than just pessimistic guesswork shrouded in a pseudo-mathematical cloak. If only this was just an academic exercise but alas our energy policy is being damaged. I’d like to see a risk assessment for that.

    • Bob Ludwick

      @ James G

      “I’d like to see a risk assessment for that.”

      You apparently haven’t gotten the message: ‘ANY undesirable ‘climate event’, anywhere in the world, can instantly and unambiguously be attributed to ACO2 driven ‘Climate Change’–and is. ANY policy whose advertised purpose is to ameliorate ACO2 driven ‘Climate Change’ has only benign impacts. No risks to assess.

  58. If anyone doubted that peer review is obsolete, David Appell’s comments here would convince him beyond doubt. Just a brain-dead repetition – this is traditionally done, and nothing else counts.
    This isn’t difficult: Peer review the paper. Find the biggest experts in the world, and get them to audit the work. Refute it.
    This is obviously _better_ than regular peer review, as the authors need to stand up to a worldful of assailants, instead of three people who might be colleagues or friends. Mann’s work passed peer review (eventually). It was an amateur blogger who refuted it.
    You need to do this, as this paper will get publicity, and will be frequently citing as a refutation to everything you believe in.
    If it doesn’t happen, all the repetitions in the world of “move along, nothing to see here – why isn’t it in a journal?” aren’t going to convince anyone with a brain.

    • Mike -

      This is obviously _better_ than regular peer review, as the authors need to stand up to a worldful of assailants, instead of three people who might be colleagues or friends.

      The fact that there are problems with peer review does not lead me to a conclusion that “this is obviously_better_…”

      Each have a clear set of problems. You seem (to me) to be falling into a binary trap that simply because this is different, and does not have precisely the same set of drawbacks, it is then necessarily better.

    • Good point, Joshua, that makes sense. But what are the problems you have in mind with this method? I think it is already coming to the fore in fields like math, where results are normally posted online and critiqued immediately.

    • mike -

      Good point, Joshua, that makes sense. But what are the problems you have in mind with this method? I think it is already coming to the fore in fields like math, where results are normally posted online and critiqued immediately.

      With technical mathematical material, you are not likely to get people involved who have a relatively shallow technical background but a relatively deep partisan orientation. So maybe the point is that context needs to be considered.

      I have also seen, first hand, where peer review can lead to a very deep processing of analytical critiques, during the process of analysis more so than after the effect, to solid benefit. Also, I think that there is something to be said for a system that attempts to refine the critiques to come from people who have a strong and relevant background (with an understanding that there can be an unintended consequence of stifling innovation). It isn’t that I think that the system if flawless. Far from it. There are a number of substantive problems that are rightly criticized. I’m just arguing against a baby with the bathwater approach on the issue. I certainly think that a more open review process has unique advantages – I’m not sure, however, that they supersede the advantages of peer review in all aspects. Perhaps some kind of synergistic approach will be the ultimate, and more beneficial, outcome.

      I look at the situation with MOOCs as a similar kind of development w/r/t standard processes of an academic approach to science and research. There are distinct advantages to an open system like MOOCs, but there are relative disadvantages as well. The question for me is whether those engaged in the traditional systems will be flexible enough to pursue synergistic outcomes. I have the same questions about the critics of those traditional systems as well.

    • Steven Mosher

      It’s relatively easy to do the comparison.

      Peer review doesnt come close to open review.
      the only real drawback of open review is there are times where the front line experts will refuse to do an open review. Its a threat to the power they exert in traditional peer review.

    • Well, Joshua, I didn’t hear you mention anything that I clearly acknowledge, but that’s fine. Speaking only for myself, I don’t see a problem with submitting an article to the regular journals. If that will be helpful to the field, say for instance that it gives people a convenient frame of reference on what’s happening in the field – or other advantages – that’s fine.
      But it remains perfectly clear that Appell is being obtuse and unhelpful. Since I think he sincerely supports the AGW side of things, I don’t know why he would think that what he is doing doesn’t discredit it.
      Using your analogy: I’ve taken a number of classes from MOOCs recently – from MIT, CalTech, Berkeley, and Johns Hopkins. I had a great time, learned a lot, the professors were excellent and available and helpful, and it was free. Doesn’t mean I think that all colleges should close their campuses. It does mean that if I see some professor spouting how everyone knows how worthless MOOCs are, I’m going to dismiss him as a partisan hack, and an annoying incompetent one at that.
      I don’t think I know of a field where there are so many people on both sides who don’t have a clue, and simultaneously are so sure that it’s everyone else who doesn’t have a clue. Politics and economics, of course, but there no one has a clue so it’s not so annoying.

    • mike -

      Well, Joshua, I didn’t hear you mention anything that I clearly acknowledge, but that’s fine

      ??? I’m not following. Are you saying that I didn’t acknowledge your acknowledgement? If so, I acknowledge it now. If that’s what you’re saying, sorry for the oversight.

      I did acknowledge your example with mathematics (is that what you meant?), in that I think that is an area that would by definition only attract those who are technically versed, and in a relatively unpolitical context, open online review would seem to be more advantageous. The open online review that I have seen vis a vis climate science seems very different to me in nature. I’m not saying that it is worthless or necessarily, clearly inferior to journal peer review of research on climate science. It would be interesting to see some comparison, in math or related (relatively unpoliticized) fields, a comparison of relatively recent output from open, online review processes to the output from recent high impact factor journals.

      Academics who bury their heads in the sand related to MOOCs are going to have a rude awakening at some point down the road. It’s a force. As is the changed circumstances for public funding of research. Those who refuse to adapt will become extinct. As a long-time educator, however, who has taught courses online, I am particularly aware of the inherent limitations. Not to say, however, that any individual might not have a much better experience with online an online course than they would have in a traditional brick and mortar course.

    • and Mike -

      But it remains perfectly clear that Appell is being obtuse and unhelpful. Since I think he sincerely supports the AGW side of things, I don’t know why he would think that what he is doing doesn’t discredit it.

      As I said elsewhere in this thread, I see David often making arguments that, to me, look like those of a “skeptic” in kind if not in specifics. That said, I think that we should check ourselves against judging either “side” of the scientific debate based on specific arguments made by specific individuals. The scientific arguments need to be evaluated on their own merits.

      This is one of the problems that I see, abundantly, on both “sides” in the debate – our proclivity to impugn the science on the basis of “guilt by association.”

    • “Since I think he sincerely supports the AGW side of things, I don’t know why he would think that what he is doing doesn’t discredit it.”

      The same point I made above to Fan of More Divisive Discourse. If they’re changing anyone’s mind, it’s in the skeptical direction.

    • “I didn’t hear you mention anything that I clearly acknowledge”
      “??? I’m not following. Are you saying that I didn’t acknowledge your acknowledgement? If so, I acknowledge it now.”
      No, no, didn’t mean anything like that. I just meant that I wasn’t necessarily agreeing (acknowledging) with your examples.

    • “The scientific arguments need to be evaluated on their own merits.” Yup.

  59. “The forces of darkness have already lost the global warming battle—the actual science is “settled” in a way quite different from what they contend, and their pseudo-science and dissimulation have become impossible to hide from the public at large—but they are winning the culture wars, even to the extent of being able to steal from the future.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/06/new-book-twilight-of-abundance/#more-104508

    • Childhood’s End.
      =============

    • “The forces of darkness have already lost the global warming battle—“

      They just don’t know it yet, not consciously anyway I don’t think. There’s a fine passage in Thomas Wolfe…think it’s “You Can’t Go Home AGain…just before the stock market crash…which is something they intuit without realizing it. The fear and desperation in their eyes, and the way they speak, is really rather moving….Of course I have no sympathy at all for the intellectually and morally bankrupt warmists. They bring further disgrace upon themselves with each passing day.

  60. This Lewis guy does not know how to estimate TCR based on the observational evidence of over 130 years of warming. His 1.3C is laughable.
    http://imageshack.com/a/img823/7237/wif.gif

    • David Springer

      The 130-year record is not adequate for the task of determining global average temperature to anywhere near the hundredths of a degree per decade neccessary to substantiate your claim. Use the satellite record instead.

  61. Pingback: Climate Sensitivity « the Air Vent

  62. ” Joshua | March 5, 2014 at 7:52 pm | Reply

    Judith -

    I try to stay away from organizations with political perspectives on global warming.

    Which explains why you testified at the behest of Republicans ideologues in Congress?”

    I have a couple of questions for you Joshua.

    In the period up to WWII Jewish scientists, and the science that was produced by mostly Jewish scientists, was under attack in both Germany and in Italy. It was ‘common knowledge’, based on media reports, that Jews were involved in a conspiracy to pervert science, especially physics, and were bankrolled by a ‘cabal’ of vested interests.
    Many Jews lost their positions, and lives, against this background of antisemitic propaganda and state sanctioned persecution.

    Outside of the past, and outside of Climate Science, I cannot but notice that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) global campaign against Israel, especially with respect to an academic boycott of Jewish Israeli academics is a political and not scientific movement.

    The questions.
    Were the non-Jewish scientists who spoke out against this antisemitic process acting on behalf of ‘ideologues’ ?

    Do you think scientists who speak for, and indeed, against the BDS campaign are acting on behalf of ‘ideologues’ ?

    • Doc -

      You will notice that Judith said that she thought twice about affiliating with GWPF. Why is that? Because it is an advocacy organization. She recognizes that affiliating with an advocacy organization is problematic for her, because she has often been vocally critical of scientists affiliating with advocacy organizations. She, herself, recognized the inconsistency between her rhetoric and her actions. Yet she went ahead anyway.

      Personally, I have no problem with scientists affiliating themselves with advocacy organizations. I do have a problem, however, with selective attitudes that make it OK to do so sometimes and not OK to do so at others, seemingly on the basis of personal opinions associated with the specific policy advocacy. I prefer that principles be applied uniformly.

      ———–

      You seem to me to be a bit of a history buff. It think that is why sometimes you risk getting a hernia trying to squeeze out historical analogies. As a Jew, I tend to find analogies such as yours about Jews and Nazis to be exploitative in nature. The analogies are too strained to be of much purpose. Analogies are useful if they are instructive, helping to concretize concepts in new or enlightening ways. Analogies used to score rhetorical points are just same ol’ same ol’, IMO. But that’s just an FYI. There’s lots o’ things that happen in the blogosphere that I find to be exploitative.

      ———–

      Were the non-Jewish scientists who spoke out against this antisemitic process acting on behalf of ‘ideologues’ ?

      I would need more context to understand your question. More specifics.

      But my point is that not speaking at the behest of ideologues is wrong. It seems that for some reason, “skeptics” keep misconstruing what I am saying in ways that are in direct contrast to what I’ve said. Judith, speaking to Congress, at the behest of Republican ideologues in Congress does not mean that she was speaking on their “behalf.” I haven’t suggested that she was speaking on their behalf. But speaking on their behest, in the politicized context of the climate wars, is in the real world, a form of “advocacy.” Hey, I like advocacy. I think that the freedom and the right to be an advocate is important – and that freedom and right lead, in the long run, to more good for more people. I just think that if someone is going to be an advocate, they shouldn’t criticize others for the mere act of advocacy. That sort of contradiction, IMO, mitigates against the potential benefits of advocacy – because it eats at the very roots of our rights and freedoms to be advocates.

      Do you think scientists who speak for, and indeed, against the BDS campaign are acting on behalf of ‘ideologues’ ?

      I’m not feeling how this question is relevant. I don’t think that anyone speaking out on issues is (at least necessarily) acting on “behalf” of ideologues. Whether they are speaking at the behest of ideologues is determined by the context. Of course, voicing an opinion is not necessarily speaking on “behalf” of ideologues. If someone is invited to speak, specifically because what they have to say furthers an ideological agenda, then they are, obviously, speaking at the behest of ideologues.

    • Doc -

      You will notice that Judith said that she thought twice about affiliating with GWPF. Why is that? Because it is an advocacy organization. She recognizes that affiliating with an advocacy organization is problematic for her, because she has often been vocally critical of scientists affiliating with advocacy organizations. She, herself, recognized the inconsistency between her rhetoric and her actions. Yet she went ahead anyway.

      Personally, I have no problem with scientists affiliating themselves with advocacy organizations. I do have a problem, however, with selective attitudes that make it OK to do so sometimes and not OK to do so at others, seemingly on the basis of personal opinions associated with the specific policy advocacy. I prefer that principles be applied uniformly.

      ———–

      You seem to me to be a bit of a history buff. It think that is why sometimes you risk getting a hernia trying to squeeze out historical analogies. Perhaps because I’m Jewish, I tend to find analogies such as yours about Jews and N@zis to be exploitative in nature. The analogies are too strained to be of much purpose. Analogies are useful if they are instructive, helping to concretize concepts in new or enlightening ways. Analogies used to score rhetorical points are just same ol’ same ol’, IMO. But that’s just an FYI. There’s lots o’ things that happen in the blogosphere that I find to be exploitative.

      ———–

      Were the non-Jewish scientists who spoke out against this antisemitic process acting on behalf of ‘ideologues’ ?

      I would need more context to understand your question. More specifics.

      But my point is that not speaking at the behest of ideologues is wrong. It seems that for some reason, “skeptics” keep misconstruing what I am saying in ways that are in direct contrast to what I’ve said. Judith, speaking to Congress, at the behest of Republican ideologues in Congress does not mean that she was speaking on their “behalf.” I haven’t suggested that she was speaking on their behalf. But speaking on their behest, in the politicized context of the climate wars, is in the real world, a form of “advocacy.” Hey, I like advocacy. I think that the freedom and the right to be an advocate is important – and that freedom and right lead, in the long run, to more good for more people. I just think that if someone is going to be an advocate, they shouldn’t criticize others for the mere act of advocacy. That sort of contradiction, IMO, mitigates against the potential benefits of advocacy – because it eats at the very roots of our rights and freedoms to be advocates.

      Do you think scientists who speak for, and indeed, against the BDS campaign are acting on behalf of ‘ideologues’ ?

      I’m not feeling how this question is relevant. I don’t think that anyone speaking out on issues is (at least necessarily) acting on “behalf” of ideologues. Whether they are speaking at the behest of ideologues is determined by the context. Of course, voicing an opinion is not necessarily speaking on “behalf” of ideologues. If someone is invited to speak, specifically because what they have to say furthers an ideological agenda, then they are, obviously, speaking at the behest of ideologues.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Israel’s scientists are on-board with consensus climate-change science.

      And so are Muslim scientists.

      Thank you for drawing Climate Etc attention to the cross-culture acceptance of climate-change science, DocMartyn!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • I was very careful in my framing. It was you who accused Judith of testifying on behalf of ‘Republicans ideologues’; although I doubt you would be as upset if President Lincoln a ‘Republicans ideologue’ had asked scientists of his day to testify that the genetic inferiority of blacks was bunk.
      I just wish to know how you define an ‘ideologue’; that way we could get some understanding as to why you always seem both pissed and confused.

    • Doc -

      It was you who accused Judith of testifying on behalf of ‘Republicans ideologues’;

      Geebus. Read what I wrote again. You are demonstrably wrong, yet you persist in a mischaracterization of what I said even after being corrected?

    • Bob Ludwick

      @ Joshua

      “Personally, I have no problem with scientists affiliating themselves with advocacy organizations.”

      As long as they are advocating the ‘proper’ policies.

      Could you please supply a short list of Climate Scientists that you consider to be highly qualified, unbiased, and who are not drawing their paycheck from the government, either directly–government employee or indirectly–working for an organization that receives most or all of its funding from government?

    • As long as they are advocating the ‘proper’ policies.

      It’s really quite interesting how so many “skeptics” fall into precisely the same fallacious arguments. Your characterization, like those that have come before you, is in error. Read what I wrote again.

      Geebus.

    • ” Joshua | March 5, 2014 at 7:52 pm | Reply

      Judith -

      I try to stay away from organizations with political perspectives on global warming.

      Which explains why you testified at the behest of Republicans ideologues in Congress?”

      The you state the next day:-

      Joshua | March 6, 2014 at 1:10 pm |

      Doc -

      It was you who accused Judith of testifying on behalf of ‘Republicans ideologues’;

      Geebus. Read what I wrote again. You are demonstrably wrong, yet you persist in a mischaracterization of what I said even after being corrected?”

      You need a shrink or neurologist if you forget that you stated :-
      “Which explains why you testified at the behest of Republicans ideologues in Congress?” at 7:52 pm on March 5, 2014 and then deny you words at 1:10 pm on March 6, 2014.

    • Doc -

      Let’s try this again, shall we?

      Behest.
      Behalf.
      Behest.
      Behalf.

      Can you see the difference? The words have different meanings. I assume that Judith was testifying on her own behalf, at the behest of the Republican ideologues in Congress.

      Is this really so difficult?

      My god, man. On the basis of your repeated (and corrected) error, you insult me?

      You boyz crack me up.

    • BTW, Doc -

      I’ll remind you that accountability is a good thing, and personal responsibility is something that conservatives often say they hold as an important value.

    • Behest is not unambiguous; it means ‘come at ones bidding’
      For most people language is a method of communication, not a means to insinuate pleasantness, with plausible deniability.

    • Doc -

      Behest is not unambiguous; it means ‘come at ones bidding’

      So much for accountability, eh? What a shock!

      You make a mistake, repeatedly, even though your error was pointed out to you.

      Based on your error, you insult.

      And then you duck accountability.

      Just about as lame as it gets, Doc.

    • David Springer

      A 3000 word handbag fight over the meanings of behest and behalf.

      Sometimes I regret having invented the internet.

  63. Does anyone else find it odd that David Appell has posted 50 times on an article he hasn’t read, written by “fake scientists”?

    It makes one think he’s either being paid to derail the discussion, or is an incurable attention whore.

    • He doesn’t want to be outdone by One Card Josh. haha

      Andrew

    • Jim Cripwell

      Terry, you write “Does anyone else find it odd that David Appell has posted 50 times on an article he hasn’t read, written by “fake scientists”?”

      Not only do I not think it is odd; it is exactly what I would expect at this time. The warmists are getting desperate. The good ship CAGW is sinking, and those who have nailed their colors to the mast are faced with a huge dilemma. Do they admit that the have been completely wrong for all these years, or do they do everything they can to stop the searchlight of science from shining on the truth?

      David Appell is merely trying to save his skin for a few more months or years.

    • Got that wrong. Appel is a freelance science journalist who points out interesting findings and the unfortunate mistakes of amateurs such as Lewis.

      So you really can’t complain about Appel since Lewis has his own huckleberry in Crok.

    • He also likes to stalk you if you disagree with him. He has been known to do it to other bloggers.

  64. Antonio (AKA "Un físico")

    As I set in my “Refuting … “:
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
    any logical deduction of the value of climate sensitivity due to CO2 doubling ends up in tuning, that is, ECS [1.5 - 4.5]K is a fictitious value.
    Lewis & Crok analysis: “we suggest that the new observationally-based ‘likely’ range could be 1.25–3.0◦C,with a best estimate of 1.75◦C” (p.13/72), again makes the same huge mistake as the IPCC. That 1.75 K, p.33/72, is only “a simple average of the different observationally-based estimates in Table 2″, then you go to T.2 and you get that ECS value come from “empirical studies that incorporate observationally-based aerosol forcing estimates, from models and from the IPCC reports”. So again, ECS are invented values validated by models who use those invented values and IPCC labels all this as: “empirical” or “observational evidences”.
    Well Lewis, with this (your) report my respect for your work has decreased another step. Lewis: JC has my email, if you want to discuss this issue of ECS with me, please stay in touch. We can not allow to keep going this science fiction stupidity for much longer!!.

    • Ah, but it helps segregate the garbage on one side of the line. A dirty job, but someone has to do it.
      ==============

  65. David has succeeded in making the comments section of this blog irrelevant. That was his intention. As he states that Master Resource is a whore to big oil, he is a whore to CAGW and all the money he gets for his “research” and consulting with Governments around the world about how totally evil they are for producing CO2. David is a miserable human being. His only motivation is self aggrandizing and petting his cat. Judith, it would serve you well to moderate him out.

    • Thead ruined by rotten apples. Appell started out challanging the authors credentials rather that addressing the substance. I ask you where is his peer reviewed papers? You are probably mistaken with regards to his receiving research funding. He doesn’t do any research. As far as I can tell having failed to make a career in science he is now calling himself a freelance writer. That usually means unemployed loser. He gets his kicks making derogatory comments on blogs that haven’t kicked him off yet. I like that Dr Curry has patience and allows dissent. I would much rather see a discussion of the substance than the hijacking of the thread by a crank but you can’t have everything.

  66. Michael Larkin

    “Those who don’t digest history are destined to pass gas.”

    That’s exceptionally good, Kim. Is it your own or are you quoting someone? I only ask because if it *is* someone else’s saying, I’d like to know who and check them out (I couldn’t find it using Google). If it’s entirely your own, kudos! :-)

    • Well, thanks. I don’t remember very well, but I think I made it up yesterday after watching the Classical Gas guitar funshow at the end of Richard Hernandez’s recent thread. That said, everything I write seems stolen from somewhere.
      ==========

    • Michael Larkin

      Well, Kim, I’ve never heard it before but I know I will never forget it. Reminds me of the first time I heard Paul McCartney’s song, “Yesterday”. I thought I’d heard it before: it was so obvious, somehow. McCartney himself has said that when the song came to him, he felt he must have heard it before somewhere, and yet, he can’t have: no one contested his authorship, unlike that of George Harrison for “My Sweet Lord”. I’m going to keep my eye on it: see if it becomes popular.

  67. If this hiatus continues I fear our children may never know sunshine!

  68. David Appell:

    You said:David Appell (@davidappell) | March 5, 2014 at 10:33 pm |

    “Rob: The Master Resource people are whores of the fossil fuel industry. (Yes, that certainly includes you.) Are there no legitimate papers you can cite?”
    ——————–
    Wow! I did not expect that! Ad hominem on steroids. You just destroyed your credibility with me and a lot of others. You are clearly at wit’s end with a failing worldview of climate/energy alarmism.

    First, Robert Mendelsohn has so many peer reviewed books and articles in the top journals that you need to look for yourself. He is a chair professor at Yale University, for gosh sakes…. But maybe he is part of the fossil-fuel-funded conspiracy….!

    Second, as far as I go. I was the #1 opponent of Enron’s climate alarmism & renewable-energy cronyism. Please visit http://www.politicalcapitalism.org to read all of the memos in this regard: http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/enron/

    I would let your emotions cool –stuff like the above puts you in the Joe Romm fringe. Not good for an ‘amateur’ trying to use the argument from authority to be an authority.

  69. Pingback: Notes on the reax to Lewis and Crok, along with another paper looking at climate model output versus data | Watts Up With That?

  70. To WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | March 6, 2014 at 12:20 am |

    You wrote: (@WHUT) | March 6, 2014 at 12:20 am |

    “Incorrect, the MasterResource people are actually better classified as the pimps of the fossil fuel industry — since they are lead by a former executive of Enron. They know how to get their underlings and followers to do the dirty work.”

    I was director of public policy analysis at Enron, and I fought so hard against the company’s naked cronyism (Enron has seven profit centers tied to priced CO2) that the alarmists/rent-seekers wanted to get me fired.

    All of the memos are here, my friend: http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/enron/.

    I might add that my views were not popular within Enron and it cost me hard cash come bonus time (I have my performance review if you want to see that…).

    Sorry, but some of us are intellectuals and honest and reject climate alarmism/forced energy alarmism as the ‘Enronization’ of science. See this post for more on this theme: http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/24/rob-bradley-climategate-from-an-enron-perspective/

  71. Question for Nic Lewis, or anyone else: Using Lewis’ methods of Bayesian inference, what is the rate of change of TCR and ECS for one month of flat temperatures?

    • I want to reframe my question. Use _your own_ methods of Bayesian inference; what is the rate of change of TCR and ECS? How much do they go down every month that the Pause continues?
      Can I assume that we all agree that the answer must be a non-zero negative number? How much good news are we getting every month?

    • ceresco kid

      I asked that of Web a few weeks ago and never got a satisfactory answer. It still warrants an answer.

    • miker613

      Let’s walk through an exercise of logic here.

      The current trend of slight cooling is around -0.03C to -0.04C per decade.

      It has been going on at that rate for 1.3 decades.

      “Convention” has it that 3 decades of weather = “climate”.

      So the current trend of slight cooling would need to continue for another 1.7 decades to be statistically significant as a “climate trend”.

      Atmospheric CO2 was measured at 369 ppmv at the end of 2000, when the current cooling trend started.

      It was around 395 ppmv at the end of 2013.

      Based on ice core measurements, it is estimated to have been 280 ppmv at the start of the Industrial Revolution (and significant human CO2 emissions)

      If we ASS-U-ME that atmospheric CO2 will increase at an average of 2.5 ppmv per year over the next 17 years (to 2030), it will be at 438 ppmv by then.

      And if we ASS-U-ME that the current cooling trend will continue, it will have cooled by -0.09 to -0.12C over the entire 30-year period.

      A 30-year period, over which CO2 increased from 369 to 438 ppmv (by 69 ppmv), or 44% of all the CO2 increase caused by human CO2 emissions.

      So if the current slight cooling trend continues for 17 more years at the same time that human CO2 emissions continue unabated, with atmospheric CO2 reaching somewhere around 438 ppmv, the CAGW premise of IPCC will have been completely falsified.

      But we have to wait.

      Be patient. (Each month gets us one 170th closer.)

      Max

    • miker613

      Each month gets us one 170th 204th closer.
      (12 months in a year)

    • Manacker, you answered the wrong question. I did not ask, How long till AGW is completely falsified?

  72. A few days ago David Appell was pushing Tamino’s version of Cowton and Way’s data that said that the warming rate will be 1.7 C/century or 1.3-1.4 C over the next 70 years.

    Now he is trashing Nic Lewis’ work that says that the warming rate is closer to 1.7 C/century or 1.3-1.4 C in next 70 years.

    Hope none of the actual skeptics here have not fallen into that trap too.

    • If Lewis is saying that the warming is 1.3-1.4C in the next 70 years then his TCR has to be close to 2C.

      Given that CO2 will continue to increase at about 2.5 PPM/year that is how we will get to an additional 1.3 C.
      Do the math.

    • Webby

      Your arithmetic is not bad.

      But the good news is that warming of 1.3 to 1.4C above today is still well within the range of net beneficial warming for humanity, according to the Richard Tol study.

      As is 1.7C warming over the next 100 years.

      Max

    • “…still well within the range of net beneficial warming for humanity, according to the Richard Tol study.
      As is 1.7C warming over the next 100 years.” – Max

      Ah, smell the certainty!

  73. ordvic | March 6, 2014 at 11:14 am |

    I know about David from his other musings on other blogs. He has made comments that he consults with Governments and uses his “research” in that activity. His objective is to redirect and giggle with glee that he has succeeded in making the conversation irrelevant to the post at hand. He has stated he believes paying an extra $2.02 to his power provider a month makes him either carbon neutral or Green. He is a miserable human being and whore to CAGW in all it’s meaningless manifestations. His comments are not true dissent, it’s intentional meaningless drivel. That’s his objective.

    • catweazle666

      Poor Apple.

      It must be very distressing to realise that the misconception upon which you have based your whole reality is falling down about your ears like a house of cards.

    • You shouldn’t use that term; the working ladies work very hard for their money.

  74. Wow, I just finished reading this thread (a load of crap with a few good comments) and the next one (very insightful answers to something that I have wondered about). I hope the moderation of the other thread continues at the current pace.

    • ATAndB

      Agree with you that some comments here have been “a load of crap”, but the lead article was very good.

      Thanks to our hostess for posting it.

      Max

    • Actually I have not yet read the lead article. So I was not referring to it. I guess I will do that now : )

  75. Steven Mosher

    “”I am a geek,” he says simply. “I don’t care if the idea came from a good person or an evil person. Ideas stand on their own.”

  76. Warmistas can feign discomfort or even outrage that Lewis & Crok is “not even in a peer reviewed journal (blah-blah)”, BUT:

    The good news is that the conclusions reached by Lewis & Crok that 2xCO2 ECS is more likely to be around 1.8C (rather than 3C) are confirmed by several recent independent observation-based studies that WERE published in peer reviewed journals, which also concluded on average that the 2xCO2 ECS is around 1.8C, rather than 3C as previously predicted by the models cited by IPCC.

    So there is peer reviewed literature out there, which comes to the same conclusions as Lewis & Crok.

    Max

  77. Rob Bradley

    WebHubTelescope (@whut) | March 6, 2014 at 12:06 pm | wrote:

    “Rob Bradley finally admits that he was a major cog in that awful company known as Enron. Can’t walk that one back.”

    What? I have posted dozens on posts on my experiences at Enron fighting for climate/energy realism and how, generally, the ‘worst get on top’ with political companies. See here for an example: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2012/Bradleyenron.html

    Fact is: Enron should make you think again about business profits and climatism. “The worse get on top’ under rent-seeking.

    • Rob Bradley – “The worse get on top”

      Or a Nobel Prize if your name is Krugman and you have absolutely no clue about your stated profession.

  78. So far there has been a lot of arm waving, a few ad homs, several side tracks, a couple of arguments from authority (complaints that the Lewis & Crok paper was not peer reviewed or published in a “consensus” journal, etc.) BUT:

    NO attempted refuting of the logic, method and conclusions reached by L&C.

    C’mon, warmistas – you can do better than that!

    (Or can you?)

    Max

  79. This thread should be renamed:

    APPELLATIONS XXXIVX (or whatever number he’s up to)

  80. Wow, this thread is a template for trolling as done by this Apple guy. I thought the Lewis and Crok paper was fine; the chimera that it wasn’t peer reviewed is typical alarmist hysteria. It was a review of the literature and if anyone can look at their Figure 1 from AR4, Figure 9.2 and not think the divergence in results doesn’t indicate something wrong in the AGW science they should give up on science and take up trolling which is what has obviously happened to Mr Apple.

    • The collective yearning for a powerful el nino on the part of the alarmists is hysterical. D.M. has it right. The pause is wrecking the cause.

      Many of you would rather burn up the planet than simply admit you might have made a mistake. I don’t think narcissism is a big enough word to cover it..

  81. “A sensitive matter: How the IPCC buried evidence showing good news about global warming” – Lewis et al.

    Seems to be a feature of the ‘skeptics’ – the immediate assumption of bad faith, where they may be other plausible explanations.

    Maybe the idea is to get people off-side straigthaway and use terse responses to such accusations as an opportunity to play the victim-card.

    Claiming victimhood seems to be important in the Climate Ward.

    • Seems to be a feature of the ‘skeptics’ – the immediate assumption of bad faith, where they may be other plausible explanations.

      Two words: Persecution complex.

    • Steven Mosher

      when playing with liberals using the victim card is called taking a play out of their book. Its not always effective but turnabouts are always fair play

    • Victims as deniers, Now where have I heard that before? Deniers as victims. Now where have I heard that before?
      ===================================

    • Yes, Michael, that is why Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn. Because he feels a ‘victim’ of Steyn’s harsh language. He is oblivious to the nature and effects of his own language.

  82. Pew study released today.
    It seems Millennials, the age group that has spent pretty much their entire life bombarded by the CAGW message, are least likely of any age cohort to say “environmentalist” describes them. Less than a third of millennials compared to 42 percent of boomers and gen X.
    Note to Max_OK: senior citizens are more likely to identify as environmentalists than millennials are.
    the study: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/

    • Amazing, isn’t it, since nonetheless, environmentalists overpower corporate interests and conservatives (not to mention, all the non-lunatic people) to control our energy policy?

    • not sure what you’re trying to say. Here is how the left-of-center The Atlantic summed up that portion of the study:

      “I don’t know where the idea that Millennials care about the environment came from—maybe it’s that they grew up at a time that the entire country started talking more about hybrid cars and climate-change superstorms?—but it’s a myth. Millennials don’t give a hoot about the environment.”

      http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/study-millennials-deeply-confused-about-their-politics-finances-and-culture/284277/

    • I’m ridiculing the oft’ heard argument (from “skeptics”) that a small fraction of the country control our energy policy (most often made w/r/t nuclear energy).

    • “I’m ridiculing the oft’ heard argument (from “skeptics”) that a small fraction of the country control our energy policy (most often made w/r/t nuclear energy).”

      JOshua, If you have to explain it, I guess it wasn’t such a great idea.

    • Yes never let a chance to ridicule the enemy pass – no mater how far fetched.

      I see no enemies here. Just a few folks that make some laughable arguments. And I don’t ridicule them, I ridicule their arguments. I don’t know them, so have no basis on which to judge them personally. I assume they are very nice people, with admirable values and goals, that are making laughable arguments.

    • “And I don’t ridicule them, I ridicule their arguments.”

      Joshua, with all respect because I don’t believe you’re as crummy a person as you often pretend to be on the Internet, you habitually treat our estimable host, an accomplished, courageous woman, with let’s say, a profound lack of courtesy. If you don’t exactly attempt to ridicule her, you come awfully close with your sneering, jeering tone. I just don’t see why you think that’s necessary.

      Moreover (one of my favorite words) you really can’t ridicule someone’s arguments without ridiculing the person from whence they came. Or if you can, it’s a delicate matter calling for much skill and finesse.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      The strategy is standard fare from the Allinsky school of the radical, lunatic fringe.

      ‘“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

      I will leave it to Joshua to decide which term applies to him.

      • David Springer

        re; Allinsky school, ridicule, etc.

        Would calling your enemies “space kadets” fall into that category? :-)

  83. “Amazing, isn’t it, since nonetheless, environmentalists overpower corporate interests and conservatives (not to mention, all the non-lunatic people) to control our energy policy?”

    Holy God. How juvenile. My 13 year old grandson has a better understanding of the world than you do, Joshua. Not to mention a better command of the English language.

    By the way, I certainly consider myself an environmentalist despite my “denialist” tendencies.

    • Now now, pokerguy, Joshua has a point. How could anyone expect Greenpeace, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Federation, Hollywood, the news media and the music industry to win the attention the young when they are up against Watts Up With That?
      And don’t get me started about McIntyre, have you seen how the kids flock to him? how could Leonardo DiCaprio or George Clooney compete? It’s that corporate financed, jet-set, money no object lifestyle I tell you. We should ban these globe-trotting heart-throb shills like asbestos.

  84. D o u g    C o t t o n   

    It is of course your prerogative whether or not you choose to believe me and learn from my published paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” and my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” that is based on my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” now withdrawn from PSI because of my disagreement with the radiative “physics” of Postma and Latour.
    To my knowledge, only one other author has put forward the same valid explanation of planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures, although I have extended it to explaining all crust, mantle and core temperatures of planets and satellite moons such as our own. My hypothesis is supported by all known observed and estimated planetary temperature data. It explains, for example, exactly how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus in order to actually slowly raise its temperature by five degrees over the course of its 4-month-long day. I have explained why the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere is hotter than Earth’s surface, even though there is no significant energy input from internal generation or direct solar radiation.

    My interest in physics dates back to when I was awarded a scholarship in physics by Prof Harry Messel and his team at Sydney University, under whom I studied for my first degree with a major in physics. I subsequently turned to more lucrative business ventures, operating an academic tuition service (where I personally helped tertiary physics students) and writing medical, dental and mathematics software from which I have earned several million.

    In the last four years (in semi-retirement) I have turned my attention to comprehensive study of the very latest concepts in physics pertaining to thermodynamics (especially the Second Law) and radiative heat transfer. No one has successfully rebutted what I have written in numerous comments and the above papers. But unless people are willing to learn from me, I will not waste my time.

    Very, very briefly, I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the gravito-thermal effect is a reality, and I have debunked all known papers and articles that attempted to prove isothermal conditions would prevail in any troposphere, even one without so-called greenhouse gases. Because of this autonomous thermal gradient (which is a direct corollary of the Second Law) I have explained what happens in all planetary tropospheres and just exactly why atmospheric and surface temperatures are what is observed, and how the energy gets there primarily by non-radiative processes, just as it gets to that thin layer of the ocean surface. It is only molecules from the very top of that thin surface layer of oceans (and solid crust) which affect the temperatures we measure for climate records. It is not radiation which is the primary determinant of such temperatures, but non radiative processes transferring energy that has been absorbed elsewhere, both from above and below. And perhaps the most remarkable deduction that I have made is that even subsurface temperatures are governed by the gravito-thermal effect, and solar energy can “creep” up the thermal profile above and below planetary surfaces as it restores thermodynamic equilibrium in accord with the Second Law. This is a whole new paradigm.

    • D o u g C o t t o n writes: “Very, very briefly, I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the gravito-thermal effect is a reality, and I have debunked all known papers and articles that attempted to prove isothermal conditions would prevail in any troposphere, even one without so-called greenhouse gases.”

      I tried searching for some scientific papers you’ve published, can’t find any. I did find your video “A 21st Century New Paradigm for Climate Change” but, it didn’t clarify much. Have you presented your “beyond reasonable doubt” effect to actual experts in the field? { And NO “PSI” can’t be considered a serious outlet by any means, it actually a red flag – how about some actual experts in the field? }

      Oh and what’s ‘lucia’ all upset about ?

    • D o u g   C o t t o n   

      Try reading my peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” (March 2012) and you may find archives of my papers “Planetary Surface Temperatures” (November 2012) and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” (March 2013.) In April this year Amazon and Barnes & Noble will have my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all.”

      At the moment there are very few other physicists who are up with what I have been studying and explaining, but in due course the last paper will be reviewed and published, or something similar to the content of my book which will be widely publicised.

    • D o u g   C o t t o n   

      And yes, I agree to some extent with your comments about PSI and am no longer a member. The March 2012 paper appeared on several other websites.

      What proof do you have based on valid physics that you think proves me wrong? Any paper about thermodynamics or radiative heat transfer which has been reviewed by climatologists without real expertise or knowledge of 21st century breakthroughs in these fields doesn’t count.

      What I write is merely deduced from such well reviewed physics. What qualifications have you personally achieved in physics, and what areas of physics do you specialise in?

  85. Pingback: Ma che clima insensibile! | Climatemonitor

  86. William McClenney

    “The possibility consequently exists that at perhaps precisely the right moment near the end-Holocene, the latest iteration of the genus Homo unwittingly stumbled on the correct atmospheric GHG recipe to perhaps ease or delay the transition into the next glacial. Under the antithesis “Skeptics” and “Warmists” thus find themselves on the mutual, chaotic climate ground where the efficacy of CO2 as a GHG had better be right. ”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/

  87. It appears that Piers Forster, one of the authors of a paper relied upon by Lewis and Crok in their claim that climate sensitivity was overestimated, disputes what they claim:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/mar/06/lord-lawson-climate-sceptic-thinktank

    “I asked Professor Forster for his views on the GWPF paper. Perhaps Lewis and Crok should have done the same? A baldly honest Professor Forster told me:

    “Lewis and Crok use methods developed by Jonathan Gregory and myself to infer a lower climate sensitivity than that quoted in IPCC AR5. Whilst our techniques are powerful they have uncertainties and do not necessarily produce more robust estimates of climate sensitivity than other methods, as they make crude assumptions and suffer from data quality issues. Climate sensitivity remains an uncertain quantity. Nevertheless, even employing the lowest estimates suggested by Lewis and Crok, we expect continued and significant warming out to 2100 of around 3C above preindustrial if we continue to emit CO2 at current levels.”…”

  88. Very interesting and good news for everyone interested in a more positive outlook for our human future. We’ll have to see though if anything really changes. As I was just commenting over at TallBloke’s:

    “This is one of the most interesting points about CAGW theory, environmentalism, and many other ‘isms’, certain types of people actually seem to LIKE to be panicked and they continue to cling to the original level of panic even when new evidence suggests that panic may not be necessary at all.”

    W^3

  89. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

  90. Pingback: Desparate Climate Alarmism Mouth Pieces Resort To Ad Hominem Attacks | Power To The People

  91. Pingback: More Studies Find Lower Climate Sensitivity

  92. The funny thing is Judith that Lewis’ estimate of 1.75 degrees is very close to Arrhenius’s estimate of 1.6 °C published 100 years ago. Respect to Arrhenius!

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