Open thread

Posted on February 12, 2015 by | 709 Comments

by Judith Curry

It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion

Please keep the comments on the recent technical threads relevant, I will continue to moderate those threads heavily.

I am busy at the moment preparing for a debate next week at the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).  [link].  Their Draft Resolutions is interesting reading.  The agenda for the meeting is here [link].

The debate:

10:30 AM You’re Still Not Sure Global Warming is Real?
Many news reports state that nearly 97% of climate scientists agree that manmade greenhouse gases are changing the world’s climate. Despite this, it isn’t difficult to find stakeholder organizations providing seemingly contradictory information about climate change and whether it is happening at all. Although NARUC members are economic regulators, recent federal initiatives to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants are placing this issue on our desks. With these rulemakings bringing new kinds of influence into State utility decision making, this seems like a good time to hear from the experts. We’ve invited two scientists to explain the latest scientific thinking about climate change and to answer the hardest questions we could put to them.

Moderator Dr. Rajnish Barua – Executive Director, NRRI
Panelists Dr. Joe Casola – Staff Scientist and Program Dir. Sciences &Impacts, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Dr. Judith Curry – Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, GIT, and President, Climate Forecast Appl. Networks

Just prior to the debate:

The General Session will feature:

Secretary of Energy, The Hon. Ernest Moniz
FCC Chairman, The Hon. Tom Wheeler
EPA Administrator, The Hon. Gina McCarthy

I’m not sure how much of the proceedings will be available online, but apparently the ppt for the debate will be online.  I will do a post on this next week.

This entry was posted in Open thread. Bookmark the permalink.

709 responses to “Open thread”

  1. AK | February 12, 2015 at 10:52 am |

    Why is climate tied so closely to CO2? When:

    •     Many other things influence climate;

    •     There are other risks from CO2;

    •     The real question is how much impact is appropriate to current technological development given the risks and potentials for technological improvements to deal with the problem without serious economic impact?

    • Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 11:11 am |

      There are other risks from CO2
      And other benefits from CO2.

    • Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 11:17 am |

      technological improvements to deal with the problem without serious economic impact?

      Ignoring for the moment whether there actually is a problem,

      most of developed world (soon to include China) has decreasing emissions:
      http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/afbeeldingen/001g_muc13-en.png

      would it not make sense to simply allow this trend to continue?

      • AK | February 12, 2015 at 11:34 am |

        would it not make sense to simply allow this trend to continue?

        Well, the trend took place under circumstances of strong incentives for reduced emissions. Most of those incentives didn’t have much economic impact (short-term) although California and parts of Europe might be called exceptions.

        Subsidies for R&D, combined with perhaps some nurturing of very immature technologies, ought (IMO) to work together with exponential growth rates to foster the replacement of fossil fuels with fossil-neutral alternatives within much the same time-frame as even the most drastic punitive price-raises are expected to.

        So, given similar time-frames, why is the discussion about climate rather than technology?

      • Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 11:50 am |

        This is for all developed nations, not just US.

        Decreased economic activity from aging population and falling birth rates is a lot of it – that’s a global trend.

        Increased efficiency, ( from cell phones to cars ) is a lot.

        Decreased cost of natural gas is a lot.

        China is also a tell, though the real estate bubble bursting there has a lot to do with it and India may be increasing CO2 as China decreases.

      • Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 11:52 am |

        So, given similar time-frames, why is the discussion about climate rather than technology?

        Climate change is what’s being exaggerated to restrict economic activity.

      • ordvic | February 12, 2015 at 12:46 pm |

        It looks to me like the overall trend is still up; not that I care that much … just saying.

      • Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 1:01 pm |

        It looks to me like the overall trend is still up; not that I care that much … just saying.

        Yep – through 2012.

        But there’s evidence ( Greenpeace and Exxon seem to agree )
        that China is peaking (Peking?) now:
        http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2014/10/22/chinas-coal-use-actually-falling-now-first-time-century/

        And CO2 emissions are close to peaking globally:
        http://image.slidesharecdn.com/exxonmobil2012energyoutlookdcfr-120523113128-phpapp02/95/exxon-mobil-2012-energy-outlook-19-728.jpg

      • ordvic | February 12, 2015 at 1:04 pm |

        Peking … good one ;-)

      • Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 1:09 pm |

        BTW, check the date.
        China didn’t slowdown because the singed an agreement.
        The signed an agreement because they knew they were already slowing down.
        Given the Chinese nat gas deals with Russia, China CO2 emissions will join the rest of the developed world in declining.
        That’s emissions, of course, not accumulations.
        But it makes the ‘worse than expected’ scenarios all the more laughable.

      • AK | February 12, 2015 at 1:19 pm |

        Decreased cost of natural gas is a lot.

        Production capacity is much cheaper. And as solar, and solar storage, rolls out, that capacity can switch to a backup function. Which means less overall emissions, and less impact from future (>5-10 years) rises in gas prices.

      • Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 1:26 pm |

        And as solar, and solar storage, rolls out, that capacity can switch to a backup function. Which means less overall emissions, and less impact from future (>5-10 years) rises in gas prices.

        Ya – seems like it’s happening.
        I read about the Israeli thermal-solar-stoarge plant that went 20 hours per day.
        And Apple’s decision.

        Even more reason gov doesn’t need to meddle, and people can stop panicking.

      • AK | February 12, 2015 at 2:04 pm |

        Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants

        Startup EnerVault will unveil tomorrow what it says is the largest iron-chromium flow battery ever made. Installed in Turlock, Calif., the four-hour, 250-kilowatt battery will be charged by a solar array and power an irrigation system. The project was funded by about US $5 million from Department of Energy through the stimulus program and the California Energy Commission.

        One of the advantages of a flow battery is that the energy capacity can be expanded by installing larger tanks of the active material. Also, flow batteries are relatively inexpensive per kilowatt-hour compared to lithium-ion batteries and can provide power for multiple hours. There are already several commercial-scale vanadium or zinc-bromine flow batteries operating around the world.

        EnerVault chose to pursue an iron-chromium chemistry because both materials are abundant and low-cost, says CEO Jim Pape. The company projects it can deliver energy for utilities and other users at a cost of less than $250 per kilowatt hour. At that price, energy storage becomes competitive with natural gas plants that provide power at peak hours, he says.

        Time to Swap Power Plants for Giant Batteries? Almost

        High costs have limited the use batteries in the electricity grid, but emerging technologies will make batteries a more compelling way to supply power during hours of peak demand. And they’ll do it soon, say battery firm executives.

        “You’re seeing the price points going down and the capability to monetize the benefits of storage going up,” said Steve Hellmann, president of Eos Energy Storage, which makes a zinc-air battery. “Once those two lines cross, there’s no turning back.” Hellman predicted that within five years there will be no need to build new peaker plants that operate during times of maximum demand, such as very hot days in the summer when the air-conditioning load is very high.

        Although vital to keeping power service reliable, these generators deliver the most expensive power and tend to run inefficiently. In New York City, for instance, several gigawatts worth of power generation were used only 29 hours last year, said William Acker, executive director of NY-BEST, a New York state-backed battery research consortium.

        So build out lots of gas peakers now, convert to CCGT as batteries become cheap enough, and they can be backup for solar seasonal low spots. While batteries provide daily backup for solar.

      • AK | February 12, 2015 at 3:16 pm |

        GE’s Distributed Power Station Delivery Goes From Months to Weeks

        When utilities needed new sources of power in the past, they planned for large, capital-intensive centralized generation that could take years to build and decades to pay off.

        Big power plants are still being built, but many utilities are increasingly looking for smaller, more flexible solutions. In Libya, the General Electricity Company of Libya (GECOL), recently installed mobile backup power plants from General Electric (GE) in a matter of weeks, instead of the six-to-nine months usually required.

        “Distributed power technologies are more widely available, smaller, more efficient and less costly today than they were just a decade ago.,” Brandon Owens, strategy and analytics leader at GE, wrote in a white paper [PDF] earlier this year. “But the rise of distributed power is also being driven by the ability of distributed power systems to overcome the constraints that typically inhibit the development of large capital projects and transmission and distribution lines.”

        Can Microgrids Electrify One Billion People?

        Microgrids are often discussed in the U.S. and Europe, but outside of defense departments and a few universities, true microgrids are cost-prohibitive in countries where affordable, reliable electricity is readily available.

        In Sub-Saharan Africa, many parts of Asia and some areas of Latin America, the outlook is quite different. Microgrids can provide basic electricity services where none were available before.

        “Here, it’s efficiency and conservation, and there, it’s growth and expansion,” said Rajesh Menon, a software engineer working on SharedSolar. He noted that the cost of kerosene, the most common fuel source in African villages that do not have electricity, can be far more expensive than what nearby towns pay for electricity. The difference can be as high as a factor of 10.

        The team developed a fully contained, scalable microgrid that includes solar PV, batteries and meters. The electricity is delivered to homes and businesses in the community via underground wires. The system is operated by software developed at the Earth Institute that includes a gateway for remote management of the sites and a local intelligence layer.

        There is not a fixed cost to the microgrids, because they are built to be modular to meet the individual needs of each community. More solar panels and batteries can be added as electricity use increases. The project organizers at the Earth Institute are installing them as fast as they can to keep up with demand. In Uganda, there’s enough sunshine even during the rainy season to provide for the electricity needs.

      • Pete Bonk | February 12, 2015 at 6:29 pm |

        One also has to consider energy efficiency and the slow economic recovery from 2008. If the true measures of employment in the USA are a meaningful measure (and I believe it is), then the recovery from the crash of 2008 has been weak overall. As with everything else, local exceptions (ND, TX, etc.) will occur.

      • aaron | February 13, 2015 at 9:27 am |

        My favorite economic measure is Vehicle Miles Traveled.

        That’s the real, real economy.

    • Joseph | February 12, 2015 at 1:30 pm |

      Lucifier, and this has nothing to do with it:

      http://berc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-cap1.jpg

      http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/china-pv-forecast.jpg

      http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Can-Chinas-Domestic-Demand-Dominate-the-Solar-Market

      China has long surpassed the United States in funding for green technology and is discussing a “campaign to limit the absolute amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted by certain industries in certain regions,” according to a senior climate official, as reported in the China Daily. China’s government has plans to expand its installed capacity to 20 gigawatts by 2020 — a feat that will be enabled by a recently instituted solar feed-in tariff.

  2. Brandon Shollenberger | February 12, 2015 at 10:53 am |

    Is there a formal topic or resolution for the debate?

  3. kim | February 12, 2015 at 10:58 am |

    It don’t mean a thang if it ain’t got that Ninety-Nine and Forty-four One Hundredth’s Per Cent Pure Schwang.
    ===================

    • kim | February 12, 2015 at 11:00 am |

      The day a bar of modeled soap sank.
      ====================

      • RiHo08 | February 12, 2015 at 9:47 pm |

        KIM

        Ivory Snow always floated for me along with my rubber ducky.

        I did have a model boat once, but when I put it into my bath water, first the paint came off coloring the water and showing the underlying barren wood. Then the glue came undone, and the boat started to leak and sink. Taking it out, drying it out, re-gluing, painting, and even re-rigging the sails, well, it seems that something had taken the wind out of the sails. The boat became water-logged, and then just sat there until it disappeared beneath the surface. Rescued again, the boat did moved around the bath-tub for a couple of more drubbings, and then I just had to put up on the shelf to glance at and pine “what might have been”.

      • kim | February 13, 2015 at 12:42 pm |

        Nice one, RiHo08; years ago I said the climate modelers were trying to keep their toys on circular tracks on the ceiling, but I like the fragility of your boat better. It’s not just physics, it’s complexity!
        =================

  4. Bad Andrew | February 12, 2015 at 11:01 am |

    “nearly 97%”

    If it’s not quite 97%, then give us the actual number. 96%? 95%? 90%? Why the weasel?

    Andrew

  5. mwgrant | February 12, 2015 at 11:09 am |

    <Slowly evaporating particles refute assumption used in air quality and climate models
    Wilson et al.

    Together, our studies of evaporation rates and viscosity provide incontrovertible experimental data that the assumptions invoked to model SOA formation and evolution are fundamentally flawed,” said Dr. Alla Zelenyuk, the PNNL chemist who led the study.

    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-slowly-evaporating-particles-refute-assumption.html#jCp
    http://www.pnnl.gov/science/highlights/highlight.asp?id=3898

    fArticle behind paywall at EST

  6. nickels | February 12, 2015 at 11:28 am |

    Appreciations for fighting the good fight (at least how I see it). The EPA is off its rocker.

    • nickels | February 12, 2015 at 3:22 pm |

      Wow, I just reviewed the entire list of EPA appointees. Not a single scientist among the lot. That bothers me, especially considering how PhD’s in science a basically a dime a dozen (self included).
      So I guess I have to give our current administrator a break, she comes from a long line of chiefs who don’t know anything about science….

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

      • nickels | February 12, 2015 at 3:28 pm |

        (Not that one has to have a PhD to know about science, but we either choose to value science education as a society or not…. seems like anyone serious about science would knock one out…)

      • nickels | February 12, 2015 at 4:10 pm |

        Guess I’m doing my own little EPA thread here. Noticed no heads of the EPA sub-offices were scientists either. Mostly JD’s.

        “EPA needs dynamic, scientific leadership interested in the well being of the environment and public health.
        EPA should not be the political agency it has become, the right hand of industry and short economic gain. ”

        http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/selected-comments-from-scientists.pdf

      • Ed Martin | February 12, 2015 at 9:42 pm |

        Not only did Republicans lead the bipartisan cause called the ‘Progressive Era,’ it was one of their Presidents that created the EPA. ‘Mr God~ Progressives are Evil’ banned me for bringing this’n’that up.

        http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/02/05/16695/republicans-used-support-epa-says-former-administrator

        Or maybe it was I commented on the ‘spending on the F-35 money pit would buy ever homeless person a home’ thing. Ran the calculation and not only would it buy them a home they could be millionaires. The dysfunctional plane, that the Pentagon is already looking for a more evolved replacement, is projected to cost 1.065 T over 55 years. It will probably be closer to 1 1/2 trillion dollars.
        $1.065 trillion / 610,042 homeless = $1,666,278.71

      • nottawa rafter | February 13, 2015 at 5:52 am |

        Ed
        The existing budget for Social Programs has enough funding to give 1/3 of all Households in US $70,000 each per year, which is $20,000 more than the Median Household Income.

        The Defense Budget at $600 Billion annually is a pittance compared to the $2.8 Trillion for Social Programs.

        We don’t lack resources for the truly needy, we lack the will.

      • nickels | February 13, 2015 at 10:53 am |

        @Ed
        Yes, I guess Nixon’s first appointment of a Lawyer (Ruckelshaus, L.L.B) seems to have set the precedent for all lawyers then on….

      • Ed Martin | February 14, 2015 at 12:04 pm |

        Social Security has a separate income stream that we agreed to. So it doesn’t count in the big pie chart.

  7. Wagathon | February 12, 2015 at 11:32 am |

    What’s worse, not knowing what we don’t know or thinking we know more than we really do know?

  8. Scottish Sceptic | February 12, 2015 at 11:54 am |

    Ice-age cycles
    I’ve recently completed a series of articles on the cause and progression of the ice-age cycle. As far as I know several proposals are new to science, so I would welcome some comments both on my work at http://scottishsceptic.co.uk but also other suggestions and ideas about the reasons for the total ice-age cycle and the various component parts.

    • Rud Istvan | February 12, 2015 at 5:51 pm |

      Thanks for letting denizens know about this. I will read them and comment directly over there. DO events and Younger Dryas were going to be an essay on natural variability, so did a lot of reading up. Did not make the final book cut for various reasons.

      • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 4:23 pm |

        Have now read and posted detailed comments on all 10 short papers, plus the alternate conclusion. You have made an interesting journey. Was inevitable woild not work out. But your final conclusion is probably too extreme. I have suggested some nuances.
        I suspect onset and end of ice ages involve ocean more than atmosphere since they are the major transporters of heat from the tropics poleward. But we know so little about them. Whether it is possible to find enough good ocean proxies going back 18000 years to onset of last end, dunno. Most of the ocean paleoproxy cores that go that far are an inconsistent mess. See the debunking of Shakun’s 2012 Nature paper in essay Cause and Effect.

    • Geoff Weatherford | February 12, 2015 at 8:36 pm |

      Excellent. I spent an hour or so last night trying to look up just this type of information. Perfect timing. I’ll take a look at it tonight.
      Thanks for doing this.
      GeoffW

    • oz4caster | February 12, 2015 at 10:51 pm |

      Enjoyed the detailed glacial cycle analysis. Until we fully understand what caused these large and evolving changes in global climate, I don’t see how we can reliably predict climate over shorter periods. For the time being, extrapolation of the most recent past cycles may be the best predictor of the future – a long-range climate persistence forecast. And this approach points toward an impending glacial period beginning any time over the next few thousand years. This likely event will be disastrous for areas that were afflicted with extreme glaciation during the last several glacial periods, including the U.S., Canada, and northern Europe.

  9. Wagathon | February 12, 2015 at 11:59 am |

     
    99 Luftballons

    0.099 °C
    on their way to the horizon
    People think they’re CO2 from us
    so a general sent up
    10000 teachers after them
    Sound the alarm if it’s so
    but there on the horizon were
    only 0.099 °C.

  10. Speed | February 12, 2015 at 12:12 pm |

    Carbon Capture And Storage Technology Faces Uncertain Future After Feds Pull Plug On $1.7B FutureGen Facility
    A decade ago, FutureGen, a planned “clean coal” plant in Illinois that aimed to capture its carbon dioxide and pipe the emissions deep underground, held a lot of promise. It hit some early hurdles, but the Obama administration earmarked more than $1 billion in stimulus funding to revive the plant in the hopes it would inspire other projects and reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas pollution.

    This week, however, Obama’s Energy Department pulled the plug on FutureGen, casting uncertainty on a fledgling industry that’s been plagued with massive cost overruns and lengthy delays.
    [ … ]
    “In the short to medium term, there are much more affordable, reliable and less risky options — like renewable energy and energy efficiency — that are really more deserving of our immediate investment than CCS, which has not been demonstrated to be economic yet,” said Frenkel, an energy policy expert and the Midwest director of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Chicago.

    “To the degree that fossil fuels will play a role long-term, we absolutely need to find a way to address the carbon pollution that those sources emit,” he said. “But we really ought to be doubling down on our commitment to clean energy sources that don’t have carbon as a pollutant in the first place.”

    http://www.ibtimes.com/carbon-capture-storage-technology-faces-uncertain-future-after-feds-pull-plug-17b-1808058

  11. Danny Thomas | February 12, 2015 at 12:16 pm |

    Anybody wanna talk about BEST and how they derive their temperature series?

  12. Wagathon | February 12, 2015 at 12:25 pm |

    The evidence for the global warming that underlies all official concerns about climate change subsists only in the digital world of simulation and the computer programs of climatologists who seek to rig the practice of science against theory, observation and the scientific method. It’s as if Western academia believes it can copyright weather forecasting and has the right to protect from scrutiny its methods for predicting climate change.

  14. John Smith (it's my real name) | February 12, 2015 at 12:50 pm |

    has there been any response to the UK Telegraph article from managers of GISS or GHCN?

  15. Ragnaar | February 12, 2015 at 12:54 pm |

    NOAA PDO:
    2014 07 0.16
    2014 08 0.16
    2014 09 0.59
    2014 10 1.35
    2014 11 1.29
    2014 12 1.90
    2015 01 1.74
    I am predicting peak PDO has been passed. Seems a positive PDO means negative drought in California.

  16. Latimer Alder (@latimeralder) | February 12, 2015 at 12:59 pm |

    ‘Ocean Acidification’.

    After lengthy discussion, here seems to be the ‘official’ view.

    ‘1. ‘Always and everywhere, ocean pH falls as CO2 partial pressure rises. ‘

    and the evidence cited in support is:

    2. ‘[We] have the laws of chemistry and paleoclimate behaviour. It’s enough’.

    Note that observational evidence of the effect occurring at all is confined to just 800 observations from three sites in total.

    Seems grossly inadequate and unscientific to me.

    Comments?

    • Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 1:14 pm |

      CO2 fertilizes phytoplankton even more than corn and potatoes.

    • ordvic | February 12, 2015 at 3:29 pm |

      Well looking at a previous post here and a few articles and papers, it seems to me there is a lot of misnomers on the subject. So like you indicate there doesn’t seem to be much science regarding the issue. Three stites hardly qualifies as you say and IMO too.

      • Latimer Alder (@latimeralder) | February 13, 2015 at 6:40 am |

        @ordvic

        ‘Ocean Acidification’ is a weird one.

        It’s regularly proposed as ‘global warming’s evil twin’ and as the cause of any/all ills affecting the ocean.

        And yet there is almost no observational science to show that it’s even happening at all let alone how fast it occurs, what factors affect it, where its ‘worst’ or ‘best’ or any of the things that proper scientists might be interested in.

        I’ve never before come across a set of grant-funded folks who react to the proposition ‘more research is needed’ with
        ‘Nah..we’ve done enough. Nothing left to learn. Case closed’

        Something is starting to smell very fishy about this whole thing…..

    • Rud Istvan | February 12, 2015 at 5:58 pm |

      Latimer, see my guest post here, Shell Games, or read the much longer essay of same title in the book. In short, Henry’S Law and LeChatellier’s principle says this is true. But oceans are an enormously buffered syste, so only a little true. And normal diurnal and seasonal pH variation caused by biological activity is much greater than the little than the little that is true.
      And some godawful ( to the point of academic misconduct) have tried to raise the acidification alarm. Which is why I debunked them.

      • Latimer Alder (@latimeralder) | February 13, 2015 at 3:16 am |

        @catweazle666

        Tx for the link, but why did you post it? What is it trying to tell me?

      • catweazle666 | February 13, 2015 at 3:00 pm |

        Look at the relative concentration of CO2 over the oceans – most especially the Pacific, where the majority of the ocean warming is alleged to have taken place.

        It doesn’t look like a CO2 sink to me. rather the opposite, in fact.

        Curious that with respect to ocean acidification Dalton’s law is always churned out, but nobody mentions Henry’s law, which implies that as the ocean warms, dissolved gasses will be released.

        But hey, I’m only a retired engineer (originally chemical), so what would I know about gas/liquid behaviour or thermodynamics?

      • Latimer Alder (@latimeralder) | February 14, 2015 at 4:00 am |

        @catweazle666

        What indeed might you know about gases and liquids? That’s just grubby engineering. Rely on fully-fledged academics to know stuff properly

        My main source on OA matters, Richard Telford (BA, Plant Science) tells us that the OCO charts only show a brief part of the year and a full annual survey would give different results.

        And that’s kind of the whole thing about the OA stuff. There is so little actual data about any of it – other than lab experiments – that people feel free to make up stuff…with varying degrees of justification for their beliefs.

        What is remarkable is that they’ve gone apparently unchallenged for so long. And ‘ocean acidification; is trotted out on every occasion as the source of all oceanic ills.

        Well maybe it is. There might be a grain of truth somewhere under the whole edifice of scare stories. Or maybe its the equivalent of the medieval physicians diagnosis of ‘the humours’ or ‘the will of God’… The point is that we don’t know. The hard work has not been done. And neither do any of the participants seem at all inclined to do it.

        Sceptical voices really need to take a long hard look at the sloppy ‘science’ being bandied about in this area. There is a great deal to be sceptical about.

      • catweazle666 | February 14, 2015 at 8:47 am |

        “the OCO charts only show a brief part of the year and a full annual survey would give different results.”

        Yes, I rather think that is the case.

        As that data is for the onset of Northern hemisphere winter – a period when I would expect CO2 emissions to be relatively high but seem to be otherwise, take Northern Europe especially the UK for example – it will be very interesting to follow the data as it builds up over the entire year.

        Still, I am intrigued to see how much CO2 concentration appears to be over the (allegedly warming) Southern Ocean, Brazilian rain forest and effectively unpopulated areas in general, and how little appears to be over the evil fossil fuel burning industrialised nations.

        For comparison, here is NASA’s computer game model of global CO2 distribution.

        http://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2014/november/nasa-computer-model-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/#.VN9KulOsUpA

        Even comparing the equivalent period, there is a very substantial difference between the distribution – especially in the Southern hemisphere. Never mind, I suppose the satellite data just needs a bit of “homogenising” to get it to match the game model fantasydata, doubtless Zeke and Gavin have got it under control right now.

  17. steven | February 12, 2015 at 1:04 pm |

    Tropical cloud cover goes down as water vapor goes up and the temperature increases. It all happens to match up with the AMO and models of ocean heat transport. What a coincidence.

    • Danny Thomas | February 12, 2015 at 4:35 pm |

      In a nutshell, suggestions are to stop flying around for conferences and use technology instead. This and, to make more concise reports. Should have made these notes originally.

      • Tonyb | February 12, 2015 at 4:57 pm |

        Danny

        Ipcc reports are overblown but there is the rather more concise ‘ summary for policy makers.’

        Policy makers will skim through even that, or rather they will likely get their advisers to pick the bones out of it. If the advisers have an agenda the summary of the summary might have a bias.

        The trouble is that the summary is not always a fair reflection of the science contained in the full ipcc reports which is often more conservative or equivocal than the summary

        I am not sure about over reliance on digital copies as reading something on a screen is never as intense as reading it on a screen.

        Conferences of the sort that the ipcc and the eu and many other bodies conductndancy to be very overblown. Important negotiations is often carried out at times when the delegates will normally be asleep. Important eu decisions for instance are often made after a full day of meetings at three o’clock n the morning.

        The ipcc has a very small secretariat in geneva. If they are to do things in a different way they will likely need more funding or the individual contributing bodies will need to cough up more money and resources.

        Tonyb

      • Danny Thomas | February 12, 2015 at 5:25 pm |

        TonyB,

        Appreciate the background. I’ve read the SPM’s and felt myself that looking behind that to the foundation leads to the IPCC report which leads to……………well you know. So I’m trying to focus on the science but found this article interesting in that much like that which lead to the BEST Post/debate this seems to be a response to the criticism of expense and CO2 generation to attend conferences.
        The ever broadening conversation leads to small ephiphanies for me so either I’m learning or getting sucked in. Cannot quite tell which. What I do see, is that if one isn’t skeptical of the broad conversation (man causes environmental issues {duh} then what to do about them) one seems to me to not be looking. I can accept bits and pieces, but many others I just don’t get.

        When I received this yesterday:”Without doubt the world economy needs restructuring.” my eyes opened wide. The balance for context:
        “Without doubt the world economy needs restructuring. There is massive inequality and we’re hammering the environment in numerous ways, climate is just one, but all of which will impact on our ability to grow or obtain food. We can survive without mass transportation if we have to, but food is the primary need of everyone, and it’s what the poorest people care most about. Even where fossil fuels have increased food production, it is often at the cost of poor people having to pay someone for fertiizers, pesticides, etc. In any case, any sensible plan to cut global emissions would demand big cuts from richer countries while the poorest would be gently incentivised to reduce and eventually halt emission growth, ideally via shared technology. Solar power is arguably the most redistributive form of energy, as the poorest countries mostly get the most sun, and there’s potential for every house to have simple solar panels to people who never had it before can get electricity, for no more than a one-off payment that a charity might well help with.
        It may not be straightforward getting there, but the point is, cutting carbon emissions doesn’t have to harm the poorest at all, whereas mitigating climate change will certainly help them”

      • Tonyb | February 12, 2015 at 5:48 pm |

        Danny

        Climate change, even though it is likely natural, is trivial compared to the pressures caused to the environment and resources by population increase.

        Remember Band aid in 1984? Here are the population changes since then

        http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ethiopia-population/

        A population of 34 million causing Famine in 1984 has ballooned to 95 million. How does a poor country keep pace with that? Only by industrialisation which improves living standards and reduces health problems and family size through ecucation

        So mitigating climate change, even of it is noticeable, detrimental, or not made by man, is irrelevant besides other practical Things that can be done.

        Solar panels? They have a place but what happens at night or when growing industry demands a bigger power source?

        Tonyb

      • Rud Istvan | February 12, 2015 at 6:11 pm |

        Danny, one way to get into the IPCC process is the climate chapter of my second book The Arts of Truth. It was vetted by Prof. Lindzen of MIT, and deals with AR4. Also a primer on climate science (SB, feedbacks, GCMs). There are several essays in Blowing Smoke that deal with both AR4 and AR5. Hiding the Hiatus and Cloudy Clouds (both WG1), and No Bodies plus Himalayan Glaciers (both WG2) would be good starting points.
        Saves you having to read all of both, several thousand grinding pages, as I did in order to write the books.
        SPMs are political gloss. Best avoided.

  19. Bill Norton | February 12, 2015 at 1:54 pm |

    A topic for discussion.

    Why does the mainstream climate discussion not include the satellite data that contradicts the land temperature record and the models associated with them (hind casting correlations)? If a model had to hind cast the satellite data accurately, what would its projections look like?

    It was my impression that the satellites were put up because the land records were old, incomplete, and prone to error. The satellites were supposed to offer better world coverage and be more accurate .

    • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 11:27 pm |

      Yup. But are not perfect, and only from 1979. So if you want to argue trends beforehand, resort to sattelite records is useless. Perhaps a theme in the last kerfuffle here. Regards, no matter what.

  20. poitsplace | February 12, 2015 at 3:20 pm |

    Testing the methods for determining surface temperature: Could we create a dataset that roughly mimics surface station behavior, especially for things like slowly increasing UHI. BUT…since its a synthetic dataset, we will know for the whole synthetic record what the conditions are for a the multiple station locations as some stations are moved, then moved again.

    I am somewhat skeptical of our ability to know with ANY certainty the temperature of the a network like the one that (sadly) was never intended to be used in this way. I can’t help but wonder if BEST’s methods don’t just inadvertently move the problem to another step. If they all show a bias we KNOW is not there in the synthetic dataset, they’re most likely showing it in the real dataset.

    Also, I don’t want to make it sound like I’m intentionally trying to put climate scientists (either for or against the idea of high sensitivity) on the spot. But seriously, I’d like it if people could admit that since CO2’s primary relationship in the ice core record is that of a proxy of temperature …that it is virtually impossible to work out sensitivity to CO2 from that data. It doesn’t matter what CO2’s influence is…it would look exactly the same in the proxies if the temperatures changed in the same way. But this is just a pet peeve and something I’ve mentioned before.

  21. Rob Ellison | February 12, 2015 at 3:21 pm |

    Most poverty-reduction measures are more expensive than cutting tariffs, but many are still well worth it. Providing contraception and other reproductive-health services to all who want them would cost $3.6 billion a year, according to Mr Lomborg’s researchers, yet generate annual benefits of $432 billion, $120 per dollar spent. Increasing the nursery school enrolment rate in sub-Saharan Africa to 59% from its current 18% would generate benefits of $33 per dollar spent. Reducing by 40% the number of children whose growth is stunted by malnutrition would be worth $45 per dollar spent; reducing deaths from tuberculosis $43. Increasing mobile broadband penetration from 32% of the world’s population to 90% by 2030 would deliver benefits of $17 per dollar spent. Stopping tax evasion in sub-Saharan Africa (where it currently costs 20 governments around 10% of GDP a year) would also pay off handsomely, at $49 per dollar spent. Increasing by 20% the worldwide availability of work visas would generate benefits of $15 per dollar.

    http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21640361-debate-heats-up-about-what-goals-world-should-set-itself-2030?mc_cid=c829c9700f&mc_eid=b51ec965d8

    http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20150124_FNC780.png

    Only rich economies have the resources to address diverse causes of climate change – and of changes in global ecology – and to build resilient social infrastructure.

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsBySource.png

    • Rob Ellison | February 12, 2015 at 3:36 pm |

      ‘The best estimate of industrial-era climate forcing of black carbon through all forcing mechanisms, including clouds and cryosphere forcing, is +1.1 W/m 2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of +0.17 to +2.1 W/m 2. Thus, there is a very high probability that black carbon emissions, independent of co-emitted species, have a positive forcing and warm the climate. We estimate that black carbon, with a total climate forcing of +1.1 W/m 2, is the second most important human emission in terms of its climate forcing in the present-day atmosphere; only carbon dioxide is estimated to have a greater forcing…’ Bond, T. C. et al, 2013, Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH: ATMOSPHERES, VOL. 118, 5380–5552, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171

      http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/30/black-carbon-a-health-and-environment-issue/

      There are broader policy dimensions that all need addressing in a rational policy framework.

  22. KenW | February 12, 2015 at 3:32 pm |

    And in the other corner Dr. Joe Casola

  23. Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 3:37 pm |

    So, while looking up Dr. Casola – above – I stumbled on to a joint appearance of him with Trenberth where Trenberth opined to the effect that ‘dry areas are getting drier and wet areas are getting wetter’. While there’s a certain rhythm to saying that, I’m hard pressed to arrive at a physical principle for why that would be so. Can anyone offer up any physical explanation as to why it would supposedly be true?

    • nickels | February 12, 2015 at 3:45 pm |

      Is it just simple law of large numbers? If there is lots of change, it makes sense that for any given area at an extreme (dry or wet) would be more likely to change towards the mean? Otherwise you’re looking at runs, which are statistically less likely.

    • Craig Loehle | February 12, 2015 at 5:07 pm |

      “dry areas get dryer and wet areas get wetter” is simply nonsense. If you intensify the hydrologic cycle due to warming, the distribution of the extra rain is nonobvious especially since small increases in absolute rainfall in dry areas would be large % increases (bigger relative effects). The IPCC has been unable to support this claim, such as in the SREX report of 2011.

      • ianl8888 | February 12, 2015 at 6:14 pm |

        > … the distribution of the extra rain is nonobvious …

        Yes

        This is the Achilles Heel of the scarey-bear “floods and droughts” of the Australian CAGW propaganda stories

        They’re so self-contradictory that they aren’t even interesting fairy stories, yet the MSM promulgates them daily. One despairs, of course …

      • Rud Istvan | February 12, 2015 at 6:15 pm |

        Craig, true. Except the IPCC actually said it in SRES and in AR5 WG1. So did UNFCC. Boy, do they look silly. See essay Caribean Water.

    • am | February 12, 2015 at 9:37 pm |

      Old medical aphorism
      “If it’s wet, dry it. If it’s dry wet it.
      Congratulations, you are now a dermatologist.
      Is Trenbath a dermatologist?
      That is the question, if not he may have stepped outside his area of expertise.

  24. JeffN | February 12, 2015 at 4:00 pm |

    This session is likely to be interesting. From the agenda:

    Implications of EPA’s Clean Power Plan proposal on Electric Grid Reliability
    *Joint session with Committee on Gas*

    By now, States are very familiar with and are advocating either State-specific and or regional positions associated with the U.S. EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan (111(d)). A piece of the puzzle that is missing from most States’ analyses though is whether the Clean Power Plan will impact grid reliability. Fortunately, NERC and our RTOs/ISOs are exploring this issue and can provide State regulators with informed, technical guidance. Will the Clean Power Plan impact grid reliability and should States be concerned? Are the building blocks and associated goals technically feasible? Do we have enough pipeline infrastructure to support the desired increase in NGCC plant dispatch? Can we seamlessly integrate the rule’s desired amount of renewables into the grid? Will reliability be impacted when coal retirements accelerate as a result of this rule? Come find out the answer to this and many other reliability based questions regarding the Clean Power Plan.

  25. EdG | February 12, 2015 at 4:15 pm |

    “Many news reports state that nearly 97% of climate scientists agree that manmade greenhouse gases are changing the world’s climate.”

    Cute, clever, and convenient how their reference for this is “Many news reports.” Any forum which begins with the restating of this Big Lie is not to be taken seriously.

    How about a discussion on this 97% myth or on modern Lysenkoism?

    • Mayor of Venus | February 13, 2015 at 1:51 pm |

      That 97% number is correct. Judith Curry and all climate scientists on this site who accept that “manmade greenhouse gases are changing the world’s climate” are included in that number. Even all the luke-warmers who expect any change to the climate to be small, mild, and mostly beneficial.

      • curryja | February 13, 2015 at 2:27 pm |

        The key issue is whether humans are dominating the warming, that is where there is no 97% consensus

      • R. Gates | February 14, 2015 at 10:49 am |

        “dominating the warming” over what timeframe? Not applying a timeframe to discussions of forcings in fairly meaningless, and this is not a criticism of you Judith, but of the general discussion of climate change. Only by looking at specific timeframes can we begin to understand the roles of natural variability, natural cycles, and external forcing.

        So the question that matters would be what percentage of climate scientists would suggest that the 20th century warming was likely dominated by anthropogenic forcing, and by “dominated’ we mean greater than 50% of this 20th Century warming

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Temperature_Composite_500.jpg

  26. Danny Thomas | February 12, 2015 at 4:33 pm |

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-droughts-will-be-the-worst-in-1-000-years1/

    Now I get confused:”The models also revealed that the drying in the Southwest would result from a combination of less rain and greater soil evaporation due to higher temperatures. ”
    Will this result from:
    1) The future projected “higher temperature” from GCM’s.
    2) Current “pausing” temperatures.
    Would it be correct of me to assume when they state they’re using RCP 8.5 they’re using an “ensemble” of projected temperatures to generate their “ensemble” of drought models?

    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082

    How is it decided which models are “accepted” (from the paper)” Although there is some spread across the models and metrics, only two models project wetter conditions in RCP 8.5. In the Central Plains, SM-2m is wetter in ACCESS1-3, with little change in SM-30cm and slightly wetter conditions in PDSI. In the Southwest, CanESM2 projects markedly wetter SM-2m conditions; PDSI in the same model is slightly wetter, whereas SM-30cm is significantly drier.

    Guess I need a course in scientific paper and model construction dissection.

    • Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 4:44 pm |

      Yes, confusing, since precipitation is largely determined by convergence zones ( passing cold fronts and the ITCZ ) the kinds of events that climate models don’t resolve.

      And since, if any trend, it appears percentage of the globe in any level of drought
      has been declining:
      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sdata20141-f51.jpg

      And since the US Palmer Drought Severity Index versus global temperature is not convincing of any correlation:
      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/michaels_pdsi-vs-gistemp_scatterplot.png

      • Danny Thomas | February 12, 2015 at 5:01 pm |

        Lucifer,

        Thank you for that. Scatter plot looks like a pretty good shotgun pattern well centered.

        Do you know if those that put forth the GCM results rerun them on a regular basis with fresh (hope this terminology is correct) initial values even if still based on RCP 8.5? Seems like that would be prudent methodology. Are these papers, once produced, static or do they evolve?

      • Lucifer | February 12, 2015 at 5:15 pm |

        Danny Thomas,

        I lack first and even second hand knowledge of the GCM runs for IPCC, but it appears that the common currency is the ‘mult-model mean’. The rationale appears to be that, no, gcms can’t predict the given weather of a future time, but it doesn’t matter because weather fluctuations ‘average out’ over time.

        This makes any pronouncements about precipitation and drought even more of a curiosity because precipitation events are discrete based on the unpredictable weather.

      • Rud Istvan | February 12, 2015 at 7:02 pm |

        Lucifer and Danny. Great point. Two more. 1. Globally, the CMIP3 and CMIP5 ensembles underproject precipitation by up to 50%. For reasons and references, see essays Models… and Humidity… 2. GCM models,do not downscale to regions. For reasons and examples, see essay Last Cup of Coffee. This scary prediction is nonsense piled on nonsense.

    • Craig Loehle | February 12, 2015 at 5:09 pm |

      Drought in the Southwest is governed by the PDO (I have several refs on this) which the models can’t emulate. Since there is currently a drought there, it seems like a win to claim that is what will continue or what is predicted by the models. In addition, the ability of GCMs to model regional precipitation is awful to abysmal.

    • Rud Istvan | February 12, 2015 at 6:23 pm |

      Danny, short answer is they don’t. There is an orgy of model running for a couple of years before the year before an IPCC report. This is to get stuff into the archive CMIP5 in time for AR5). Then there is a multiyear orgy of tuning, tweaking, and paper writing about what they did and how to improve, and so on. We are in that phase now.

      • Danny Thomas | February 12, 2015 at 6:26 pm |

        Rud,

        I thank you for that and earlier responses. It seems to me that running a model, projecting, and then repeating would be a way to improve the credibility (or not). But I’m new at all this.

      • Rud Istvan | February 12, 2015 at 8:10 pm |

        Welcome to the team, Sheriff.

      • Danny Thomas | February 12, 2015 at 8:20 pm |

        Rud,

        Thanky! I’m right proud to represent. Still no word from the Mayor. As of right now, all seems peaceful here in town. Think folks might be a bit wored out cuzin all that ruckus yestiday. Iffin I kin be of any assistance, ya’ll jus’ hollar.
        h/t

    • Curious George | February 13, 2015 at 12:29 pm |

      Precipitation is determined by the best 24-hour models with a 25-mile accuracy, see a recent historic New York snowstorm.

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 12:54 pm |

        Curious,

        So I should go outside today and look over there? :)

      • kim | February 13, 2015 at 1:03 pm |

        What I found curious, and learnt new, was that snowfall is even more unpredictable than rain, and it’s not just the scale difference from volume expansion. All those ways to change those phase.
        ==================

  27. Brian | February 12, 2015 at 4:39 pm |

    For those of you who know Jeff Id at tAV, check out his new post at:
    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/
    Links to the Paul Mathews paper. Very interesting

  28. EdG | February 12, 2015 at 4:50 pm |

    Here’s a very relevant – to JC’s meeting – topic worth discussing:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/a-bonfire-of-waste-100-billion-burnt-by-big-government-renewables-mismanagement/

  29. mosomoso | February 12, 2015 at 5:37 pm |

    I note in NARUC’s debate agenda the continued and deliberate use of slob terminology like “global warming” and “climate change”. Are they happening? Are they real? Well, duh.

    You would think after all the billions, all the conferences, all the publishing, that these people would be willing to come up with a name for the problem they raise.

    But asking if “climate change” is real just isn’t the same as asking if “significant and global human-caused climate disruption” is real. The second question leaves no back or side doors and it can actually be answered one way or another. No fun.

    The climatariat say they want to use common terms in an “accepted” scientific sense. What they really want is wriggle room and slither space.

    • EdG | February 12, 2015 at 6:16 pm |

      Indeed. They pose this comment:

      “Despite this, it isn’t difficult to find stakeholder organizations providing seemingly contradictory information about climate change and whether it is happening at all.”

      The “this” being the thoroughly debunked 97% Big Lie.

      Yes, there certainly is “contradictory information” about climate change. No need to say “seemingly” unless one wants to obscure this point.

      But, no, there is no question about whether “climate change” is “happening at all.” Change is the only constant, in climate and everything else. So this is just a phoney strawman, again. If they were even trying to be clear they would have said AGW instead of climate change, and addressed the key question of ‘how much’ not “at all.”

      But, as with any political project, clarity is not their objective. Just the opposite.

      • mosomoso | February 12, 2015 at 6:36 pm |

        Yes, Ed, they can be scamps and tricksters, these professional “communicators”. It’s like catching eels with your bare hands at times.

        “Many news reports state that nearly 97% of climate scientists agree that manmade greenhouse gases are changing the world’s climate. Despite this…”

        Many news reports state it. Not NARUC. Oh no. Not the author of the article. No way. In fact, nobody in particular states it.

        It just gets stated!

      • Faustino | February 13, 2015 at 12:23 am |

        moso, I caught an eel with my bare hands once. Admittedly, it had been dropped on a riverside path by a fisherman who was trying to get it back in his scoop-net to put it back in the river. About a metre long, and it seemed to be all muscle – very solid. And, for me, very interesting.

      • mosomoso | February 13, 2015 at 12:57 am |

        Faustino we still have licenced eel catchers here on the Macleay River. The catcher I knew was part-indigenous…but his catching methods were not quaint and manual.

  30. Eliza | February 12, 2015 at 6:28 pm |

    I think that what Goddard and Homewood have done has effectively killed the AGW scam. There is no way they can justify the adjustments. My father did all the changes required by WMO in Paraguay and Bolivia in the 70’s I can guarantee that what Homewood says about stations here is correct (they were NOT moved) the raw data is correct.The Giss people and NCDC who have approved the “adjustments” need to be prosecuted by the law of The USA for FRAUD. PERIOD

  31. Mike Flynn | February 12, 2015 at 6:41 pm |

    This is an open thread, so I cordially invite a highly qualified, world renowned, climate scientist to provide a graph showing how the climate of California has changed in the last hundred years, in some useful fashion.

    Has it improved? Has it deteriorated? Is it superior to mine, and why?

    I appreciate this may prove difficult, given that it is difficult for a lay person to define the climate of California in a scientifically rigorous and useful way.

    Obviously, a graphical representation should comprise measurable things like numbers, thus avoiding words such as might, may, probably, nearly, almost and so on.

    I have endeavoured to find a definition on Google of the climate of California, but it seems that the definition seems extremely vague, and varies depending on the use to which the definition is to be put.

    Surely California has a climate of some sort, and its definition has been scientifically established somewhere. One must therefore be able to document the changes to this climate, objectively, and compare it to others.

    Otherwise, it would be completely pointless wasting time, money and effort on something that cannot even be defined for a particular location as well known as California’s!

    I thirst for knowledge! Who might, with goodwill, slake my thirst?

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

    • Mark Silbert | February 12, 2015 at 9:38 pm |

      Mike, you ask a great question but it would be more tractable to do a study on the change in the political climate in California over the past 100 yrs. It’s gone from the land of opportunity and milk and honey to the land of over regulation, political correctness extraordinaire and fruits and nuts!

      Woody Allen has a great line in “Annie Hall” where he says that the only cultural advantage California has over NY is that you can make a right hand turn on a red light. But alas NY with Di Blasio and Cuomo is trying to outdo the left coast.

      Sorry, but I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to pontificate on my least favorite State. I feel about California like I felt about the Yankees, growing up in Brooklyn in the 1950’s.

    • mosomoso | February 13, 2015 at 12:14 am |

      California is like Australia, even most of the lusher parts like mine (which gets twice as much rain as London). California lives in the jaws of drought. It’s just that the jaws aren’t always chewing.

      In the MWP California was something of a desolation – which has been manipulated into a warning against driving Hummers now but is actually a warning against living on such a cranky planet. It’s also a warning about electing macho gurly-governors who preach green and still drive Hummers.

      This is true of more of the US than climate botherers would like to say…or anybody at all would like to think. New York’s extraordinary drought of the early 1960s was only extraordinary for its century. Yep, it’s likely been drier than that and for longer since European arrival.

      Enjoy a pluvial while you have it.

    • Craig Loehle | February 13, 2015 at 3:10 pm |

      I think a graph of the business climate in California would be steeply down…

  32. hidethedecline (@hidethedecline) | February 12, 2015 at 7:08 pm |

    Justin Gillis in NYT, a fervent warmy believer who embarrasses the masthead every time he blurts out a nonsense piece like this – between him and Andy Revkin it’s like the blind leading the deaf at the Grey Lady.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/science/earth/in-climate-change-whats-in-a-name.html

    He writes:
    “Papers by [contrarian scientists, dissenting scientists, lukewarmers like] Dr. Lindzen and others disputing the [asserted levels of] risks of global warming have fared poorly in the scientific literature, with mainstream [climate] scientists pointing out what they see as fatal errors. Nonetheless, these contrarian scientists testify before Congress and make statements inconsistent with the vast bulk of the scientific evidence, claiming near certainty that society is not running any risk worth worrying about.”

    “Fared poorly”. “Nonetheless”. The word choices of a believer spinning for the green blob.

    Here’s another way to write that:

    “Papers by Dr. Lindzen and others challenging mainstream assertions about the science and the perception of risks of global warming based on that science, have not fared poorly but have instead succeeded through peer review and made it into the scientific literature. This has attracted responses, with mainstream scientists asserting what they see as fatal errors. Nonetheless, the mainstream scientists have been unable to prevent contrarian scientists being invited to testify before Congress and make their challenges of the mainstream more widely known.”

    • Danny Thomas | February 12, 2015 at 7:17 pm |

      Hidethedecline,

      I’m no scientist and am new in this quest, but even I can see the “missing link” in this paragraph from the article: “Some make scientifically ludicrous claims, such as denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or rejecting the idea that humans are responsible for its increase in the atmosphere. Others deny that Earth is actually warming, despite overwhelming evidence that it is, including the rapid melting of billions of tons of land ice all over the planet.”

      Should there be some sort of connection between the last two sentences?

      • Rud Istvan | February 12, 2015 at 8:26 pm |

        Danny, there are subtleties here. (1) There are many people, for example commenting over at WUWT or at Real Science, who assert CO2 is not a ‘greenhouse gas’ or thatnthe effect is saturated. They are just theoretically and experimentally wrong. All the rest of us sceptics get tarred by their provably wrong and unscientific assertions.
        (2) billions of tons of melting ice sounds scary until you put it in the context of trillions or quintillions of land ice that exist. See essay Tipping Points for some actual examples and calculations. The other side does not provide the proper context or perspective–standard political tactic. Oh, and the melting is naturally cyclic and presently slowing.

      • Danny Thomas | February 12, 2015 at 8:47 pm |

        Rud,

        I’m finally building a foundation and gaining a grasp of the players. An on line class I’m taking we’re currently discussion that from what I can find CO2 has attribution problems, but the GHG theory is not in question. And that CO2 is well correlated but not (yet) causally related as sole cause of GW (which means somethings missing). IPCC indicates temps should rise in almost linear fashion to the increasing increase of CO2 and in fact it “plateaus” which should lead to further examination.

        I’ve no heartburn with alternative energy supplies but cannot, based on evidence in hand, find who will pay for replacing my fossil fuel fueled vehicle nor for Exxon’s refinery’s, with good evidence based reason. I’d expect Exxon, as a world class energy company to be first in line with the alternatives if viable. Bazillions of vehicles will have to be replaced, but with what? What to do with associated waste? And so on.

        I’m not the brightest bulb but after looking at this topic for about 3-4 months and taking the referenced knowledge you folks provide at zero cost to me and cost of time and effort to you I don’t buy any conspiracy. Globe warming, sure. Cause? I don’t know all the pieces but suspect GHG’s are a part and mother nature is too. I see that ruminants today emit effectively no more than the ruminants preindustrial Bison vs cattle/sheep. Temps increasing since LIA. Climate changes.

        GW/CC and IPCC policy seems like is expected to be accepted in it’s entirety when if one looks at the nuts and bolts some make sense and some don’t.
        I lean left socially, right fiscally, and it amazes me when one is NOT skeptical. And I question if that’s just my confirmational bias.

        And I think all related science should be scrutinized as was done re: BEST. I’m beginning to get it.

        Your offerings are highly valued. And any adjustments of above I should consider, should you chose to point them out, I promise to evaluate.

      • hidethedecline (@hidethedecline) | February 12, 2015 at 8:59 pm |

        Of course there should be. But Forget it Dan. It’s ClimateScienceTown.

      • Physics_Group | February 12, 2015 at 9:40 pm |

        The “fatal error” is that the AGW non-physicists assume from school-boy physics that there would have been an isothermal troposphere in the absence of GH gases. That is not what physics derived from the Second Law tells us.

      • Physics_Group | February 12, 2015 at 9:44 pm |

        The explanation of planetary temperatures is here being read by over 800 visitors to the site each week.

      • Planning Engineer | February 13, 2015 at 3:37 am |

        Danny and Rud – Reading at Climate Etc, I find both your postings in the group that is helpful. As I struggle to separate the wheat from the chaff, I don’t have the time that Dannys putting into this, nor can I match the broad knowledge of Rud to be confident in understanding or even being aware of the subtleties. I can recognize big BS often from eithe faction and over exaggerations in many cases but some arguments I have no confidence in my appraisal of. For instance In Rud’s example ii understand CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but had no idea how spurious (or not) the saturation arguments are. I know models are over forecasting and the 97% surveys are severly flawed. I’m getting a feel for who is generally trustworthy here but so many issues I see a lot of debate but can’t get grounded.

        Judith’s summaries are great for what they cover and maybe I have missed some more generic ones in the past. ( I didn’t used to read the comments ). Do you have any pointers or know of any sources or have a summary or arguments around nuances of climate arguments classified as to whether they are good or bad, plausible or implausible, reasonable or unreasonable, significant or minor, credible or incredible, and/or likely and improbable.

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 10:39 am |

        P.E.
        Mentioning me in such good company?
        I’ve found a seasonal job with good wi-fi and 4 days off. Try it! :)
        I’m about to a point that I need to put down in words my issues with the AGW theory (so many, some good some not) and my evaluation process. Interstingly in an on line course my strongly AGW oriented (and patient) instructor tells me that is exactly what I should do. Others have asked “what proof” I would require to…………so that’s a part of it. I wish I could find that summary, but I find much the opposite. If/when I get it done I’d be happy to share. Guess it’s like wrestling an Octopus. Lots of words by me here, and likely no assistance. Looking forward to Rud’s reply (guessing he’ll suggest a publication or two:)))). And I appreciate your contribution.

      • Mark Silbert | February 13, 2015 at 11:37 am |

        Danny,

        I started down the same path you’re on about 2 years ago. This blog is a great resource for me. One of the first posts that I got into on CE is this one: http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/ It is well worth reading and especially the APS transcript.

        If you haven’t read Rud’s book, “Blowing Smoke”, I strongly suggest you do. Other books I have found helpful include: Climate Change: The Facts, The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein, An Appeal to Reason by Nigel Lawson, Institutional Bias by Andrew Montford, The Age of Global Warming: A History by Rupert Darwall, The Precautionary Principal by Indur Goklany, The Delinquent Teenage Who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert by Donna LaFramboise, The Climate fix by Roger Pielke Jr., Climate The Counter Consensus by Bob Carter ………..

        Also, if you have not listened to any of Richard Lindzen’s talks on CAGW, I suggest you do. Here is a link to one: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/science-progressing

        Lindzen wrote this paper in 1992: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/4/v15n2-9.pdf

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 12:00 pm |

        Mark Silbert,

        Wow! I thank you for your reference lists. I’ll go thru those I’ve missed and add to my materials. Liesure reading is out the window for now unless you count the blogs. (My bride received a new tablet for X-mas and she’s not seen it since).

        Awaiting the current APS statement revision along with the rest.

        I wonder if folks like Dr. Curry , you and others you realize how much of an impact the sheer generosity of providing much and asking nothing in return has. And there are many other examples here.

      • Don Monfort | February 13, 2015 at 12:52 pm |

        You have a lot of studying to do, Danny. However, I don’t see anybody pointing you to anything that does not reflect the skeptic perspective. Ask Mosher to recommend something for balance. I would if I knew what to recommend, but like most here I don’t read the crap from the other side.

        Actually, you would probably find interesting the book on Climategate written by Mosher and Tom Fuller. I think it’s called something like “Libertarian and Socialist Pal Write Book on Climategate”. Go to Mosher’s website. He could use some traffic.

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 1:02 pm |

        Don,

        Thanks for that. Saw my tin badge that I thought was forged over a coal fire actually says “made in China” on the back.
        Got George Marshall’s: Don’t Even Think About It on my table along with Pielke Jrs.: The Rightful Place of Science, right now. Thinking I’m giving all sides a fair shot, and Mosher’s book is on the list to along with Rud’s and the list just provided by Mark. Tony suggested Werst so I’m in that too. Much of what I’m getting from AGW is in the form of scientific papers and the skeptic side gives me perspectives for balance. Not sure if I’m doing this correctly or not especially lacking the science background. Other suggestions?

      • Don Monfort | February 13, 2015 at 1:21 pm |

        Someone has probably already mentioned it, but I found scienceofdoom interesting, when I first got into this foolishness. Not too dogmatic in any direction, in my ever so humble opinion.

      • Tonyb | February 13, 2015 at 2:07 pm |

        Don

        At the very outset I guided Danny towards the history of global warming by weart and a few other warmist books so he has had a fair introduction to both sides of the debate

        Hopefully he will graduate to Hubert lamb, probably the greatest historical climatologist ever and who would be ashamed and bemused as to what has passed for climate science since he left CRU.

        Tonyb

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 2:56 pm |

        Tonyb & Don,
        Reading a Lamb right now as offered on this forum: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/02/Lamb.pdf
        Now adding S of D. Ya’ll are keeping me busy. This, plus my new job as Sherriff and volunteer coffee kid. Werst is open in another window. Just trying to keep up!

      • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 4:48 pm |

        PE, read essay Sensitive Sensitivity for why saturation is spurrious. To oversimplify. Sure saturated at the surface. But never at the top of the GHG ‘fog’ way up in the troposphere, the only place it matters. Add more CO2 and the ‘top of the fog’ rises. This has two consequences. First, a larger ‘surface area’ from which the IR can finally radiate to space and cool. Good. But the temperature lapse rate means that hogher, larger ‘surface’ is also colder, so less heat is radiated away per unit area. Bad. The net net helps produce the logarithmic primary response to CO2. Any doubling will always produce about 1.1-1.2C warming (various ‘grey Earth’ SB calcs; Lindzen uses 1.2 and Judynhad some threads back in 2010 or so). 200 to 400ppm. 400 to 800. And 800 to 1600. There is never saturation where it matters cause there is a lot of room to go up in the atmosphere. Regards to you and Danny.

      • Planning Engineer | February 13, 2015 at 7:30 pm |

        Thanks. I am slowly getting connections and who’s who and where a lot of folks stand.
        Did not realize how full Rud’s resume was. Will have to take up Kindle to read Blowing Smoke.

      • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 7:55 pm |

        PE, is also on iBooks, Kobo, B&N Nook,… Just have a color reader. Regards.

      • Planning Engineer | February 15, 2015 at 4:49 pm |

        I bought it, just have to see if I can get it to download it before my trip.

  33. Mark Silbert | February 12, 2015 at 9:20 pm |

    An excellent paper has been published by GWPF. The paper is by Bernie Lewin and is titled: Hubert Lamb and the transformation of climate science. Introduction by Richard Lindzen.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/02/Lamb.pdf

    This paper provides an interesting history of how we have arrived at the absurd place we are at today re. CAGW. It is well worth reading

    Bernie Lewin is also one of the contributors to “Climate Change: The Facts” along with Lindzen, Partridge, Carter, Watts, Darwall, Pat Michaels, Lawson and a host of the skeptics and deniers. This book packs a lot into a relatively small package.

    Judith, you had discussed a potential post on Bert Bolin a couple of weeks back. I have purchased his “biography” ($45 on amazon) and intend to read it next. A post on Bolin and Lamb would be mighty interesting and provocative. Maybe you could prevail on Bernie Lewin to provide one.

  34. RiHo08 | February 12, 2015 at 10:27 pm |

    Ahhh. It is mid-February. We anticipate the Spring thaw in spite of what Punxsutawney Phil has predicted. We get our buckets and tree tapping augers, anticipating a favorable climatologically with warm days and cool nights, the ideal conditions for getting the maple tree sap running for sugaring time and maple syrup production. With global warming giving us warmer winters, the sap should really be flowing.

    The trouble is:

    “June 11, 2014 – Nationally, maple syrup production in 2014 totaled 3.17 million gallons, down 10 percent from 2013. In 2014, cold temperatures decreased season length. The number of taps is estimated at 11.4 million, down slightly from the 2013 total. Yield per tap is estimated to be 0.279 gallons, down 10 percent from the previous season’s yield.”

    As we have had a cold February so far, outdoor temperatures roughly half of previous expected highs and lows, and with the next two weeks or so to continue the cold trend, not as much maple syrup this year as last year’s reduced supply, maybe its time to take a position in maple syrup.

    • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 8:37 pm |

      Ri, we have some sugarbush in Wisconsin, but not so much around my dairy farm in the southwest Uplands country. All further up north on shield country. You have hard maples, we have mostly softs. The one hard on my place is so old I might have to cut it down before it blocks a key barn access road that it overhangs.
      But I have an equivalent seasonal climate problem with spring morel mushrooms. Two springs ago, my brother and his wife drove two days each way from Atlanta to gather at the usual supposed seasonal peak. (for 20 years, around end of first week of May). We got a hand full of pathetic little ones smaller than your thumb. Three weeks later I went up by myself last week of May and gathered two big shopping bags full in one morning. Worth about $82/# wet fresh in Chicago, so about $4k worth in 3 hours. Of course, dried down and sent out as appeasements to family and friends rather than selling to the fancy restaurants. Double lot to my brother and wife.
      May your sugarbush prosper, even if later in the spring season. Regards.

  36. JustinWonder | February 13, 2015 at 12:07 am |

    What’s wrong with this picture?

    $850 million
    130 megawatts
    Footprint: 2,900 acres (12 square miles)

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/what-apple-just-did-in-solar-is-a-really-big-deal

    • JustinWonder | February 13, 2015 at 12:16 am |

      Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant:

      18,000 gigawatt-hours annually
      Footprint : 900 acres

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

      • AK | February 13, 2015 at 8:45 am |

        PG&E Study: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Is Earthquake-Safe Despite Newly Detected Faults

        But a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector disagrees.

        The studies are “unlike anything that has been done” because it’s rare for nuclear power plant operators to detect three new faults within miles of the facility — after the plant has been built, commissioned and operated. The 3-D mapping studies are plotting the Hosgri and San Simeon faults, as well as the more recently detected Shoreline, Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults. (You can read the conclusions of the report here.) PG&E has provided these reports to the California Public Utilities Commission’s Independent Peer Review Panel, as well as to the U.S. NRC.

        “Differing professional opinion” prompts Senate hearings

        A document, acquired and verified by The Associated Press and authored by Dr. Michael Peck, the former senior resident inspector at Diablo Canyon for the NRC, claims that “three of the nearby faults (Shoreline, Los Osos and San Luis Bay) are capable of generating earthquakes stronger than the reactors were designed to withstand.”

        The document is a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO), and it reveals part of the inner workings of formal dissent process within the NRC. The procedure from the NRC: “All routine DPO cases are expected to be completed within 60 days of acceptance of the issue as a DPO, and all complex cases within 120 days.”

        Peck submitted his DPO in July of last year.

        Continuing to operate the plant, Peck writes, “challenges the presumption of nuclear safety,” according to the AP report. Peck asserts, “Diablo Canyon is operating outside the conditions of its license and should be shut down until PG&E can prove that the reactors can withstand potential earthquakes on these faults.”

    • mosomoso | February 13, 2015 at 3:57 am |

      We know the price and the acreage. We hope for the megawatts.

      This has to be right up there with the 20th Anniversary Mac, the Apple III and hockey-puck mouse.

    • Mayor of Venus | February 13, 2015 at 7:40 pm |

      One square mile has 640 acres, so 2900 acres is only 4.5 square miles.

    • KenW | February 14, 2015 at 9:37 am |

      What’s wrong?
      for starters they don’t say 130 megawatts of exactly.

      25 years continuous would put them at about 2.9 cent / kwh – but I don’t think that’s what they mean for a solar plant.
      I think they mean more like 130 Mw peak output. Big difference – which i’m sure is lost on those 3 dumb-Aßß commentators; not even to mention the megawatts not being equal.

      Why do the stupidest people get their faces on TV anyway?

  37. Rob Ellison | February 13, 2015 at 12:08 am |

    While I’m here – let me present the alternative thought for the day brought to you by Libertarians for an Open Ideas Marketplace.

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/i-officially-resign.jpg

    I’m pretty pleased with myself. I just replaced the keyboard on my laptop. Success. It’s all just a few obvious components that just slot together to make a computer – as mysterious as the deep electronics of machine language still are to me. Now I can’t wait for something else to go wrong.

    Climate is not like my laptop at all. It consists of simple components – atmosphere, hydrosphere, cyrosphere and biosphere – that interact in complex ways to produce abrupt change and variability at all scales.

    Greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone, CFC’s – as well as aerosols – undoubtedly change climate. In more or less extreme changes that occur in a decade or less. But this is not something to be addressed with even the most aggressive retirement of electricity generation assets. CO2 from electricity generation is 26% of greenhouse gas emissions and – counting black carbon – less than 20% of total anthropogenic forcing.

    Danny introduced a study earlier. Putting on my hydrologists hat – I was going to dispute both the model projections and the millenial reconstruction. The latter comes from a 2007 study.

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cook-et-al-2007-usdrought.png

    The projections are utter BS. Single realisations of one of many possible solutions of nonlinear equations. The set of solutions define a solution space that may or not encompass the path of evolution of climate this century – the solutions are individually worthless. The reconstruction – however – may be reasonable.

    Rainfall is chaotic – but it tends to be broadly predictable on a seasonal to decadal scale over a wide enough area. It almost all originates in the oceans. There are dominant influences – which we have difficulty predicting past the next decade or so.

    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/Images/drought_freq.jpg

    But there are a number of other influences on rainfall as well. Here’s a site where you can play with correlations.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/

    Still not anywhere near as simple as my laptop.

  38. Will End | February 13, 2015 at 12:13 am |

    Do we have records on the expansion of the Earth’s atmosphere? Gas should expand if heated. If we have satellites to measure the diameter of the earth’s atmosphere we should be able to measure the overall volume of the earth’s atmosphere. If the atmosphere is warming it should be expanding.

    It seems like a really easy way to get a single clean answer from this mess. I’m sure the atmosphere expands and contracts all the time. But if we’re suffering global warming then there should be a significant expansion trend.

    Is this a good question or a stupid question?

    • A. Voip | February 13, 2015 at 8:00 am |

      That would depend on the shifting circumference of the planet Earth, through the ages.

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

      AGW scientists have a paper that covers this fact, you may be certain.

    • Curious George | February 13, 2015 at 12:54 pm |

      It is a good question. How can we define the top of atmosphere? Undoubtedly the atmosphere is subject to tidal forces just as sea water. There is a nice Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide, with a plenty of equations and zero observations.

      • kim | February 13, 2015 at 1:01 pm |

        Gravitational and magnetic forces, prob. esp. active in the ionosphere, or am I too outdated, Our Mr. Sun?
        ================

    • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 5:11 pm |

      It is an interesting question, not at all stupid. But there is no real answer because the atmosphere just keeps getting thinner until it eventually peters out. The term radiative balance at ‘ top of atmosphere’ is a term of art. What it really means is measuring incoming and outgoing radiation from satellites sufficiently high that they will stay in orbit for usefully many years before the remaining atmospheric drag slows them down, they fall out of orbit, and eventually burn up on re-entry. BTW, despite its very large mass and momentum agains residual drag, this is the eventual fate of the multi hundred billion ISS boondoogle. Got to get beyond the Van Allen radiation belts to have sufficient vaccum for this not to be a problem. Almost Anything in near Earth orbit inside those belts will suffer the eventual drag fate. When os a function of initial orbital altitude, object drag cross section, and object mass/momentum.

    • PhysicsGrp | February 18, 2015 at 2:44 am |

      No it would get another messy answer. Don’t you realize that the altitude at which molecules escape via the exosphere has to do with the balance of centrifugal force and gravity, neither of which depends on temperature. Besides, there is warming in the stratosphere and then in the thermosphere where it can be hotter than the surface, so where is your top? Don’t expect an answer relating to physics coming from Ellison.

  39. Jim D | February 13, 2015 at 1:07 am |

    The Shell CEO has some things to say about climate change. “Putting a price on carbon is a “crucial” part of lowering emissions and addressing climate change”.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/shell-ceo-climate-change_n_6671800.html
    So when you are talking about the fossil fuel industries, you have to realize that some of them are forward thinking in this way. He recommends changing coal for natural gas, for example, which is relevant to the EPA goals.

    • mosomoso | February 13, 2015 at 1:25 am |

      Green Shell and green Netherlands are enormous branches of the Russian fossil fuel industry. They are not concerned about the global proliferation of whirlygigs and solar panels, which will actually need massive supplementation from the products and services of Shell, the Netherlands and Russia. They are concerned about their commercial rivals: coal and nukes.

      This has to be the most perfect instance of he-would-say-that. I wouldn’t expect a HuffPo journalist to see it, but the rest of us should be sharp enough to see through the motives of these Bambi-friendly CEOs.

    • Rob Ellison | February 13, 2015 at 2:13 am |

      He ‘supports’ yet more UN blather it seems.

      http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Climate/climate2014-carbon-pricing-brief-091214.pdf

      The reality is that ‘carbon pricing’ has inevitably failed. The real price of retiring electricity generation assets is research in energy innovation – which is happening everywhere and is the real market response. Cost competitive alternatives to coal generation are already available – and the shift is rapid. Even lower carbon alternatives are at the prototype stage.

      It is still a small part of the forcing picture. Broader responses involving broader social and economic policy is required. The superficiality of the vision of pinning everything on a ‘carbon price’ is ultimately very silly.

      It is opposed by most of the world – e.g. http://scrap-the-euets.makenoise.org/KV/ – certainly the rational parts thereof.

      However – once the generation problem is solved – transport falls into place.

      http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/09/01/are-you-missing-the-fuel-cell-revolution.aspx

      http://driftelectric.com/

      But there are many other dimensions that are nowhere near as simple as technological innovation and the creative destruction of capitalist markets.

    • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 9:48 am |

      Jim D,

      Shell against coal? If one looked at that critically could there be a financial reason? http://www.law360.com/articles/306373/sierra-club-took-26m-in-donations-from-natural-gas-giant

      Ends justify the means? How much is Shell invested in Coal? Natural gas?

      • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 5:17 pm |

        Short answer. Coal, zero. Natural gas, lots.
        Over $20 billion just in the PEARL project in Qatar to convert Pars field gas to liquid fuels (mostly diesel bound for Europe) using the FT process.

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 5:34 pm |

        Rud,

        This was exactly what I wanted JimD to see. So Shell supporting that which punishes coal vs. cleaner natural gas is natural evolution of fossil fuel wars. And Shell being willing to increase their expenses just a bit to compete with higher expenses coal would be subject to is just business as usual. And it’s a two pronged attack since Sierra Club did the same as Shell is doing. Fighting coal. But I have the feeling JimD already knew that. All is fair in love, war, and Climateball, eh?

      • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 11:42 pm |

        Both of you might be interested in essay Clean Coal, posted first at JC’s and then published essentially unchanged in Blowing Smoke. Many thanks to Judith for forcing me to go get legal opinions much more solid than my own before guest posting. Regards to all.

    • aaron | February 13, 2015 at 12:16 pm |

      I’m sure he has no ulterior motives.

    • Jim D | February 13, 2015 at 9:30 pm |

      Judging from the answers, it seems if the skeptics were to choose between Shell and coal, they would go with the coal lobby, who, regarding global warming are definitely in the camp of “they would say that, wouldn’t they”. At least the Shell CEO sees the sense in pricing carbon and reducing emissions, which those others tend not to, of course.

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 9:59 pm |

        JimD,

        Interesting. I see a bit of a different picture. I see “unintended consequences” for a less well thought out policy than hoped. Strange bedfellows when Shell and Sierra Club use the same tool to beat up on coal. So what else might be missed. Shell may actually be strengthened, but if coal is “subdued” is that what you really wanted? And what will be the consequence of coal having been subdued to the price of energy? I’m not professing a kinship with coal, but folks will lose jobs and if indeed the cost of energy goes up, whom will be most injured? I’d speculate it’s the poor and fixed income. I perceive that you expect “revenue neutral” to work but have you evidence that it has before when government has made that commitment. I’m asking w/o knowing the answer and will not look awaiting your thoughts. Exxon has also made huge investment in LNG. It’s good business, but will strengthen FF. Where’s that money gonna go? Just tossing it out.

      • Jim D | February 13, 2015 at 10:11 pm |

        Coal can be used if they can figure out how to be clean. They have several decades to try to save themselves in this way. Power companies seem to have less patience when gas is around, and that is what matters in the current market. It is sorting itself out in a way that does not favor coal, but they do have a way back if they can clean up their act.

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 10:18 pm |

        JimD,

        Like this?:http://fortune.com/2015/02/06/as-the-feds-pull-out-dreams-of-clean-coal-fade/
        $202M of your money and mine divided in to zero sequestration equals?
        And this all is dependent on the not yet answered question of CO2=warming and current evidence is it may not be (at least not to the exent “projected”).

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 10:36 pm |

        JimD,
        Two follow ups. First, the money Shell/Exxon will be gaining this way will likely go to Jim2 :)
        2nd, why does the orientation have to be where it punishes dirty coal? What I’m intending to say is why can there not be an incentive program for coal to spend their own dollars and given some time to clean up their processes w/o financial injury to those who can least afford it? Coal is economical, but the “unintended consequences” was to lift up Shell (another FF company) at the expense of coal instead of a straight up assistance program for coal to improve their position all while producing “cleaner” energy. I guess the Sierra Club move IMO is fodder for “skepticism” when they (Sierra) take Oil money. How’s that different than Oil funding “skeptical” view points? Coal being damaged hurts people and jobs. (Unintended consequences?)

      • Mark Silbert | February 13, 2015 at 10:11 pm |

        There’s a shit load of coal around for generating electricity. A lot more than gas or oil. It’s the fuel that, if burned responsibly, is the long term bridge fuel. It’s easily mined and transported. The Chinese and Indians need it and the Africans too. Getting rid of coal will hurt the poorest at the expense of the richest…..no doubt.

        Exxon used to be in the coal business. We owned Carter Coal Co. Saw the handwriting on the wall and got out.

      • Jim D | February 13, 2015 at 11:27 pm |

        One possible use of a carbon tax revenue is to help coal companies clean up their emissions. This is just the kind of thing it can help with, and then the cost is not all from the coal industry itself. They should support this way of getting government aid.

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 11:40 pm |

        Jim D,

        Gov’t aid? That’s you and me. Coal’s got more money than I do, but maybe not you. I’m just saying that time should be a factor. Give ’em a chance and don’t punish those less likely to be in position to afford. Just don’t see this a being well thought out and there are/will be unintended consequenses. Ah, well. Guess we see if differently. If you see 100% attribution and associated warming I get your point. I’m not seeing that. But if it’s me and it turns out you’re wrong from whom do I get my money back? Consumers will pay and companies will not. Companies will just be a pass thru mechanism. But you know that. After all, it’s only people and it’s only money. No biggie, huh?

      • Jim D | February 13, 2015 at 11:59 pm |

        A carbon tax is only about 10% of typical fuel bills, and there are ways to pay a flat credit back to benefit the poor, not revenue neutral, just a carbon credit. Tying a tax rate to global warming rate, as McKitrick suggested, would enable people to put their money where their mouth is. I would suggest using 30-year warming rates so that it is not all over the place. We could pro-rate it and allow for inflation. For example we had 0.5 C warming in 30-years, so $25 per tonne. If the next 30 years produced no more warming, the tax would gradually go away. With cooling some could be paid back. If it rose by 0.9 C, $45 per tonne, etc.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 12:30 am |

        Jim D,
        From what I’ve seen I have no reason to doubt you’ve done your research so if you have a link with a demonstration I’d appreciate your sharing. I’ve just not seen where when gov’t gets their hands on our funds we actually get it back. Guess I’m skeptical. Seems there is always a “diversion”.

        I suggested effectively the same in a different thread where those that wish to contribute to funding alternative energy do so by committing in writing as P.E. suggested as he was aware of folks surveyed who said “sure, I’d support that” but when the time came they balked. Long term commitment and watching the temps? I’d much rather see it in a voluntary basis much like those that allow energy companies to turn off an A/C system in peak times. Much like you suggested, putting money where their mouth is but only for those who chose to participate as opposed to being forcibly required to do so. Since survey’s indicate +/- 50% of folks would support G.W. mitigation we could conduct an experiment to find out the true level of concern once a pocketbook is involved. Would you be first in line? Just think how cool one would feel driving out and about in a new BMW knowing one had particpated in saving the world. Justin Wonder will be sitting road side and I couldn’t blame him. Just to be clear, I’d participate, but don’t think I’d care to force others to do so based on what we know today. My .02. Just don’t consider this to be well thought out. What do you find wrong with this approach?

      • Jim D | February 14, 2015 at 12:07 am |

        It could also be phased in gradually over one or two decades.

      • Jim D | February 14, 2015 at 12:39 am |

        Danny, those allowing the utilities companies to control their a/c get a financial benefit in return. Financials are always a good incentive. Other ways would be to subsidize low-fuel use cars, or energy-efficiency improvements to buildings, or solar panels. Rewards for efficiency are a good way to go. These can also be paid for by a carbon tax. The revenue for the US at $20 per tonne would be $120 billion per year. Lots to go around, including helping to build nuclear plants, etc.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 12:59 am |

        Jim D,

        Apples/oranges. Are we talking past each other? My suggestion is to allow those who express concern, under today’s level of evidence, to participate in voluntary mitigation via their pocketbook. What you’re espousing is a forcible system. If that be the coal companies, or not. Energy efficient vehicles cost less in fuel and need no incentives as there is a built in payback. Folks choose to buy them and that’s an important distinction. But based on the approach as I understand you’re professing, if a diesel heavy duty truck hauling goods to market uses more fuel they will be surcharged (carbon taxed) and who pays? Every consumer and by force.

        $120 Billion? What do you expect our government to do with those dollars? Write a check to you and I, or use them to pay for $202 Million dollar carbon Non-sequestration projects (that we may or may not need)? I wish I could trust them to “tax credit” you and I back, but do you and I really expect them to do so or might a “diversion” (medicaid, social security, defense, whatever) suddenly rear it’s ugly head?

        Voluntary first, and alternatives to that second (based on more substantial evidence). We get to the same place, but do so by choice or by force? What is wrong with trying voluntary first? Let’s find out folks “true” commitment. Unless there is concern over the answer to that question. Again, I ask, what is wrong with this approach?

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 1:45 am |

        Jim D,
        I’m sorry, but I think you’re being short sighted. This is a political out in a controversial topic. How can you (as proxy) not win? You get voluntary contributions to support alternative energy. You get reduced emissions that others don’t agree need to be reduced. If you’re correct and emissions of CO2 are the issue, you’re a hero (and can throw it in the face of those who chose otherwise by taxing once the issue is settled). If you’re wrong, you still win as alternative energy will be required eventually and you’ll have been leading edge. Think differently and outside the box. If you try to force participation via taxation you will meet resistance. Do your votes exist in today’s legislature? If you ask for voluntary participation who knows who’ll contribute. Apple just made a bit of a voluntary choice http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/what-apple-just-did-in-solar-is-a-really-big-deal, and can use as a marketing tool. Who is the loser here? Voluntary vs. forcible. You think my argument is tired? Have you truly evaluated yours? And I’m in. I’ll participate. Who else just might, as, if nothing else, a marketing tool? 10% to my peas won’t make a difference to me. 10% to those who cannot afford peas today, might have a different answer. Think about it! Is voluntary “symbolic” when it comes to peak control of a thermostat? Why the heck do we bother if it’s not effective? Has my approach been tried? Do you know or are you assuming? Is “saving the planet” not equivillent to a “financial incentive”? AGW wants to address all issues with OPM (other peoples money). But you might get a pleasant surprise if you were willing to try, or a serious shock if you find out folks “true” level of concern. Your approach is soley based on “the fact” that Anthro CO2 is the issue. My suggested approach is contingent on the possibility that it’s not. And it’s still a win for you either way. And if you have a 97% “consensus” any good salesman (I’ll take on the task) can present a “no lose” argument. Are you in, or not? If not, why not so I can be a good salesman and overcome your objections? Presume my probing questions and tell me why you’re adverse. This is done all the time and AGW is trying for the sale, and not very darn good at it as objections are not nearly being overcome.
        At least you’re considering a variation with the “climate bonds” so I appreciate that thought.
        I’ll look for your answer tomorrow. Thanks for the conversation.

      • Jim D | February 14, 2015 at 1:18 am |

        Danny, you are using that tired argument that adding 10% to the price of the fuel for your Safeways truck affects your packet of frozen peas to an extent that it becomes unaffordable. It doesn’t work like that. Do the numbers.
        Voluntary is symbolic. No one would consider that an effective policy. Voluntary only works if everything is already wrecked by climate, and by then it is too late. However, a version of voluntary would be climate bonds, analogous to war bonds, where you lend for carbon-mitigation or climate-adaptation projects as savings investments, with a guaranteed return rate. I think those would be popular and voluntary at the same time.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 1:54 am |

        Jim D,

        You might be surprised at the power of volunteering in this good ole` country of ours. 62m folks at say 10 hours each valued at $10/hour. You suggested I do the numbers. Well I suggest you do.
        http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm

      • Rob Ellison | February 14, 2015 at 2:06 am |

        You generate about a ton of CO2 for a MWh – with a tax of $50/ton it doubles energy cost. For something that is less than 20% of total forcing. Typically silly in other words.

      • mosomoso | February 14, 2015 at 3:26 am |

        Chesapeake Energy’s 23 million dollars to the Sierra Club (and the 30 million more they wanted to give before Sierra’s competitors like Greenpeace screamed) would have been a clue to most. A bigger clue than just the usual green preaching from the usual green Big Oil CEO. A strong clue to most.

        But not to a HuffPo journalist. I suppose new American money can’t help drooling over very old Royal Dutch money. Just like those royal dutchies have the utmost respect for their great and powerful tovarishch in the east.

      • Jim D | February 14, 2015 at 10:04 am |

        Danny, voluntary contributions are akin to charity. Charities only work when you see your dollars helping someone. This is why I say voluntary only works when the climate effects are already happening. For example. if there is a charity to help some city build a sea-wall due to rising sea levels destroying their town, that might work, but you would also question why the government isn’t contributing. Some things are just their job.

  40. Geoff Sherrington | February 13, 2015 at 2:57 am |

    After the large amount of guesswork and armwaving on the previous thread about data adjustment, might I please contribute some real, actual data from Australia that will make you think.
    There are 3 separate essays here, many hours of patient work to try to answer some questions that are often raised and seldom answered – to the extent hoped for.
    1. 44 pristine sites analysed to see what a baseline trend might look like. Abandoned because noise drowned signal.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/pristine_44_aug_2012.xls

    2. From my esteemed colleague Chris Gilham, who has compared early official temperature records from 2 sources with modern day reconstruction. He, like I do, fail to see more than about 0.5 deg C of warming over 100+ years here, in contrast with the official figure of 0.9 deg C or more. A short intro by Chris then the longer paper.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/explanation_chris_gilham.pdf
    http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html

    3. By my method of Analysis, heatwaves in 5 capitals are not hotter, longer or more frequent, as Establishment advertises. An example of the simple study being completely at odds with the convoluted official talk.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/are_heatwaves_more_severe_version2.pdf

    Welcome to the real world, despite theory.
    Geoff.

    • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 5:22 pm |

      Geoff, have just read all three links on a late Friday afternoon.
      Great stuff! Good show. What woild Mosher say? Take Australia out, doesn’t matter (just repeating what he did say about New Zealand. And I am reliably informed that Kiwis consider Aussies, to merely be inhabitants of their ‘western island’.
      Regards to Down Under from Up Over.

      • ianl8888 | February 14, 2015 at 3:29 am |

        > that Kiwis consider Aussies, to merely be inhabitants of their ‘western island

        Or more precisely, “Middle Earth”

        I mean they made, what, six blockbuster films about that, so it must be true :)

    • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 5:37 pm |

      A Further comment intended to call denizen attention to this important stuff.
      The temperature stuff calls out BOM ACORN, where there is already sufficient furor that a (hope say this right) an investigative commission has been established by order of Parliament. It does however not read on the BEST foodfight just had here.
      The heat wave stuff is critically important, because it goes to the heart of the ‘increasing extremes’ climate change meme now being used everywhere, since the pause means there isn’t global warming in the lifetime of anyone still in high school, not yet eligible to vote. See also essay Credibility Conundrums for a debunking of the 2014 US National Climate Assessment falsely using this same meme.

      • tonyb | February 13, 2015 at 5:47 pm |

        rud

        I think it is very difficult to get a handle on global temperatures and adjustments up or down as we are dealing with so many places and such tiny changes.

        However extreme weather is another mater. As you know I have cited numerous instances of ferocious weather from the past. The last 100 years has been positively benign in comparison with virtually any other century long period in the record, which extends through the LIOA.

        The more extreme events seem to occur in colder/more turbulent times, not in the gently warming/static conditions of today.

        tonyb

      • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 7:52 pm |

        Tonyb, your historical analyses around CET have completely convinced me on extremes. That is why Goeff’s methodical, thorough debunking of increasing Australian heat waves at five capitol cities is such an important counter to the BOM meme there. BOM asserts something that just not true. No different than the US 2014 National Climate Assessment. And his meteorological findings agree fully with yours. Any time Down Under and Up Over evidence agrees, I am all in for global true.

  41. Geoff Sherrington | February 13, 2015 at 3:28 am |

    In my humble opinion, there should be detailed examination of the assumptions and derivations of the correlations between multiple weather stations as their separation increases.
    This type of plot says it all, from page 11 of
    http://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/berkeley-earth-temperature-averaging-process.pdf
    of which our gracious host is an author.

    Graph at
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/BEST_correlation.jpg

    Correlation coefficients of 0.8 or more are not so common in the general natural world, though they can happen.
    However, in correlating ‘loose’ events like a daily temperature record, care has to be taken with abrupt climate shifts, long term persistence, autocorrelation, time zones, latitude etc to state the obvious.
    Because so much temperature reconstruction by gridding depends on this figure, I for one would love to see it dissected more than Robert Rohde, Judith etc did. No, there is no implicit assumption of bad work, just me meeting a personal knowledge barrier in the presence of smarter people.

  42. Stephen Segrest | February 13, 2015 at 5:37 am |

    Planning Engineer — Could you do a post on Time of Use (TOU) rates? Some areas I’d like to see addressed: (1) Why are they seldom offered to Residential Customers? (2) Should they be mandatory in the future? (3) What’s typically the generation kWh cost difference in the U.S. between peaking versus base loads? (4) In Europe, are TOU rates common? (5) Are there studies which show the impact of TOU rates on total energy consumption (e.g., an incentive to be more energy efficient?) (6) Could mandatory TOU rates in States achieve a similar GHG impact of a Carbon Tax on electricity?

    • Planning Engineer | February 13, 2015 at 7:37 am |

      Stephen, I may try to do a more general post on rates and costs. I’m not a particular expert on rate making. One problem is getting programs that customers understand and support that can be paid for and provide net benefits. I’m afraid some are more show than substance. Generally rates are pretty blunt ways to capture costs that work on the average. Historically residential was charged on kwh because that was easy to measure. Some added the minimum charge to collect for those who forced costs for infrastructure but didn’t use enough power to pay for it. Less blunt but still pretty blunt. Beyond energy and peak demand you couldn’t measure much more. Now in todays with computes you can. The costs for such are getting cheaper, but fancy meters needed for TOU are expensive still , so that eats into your savings.

      Fancy meters and time of use measures are still pretty blunt. Costs really get high on a limited number of days not necessarily every day during peak hours. A lot of times when you may be outside the pre-specified hours it might be times (because of mild temperatures) that it would be effective for generating at higher levels. If you take out the most extreme hours I think the difference between peak and non-peak hours shrinks. Plus peak hours recover transmission and distribution costs not tied to generation.
      .
      The high cost at peak result form the portion of the load served by the Incremental cost of the peaking units on line. The base load plants cost the same to run on peak and off peak.

      I think the most cost effective approach is interrupting during actual peak conditions. But few people want to be without AC, or heat on the hottest hours or coldest hours. TOU spreads that out and gets people used to it.

      My question for you Stephen is why/how would you make the programs mandatory. My thinking is if they worked -they would benefit all parties. Are you talking about making consumers subscribe to the programs, or making utilities offer the programs.

      If you would like Stephen – I could shoot you a message and speak off-line sometime.

      • Planning Engineer | February 13, 2015 at 8:01 am |

        Stephen – I’d like to hear your take on biomass and the Clean Power Plan.

      • aaron | February 13, 2015 at 1:49 pm |

        And waste incineration.

      • Stephen Segrest | February 14, 2015 at 8:40 am |

        Planning Engineer — I do not have a concise opinion on either biomass or biofuels. Clearly, I favor market based solutions — something very difficult to do under the current electricity and environmental regulation paradigm in most States.

        As an ex planning engineer for 2 major electric utilities for 20 years (where I have testified before the U.S. Congress), my journey is in trying to find “common ground”. Since you and I have similar to the same education and training, I am certainly aware and sensitive to much/many of the points you raise. But being on the outside now, I am also very aware of the brick walls that exist for any change to the current regulatory framework for power and the environment.

        Clearly, I am very Green but not a one trick pony on CO2. For example, I’ve done a lot of work on soil carbon sequestration with the DOE, its Labs (e.g., ORNL), and EPRI. This work isn’t just about GW, its about making soils more productive (especially targeted to environmentally damaged lands that have occurred with things like mining). But, to develop market based solutions to environmental issues you need a market.

        In my Ag work, I’ve received a ton of awards demonstrating how growing fast growing trees (which coppice/regrow after harvest) can repair environmentally damaged soils through their root systems (eg. acting as a soil catalyst through their active and stable carbon fractions to positively change a lot of things such as pH and nitrogen levels). A market based solution to achieve this would be to co-fire the biomass fuel through a biomass gasifier into an existing coal plant to achieve reductions in SO2 and NOx.

        My ethanol work also does the same thing in (1) repairing damaged soils, (2) creating a product that beats any fossil fuel alternative for oxygenates and octane; (3) uses a waste product of presscake/bagasse as fuel for an IGCC.

      • curryja | February 14, 2015 at 10:24 am |

        Steven, i would be interested in a guest post particularly on your Ag work, email me if you are interested

      • JustinWonder | February 14, 2015 at 11:11 am |

        Stephen Segrest

        Very interesting. I would like to read about your work on soil remediation. I found and read this paper, which lists you as a co-author:

        http://www.treepower.org/papers/co2.pdf

        Do you have any other links to your work?

    • barn E. Rubble | February 14, 2015 at 10:58 am |

      RE: Stephen Segrest | February 13, 2015 at 5:37 am | Reply
      “Planning Engineer — Could you do a post on Time of Use (TOU) rates?”

      I am among those now paying for power with TOU rates here in Southern Ontario. Apparently those with baseboard heating weren’t considered in the current policies. The old energy conservation meme was to turn down the heat at night, and up during the day. However, TOU rates mean the opposite must be done to try save from ever increasing power bills but live in less comfort. Let alone whether doing so could be considered wasteful, IE: heating thru the night. Likewise during the summer to make use of solar heating (again,old energy conservation thinking) for my swimming pool I need to run my pump during ‘peak time’ rates. I’ve started to research the cost difference of using a gas heater and running the pump at night vs. TOU rates to just run the pump during the day. Perhaps this a great example of unexpected consequences . . .

      I believe we’ve seen >50% increase in power rates over the last 10 years mostly due to our current provincial government’s alternative to energy policies.

  43. Paul Matthews | February 13, 2015 at 5:45 am |

    Blatant plug for my paper on climate scepticism, published this week in a social science journal, based on the Air Vent Reader Background thread but also mentioning the Climate Etc Denizens.

    • beththeserf | February 13, 2015 at 5:56 am |

      Fascinatin’. People I know. Hi kim.

    • Joshua | February 13, 2015 at 8:07 am |

      Let me guess – your findings are that “skeptics” are better educated, smarter, more noble, less biased, and better looking than anyone else. And of course, your identity as a “skeptic” is incidental to your findings.

      • Rob Starkey | February 13, 2015 at 9:58 am |

        Joshua
        Regardless of the topic, doesn’t a skeptic show better critical decision making skills than someone who merely accepts a position based on another persons authority. A skeptic evaluates the data and is skeptical unless or until the data reduces/eliminates the uncertainty.

        Isn’t that what we should be seeking from everyone?

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 10:15 am |

        Joshua,
        I’ve not yet read the work but:”Let me guess – your findings are”. Predispositions anyone?

    • curryja | February 13, 2015 at 10:24 am |

      This is a good (and surprising) paper! I was planning on highlighting this in week in review.

    • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 11:30 am |

      Paul,

      Thank you for the link and congrats. Seems like there’s “supposed to be” a black and white portrayal of something that’s really “50 shades of grey” (indications of seduction intended). Would love to see Dr. Curry bringing it more attention.

    • nickels | February 13, 2015 at 3:56 pm |

      “Blogs – Climate Audit is most cited (57 times), followed by RealClimate (42 times) with many negative comments about their attitude and apparent failure to answer questions satisfactorily.”

      Interesting… it was exactly the rudeness and obvious canned propaganda and lack of answers at skeptical science that made me decide to become more active in my skepticism… (although its really my working with climate models and training in modelling that made me skeptical).

    • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 5:44 pm |

      Paul, read it, really liked it. Good job! I was thinking about the credentials of the SKS team that did the botched 97% paper. Ouch.
      Then went to Judith’s denizens thing to double check. Your paper checks, even though there are probable duplications. BTW, Judith, I am embarassed that have not posted there. Comments now seem closed–or I am incompetent (always possinle) . If it reopens, I will contribute my data.

    • JustinWonder | February 14, 2015 at 11:25 am |

      Paul

      I see from your blog you are an applied mathematician with an interest in fluid dynamics and non-linear systems. That seems like a perfect background for someone to evaluate the mathematics in the climate models.

      I looked at your blog and thought it would be great if you listed the posts in your archive by title or subject.

      I look forward to reading your paper.

  44. Bad Andrew | February 13, 2015 at 9:25 am |

    Put some more Squiggly Lines in front of me. I’ll believe in them all.

    Andrew

    • JCH | February 13, 2015 at 10:12 am |

      Glub glub glib goes Kooling in 2015:

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png

      • Bad Andrew | February 13, 2015 at 11:00 am |

        I’m hanging on every squiggle and wiggle, spike and trough, plateau and valley.

        Andrew

      • Bad Andrew | February 13, 2015 at 11:01 am |

        This is so exciting.

        Andrew

      • Rob Ellison | February 13, 2015 at 3:20 pm |

        Neutral El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) indicators include central to eastern Pacific sea surface temperatures, temperatures beneath the sea surface and cloudiness near the Date Line. The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has returned to near to threshold values, but this is primarily due to tropical weather activity near Tahiti rather than a broadscale climate signal. The SOI is often affected by weather phenomena during this time of the year.

        The late summer to early autumn period is the time of year when ENSO events naturally decay. Forecasting beyond this time is therefore difficult, and some caution should be exercised. International models surveyed by the Bureau indicate that tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures are likely to remain within the neutral range for at least the next three months.

    • Bad Andrew | February 13, 2015 at 10:29 am |

      JCH,

      More! More! More!

      Andrew

      • JCH | February 13, 2015 at 6:26 pm |

        Neutral neutral neutral. The neutral heatwave continues. Why would it end? The last I heard, it was because of a looming change in the SOI. So there’s the SOI.

  45. A. Voip | February 13, 2015 at 10:23 am |

    The way forward as Sci-Fi has predicted for years, is a future that merges biology with technology giving humans immortality all while cradled in your personal, mechanical, avatar. Mimmicing what we have going on already.
    Why is this?

    • A. Voip | February 13, 2015 at 10:37 am |

      I only hope, someone is getting great pleasure out of it.

    • John Smith (it's my real name) | February 13, 2015 at 12:24 pm |

      I think much of climate alarmist culture was birthed in Sci-Fi novels
      post WWI and WWII apocalyptic thinking
      CO2 as Godzilla’s replacement
      man’s tool making skills are antithetical to nature and will ultimately doom the planet
      original sin replaced by runaway technology
      the alarmist psychoanalyze me, I’ll psychoanalyze them back

      one of my favorite books
      “the Physics of Immortality” by Frank J. Tipler

  46. jim2 | February 13, 2015 at 10:54 am |

    The ~$50/bbl price of oil persists and the ~$10/bbl year out contango has also persisted. This places a downward pressure on prices. Inventories continue to build also. Some believe the current price is a result of an ongoing short squeeze in a big market.

    11/27. 10:42 ET.
    OIL________68.92___-4.77
    BRENT______72.49___-0.09
    NAT GAS_____4.22___-0.1357
    RBOB GAS____1.91

    1/16/15
    OIL_______48.69
    BRENT_____49.90
    NAT GAS____3.127
    RBOB GAS___1.3588

    1/23/15
    OIL_______45.59
    BRENT_____48.55
    NAT GAS___2.986
    RBOB GAS__1.3479

    1/30/15
    OIL_______45.68
    BRENT_____50.11
    NAT GAS____2.684
    RBOB GAS___1.3641

    2/6/15
    OIL_______51.69
    BRENT_____58.16
    NAT GAS____2.579
    RBOB GAS___1.559

    2/13/15
    OIL_______53.17
    BRENT_____61.53
    NAT GAS____2.686
    RBOB GAS___1.6192

    • Rob Starkey | February 13, 2015 at 11:15 am |

      And if any of us KNEW when prices would change and by how much…they would be worth billions.

    • jim2 | February 13, 2015 at 11:45 am |

      Oil company stocks are extremely volatile right now. The stocks lurch up or down in concert with the oil.

  47. Randizzle | February 13, 2015 at 11:05 am |

    Interesting paper/survey addressing the sliding levels of trust in NGO’s, Gov’t, business etc. globally
    http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2015-edelman-trust-barometer/

  48. Lucifer | February 13, 2015 at 11:26 am |

    And another thing…

    Dr. Casola put forth a meme – ‘a degree or two might not sound like much…but remember that the last glacial maximum was only 5 degrees colder…’

    Seems to me this is invalid. Not because temperatures weren’t about 5 degrees lower than recent ( or at least as accurately as measurement and proxies allow ). No, the problem is that the ice ages aren’t caused by global temperature falling as the meme implies. The incoming solar radiation is about the same throughout the glacial cycle, it’s just the distribution that changes. True, there was snow/ice albedo feedback to glaciation, but that makes it even more proper to say ‘ the last glacial only caused about 5 degree drop in global average temperature.’

  49. Wagathon | February 13, 2015 at 11:40 am |

    Looking at the link to the Quadrant article by Tony Thomas, I don’t think the comparison of the Charlie Hebdo massacre to the suppression tactics of global warming alarmists is out of line. Just because it’s not possible to calculate the millions of lives sacrificed on the altar of liberal fascism doesn’t mean we should be unaware that the Left is on a killing spree against the world’s poor with its pogrom against CO2 which serves only to raise the cost and decrease the availability of life-saving, culture-enriching energy.

  50. gymnosperm | February 13, 2015 at 12:25 pm |

    “locations in the Berkeley
    Earth merged dataset are reported only to the nearest tenth of a
    degree in latitude and longitude. This makes it impossible to identify
    each station as definitively urban or rural…Rather than
    compare urban sites to non-urban, thereby explicitly estimating UHI
    effects, we split sites into very-rural and not very-rural”

    Please, go back and do whatever it takes to EXPLICITLY compare urban and rural sites!

  51. miker613 | February 13, 2015 at 1:06 pm |

    I’m interested in the moral issue that some have raised about the Nic Lewis/M&F issue. I’m assuming that now that M&F have posted their response describing their methodology at Climate Lab (http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/marotzke-forster-response/), it is no longer obvious that their statistical methods were a beginner mistake. They may still be wrong, but apparently that’s a lot harder to work out; still ongoing. Pekka seems to be taking a very active role as referee, which is interesting.
    If that is true (it’s open to disagreement), should Nic Lewis/Gordon Hughes immediately retract their claim that “The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees” and apologize for it? It was widely publicized in skeptical circles as a big gotcha, and appears to have been (at best) based on inadequate information.
    I understand that they still may think that the methods are bad, but they don’t appear to be a textbook example of egregious statistics. Is that enough, or do they have the right to say, I still think this is going to be completely wrong, and we’ll talk when we’re done working it out.
    I’d add that if they never work it out, and never apologize, and leave their original statement in place without justification, it would do a lot to diminish them in at least my opinion.

    • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 6:31 pm |

      miker, as someone who passed the Ph.D exam in econometrics (exactly the Marotzke issue) at Harvard, a very simple answer. Lewis is right, Moritzke is wrong. Steve Mc agrees, and has taken on Richard Betts on the issue.
      The error arose innocently. Forster’s estimates from his paper last year were just used by Marotzke. Neither realized this introduced a circularity. Regressing a variable on a version of itself is just nonsense.
      The bigger issue is the illogic of the conclusion and abstract, which would have/should have been caught and exposes corruption of peer review.
      The conclusion essentially asserts thatnthe two most important (paper assertion) emergent internal structural properties of GCM models (alpha and kappa) have NO impact on their multidecadal output results. Huh!?!
      Huge red flad that any methodology producing such a result MUST be fatally flawed somehow. Lewis showed how.

      • Joshua | February 14, 2015 at 7:51 pm |

        =>> “miker, as someone who passed the Ph.D exam in econometrics (exactly the Marotzke issue) at Harvard,”

        Another Climate Etc. thread, another appeal to (self) authority.

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 2:08 am |

        It’s appropriate and informative for people who have two names to state their qualifications. Little envious and anonymous runts can whine about it all they want. So everybody is happy here at Judith’s house.

      • Mike Flynn | February 15, 2015 at 4:42 am |

        Joshua,

        You wrote –

        “Another Climate Etc. thread, another appeal to (self) authority.”

        Rather like a mathematician claiming to be a climatologist, or another self styled climatologist claiming to be a Nobel Laureate (even if it was a Nobel Peace Prize, rather than something actually relating to science.)

        What exactly was the purpose of your comment, if any?

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Matthew R Marler | February 15, 2015 at 2:48 pm |

        Rud Istvan: The error arose innocently. Forster’s estimates from his paper last year were just used by Marotzke. Neither realized this introduced a circularity

        I think that is a good take on it. However, after having the circularity pointed out to them, M&F are still denying that there is any circularity. I wrote a little more below.

      • Jim D | February 16, 2015 at 9:09 pm |

        R Graf, maybe you didn’t notice that Lewis substituted terms from an instantaneous energy balance equation into another one that applies on multi-decadal time scales. You should be asking if that is valid to do. They are actually both the same equation, but with different averaging assumptions applied, so why would he want to substitute from one to the other?

      • R Graf | February 16, 2015 at 10:07 pm |

        Jim, I’ve run the equations in every possible iteration once I was sure that T and T are the same on both sides. The algebra produces nonsense. The equation T = F/a + V where V is variability, and (a) are linear feedbacks, as assumed by M&F, is the equation of a line, with unpredictable variation when adding the constant V in the end, to get your coordinate T. This is a standard equation of a line found in every text book on math. If you incorporate T into F in any way, shape or form you are out of bounds of mathematics, in perpetual motion world crazyland. Try it. Some brilliant soles beat their brains out for a week trying to get valid regressions while trying to follow rules I don’t understand, that seemed to have a lot of loopholes to suspend common sense. To me this exercise could be used as a case study climate science, and I hope it upsets you a little too that its credibility is going to take a warranted hit from this. Nic’s intuition smelled out the paper because its results contradicted his own and even Forster 2013’s. Read the abstracts of each. Where can you imagine Nic is?

      • Jim D | February 16, 2015 at 11:09 pm |

        R Graf, I don’t think you will find it is acceptable mathematics to substitute one form of an equation into a different form of the same equation as Lewis did. If you do that, anything can be proven and hilarity ensues. You need independent equations to make substitutions. dT in one equation includes natural variation and in the other it doesn’t. It is not even the same dT.

      • R Graf | February 16, 2015 at 11:44 pm |

        You are right. Its a matter of what the equations represent. In this case a study was done to determine F from T then in a later study that assumed the same T found F on the other side. It was the iteration that did them in.

      • Jim D | February 16, 2015 at 11:51 pm |

        R Graf, you didn’t understand what I said. If Lewis insists on substituting an instantaneous form of an equation into a multi-decadal approximation of the same equation, you see that as fine, and that says it all.

      • R Graf | February 17, 2015 at 12:18 am |

        Ok. My point is the only way they can be in good shape in the second study is if they brought all the assumptions of values for the variables with them. You can’t leave some behind and just take what you want because if you do you really are substituting what you got earlier for one of the unknowns, which puts it on both sides of the equation. If they just solved for F fresh without regard to the earlier study it might have been garbage but at least valid garbage. Substituting part from the earlier guarantees garbage because all the other factors will be falsely assumed. Am I making sense?

      • Jim D | February 17, 2015 at 12:41 am |

        This is where Lewis has to show his work. There is no self-correlation. It is clear from the graphs posted in other papers, and here, and it is clear from M&F’s results. Contrary to what you think, it is possible to determine a forcing from observing the response which is how Forster did it. It is only consistent then to use the same forcing when assessing its impact on 15-year and 62-year trends relative to other factors. If you would prefer them to use a different forcing, say what that is. I am sure there would have been complaints if they had used a different forcing from the one derived by Forster for those same models.

      • R Graf | February 17, 2015 at 1:05 am |

        You are right that it is confusing and all have struggled with defining exactly what would be kosher. I have come to the conclusion that in a model that is completely derived that you must diagnose all at the same time with the same assumptions and weights applied to each models and still there will be error but valid. If you begin to cross model substitute or cross run substitute you run afoul of standing on a valid equation any more.

      • Joshua | February 17, 2015 at 12:27 pm |

        One of the more interesting aspects of the climate wars is the moving target that = “skeptics” approach to appeal to (self) authority. So now someone’s academic credentials should be used to evaluate the veracity of their opinion? How does that work if many other people of similar qualifications have different opinions? So now the fact of attending Harvard (has anyone ever heard before that Rud attended Harvard*) should be useful information of assessing their opinion? How does that work if many other people from the same or similarly esteemed institutions have different opinions?

        But Rud’s comment is sameolsameol – whereas miker’s may just be somewhat of a different animal.

        * I mean outside of him having mentioned in in comments perhaps 100 times or so?

      • Joshua | February 17, 2015 at 12:30 pm |

        Mike –

        ==> “Rather like a mathematician claiming to be a climatologist, or another self styled climatologist claiming to be a Nobel Laureate (even if it was a Nobel Peace Prize, rather than something actually relating to science.)”

        Thanks for reinforcing my point.

        ==> “What exactly was the purpose of your comment, if any?

        Actually, I think that you captured it rather nicely in my excerpt from your comment.

        Again, thanks.

      • Joseph | February 17, 2015 at 1:19 pm |

        The bigger issue is the illogic of the conclusion and abstract, which would have/should have been caught and exposes corruption of peer review.

        Is this an example of the evil scientist meme, there Rud? Are they out to hoodwink us out of driving our cars or steal our air conditioning? I don’t know, what are you getting at?

    • R Graf | February 13, 2015 at 6:44 pm |

      “… if they never work it out, and never apologize, and leave their original statement in place without justification, it would do a lot to diminish them in at least my opinion.”

      What did you expect exactly? Very few people take it back even if sued. Once could predict that M&F would have personal allies as well as philosophical ones that are ready to defend the cause even when they would never defend such unfounded claim, questionable methods and non-disclosure of error or prediction.

      The argument about one speeding through a red light is short when there is a picture of you doing it. But a physicist and statistician may never resolve an argument about the robustness of regression if parties do not wish to.

      At least now the beware sign is up for those who read the Science New Daily article that begins “Skeptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments…” know they are no longer reading science.

      • ianl8888 | February 14, 2015 at 3:21 am |

        > But a physicist and statistician may never resolve an argument about the robustness of regression if parties do not wish to.

        I put a comment on CA saying exactly that (in fact, we’ve seen this argument several times before) but SMc saw fit to remove it, heavens only knows why

      • R Graf | February 14, 2015 at 9:00 pm |

        Sorry to hear they removed your comment. I am just thankful they have not muted me as I am really involved there. I am fascinated with the gap between the news release claims of the prestigious Max Plank Inst. and the truth you can see on CA and here at CLB:
        http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/marotzke-forster-response/#comment-451724

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 14, 2015 at 9:14 pm |

        R Graf, I haven’t plowed through the papers but have noted in comments that historic or pre-industrial (pi) models runs were used in the estimation of dF. Most of the pi runs I have looked at are pretty much smooth hockey stick handles since CO2 is “the” forcing. Other than the circularity issue, the “reference” for dF is a major issue.

      • R Graf | February 14, 2015 at 9:36 pm |

        Capt. D
        Do you happen to know for a fact if CMIP5 models have any random generated noise component, and if so how long of and interval? How long the ocean uptake is typically figured a factor, whether its oscillation or constant or Gaussian, etc… Also, how much TOA imbalance is typically factored in and for how long?

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 14, 2015 at 11:05 pm |

        R. Graf, no, I am not fluent in R so I am limited to climate explorer stuff and what I have seen posted. Ocean heat uptake and TOA would be closely related to the average ocean temperature or “potential” global average ocean temperature which is most likely assumed to be “normal” meaning it started with no imbalance other than volcanic, solar and land use, all weak, prior to industrial. Some include an estimate of a LIA, but I am not sure what the range of values are. AKAIK, there is no random noise added to simulate natural variability which I believe is only assumed to be +/- 0.1 C.

      • R Graf | February 15, 2015 at 12:25 am |

        Thanks guys. I think there are a bunch of us on CA doing some crash homework. Jimmy, I understand your point and saw it made but I also still have some doubts on oversimplifying the problems (plural). First Nic and MM pointed out the circularity of T. Then it is thought by Pekka to be circualr but producing a small error, insignificant to overall error. Then ATTP said what you said about canceling out. Then a stat professor said no it doesn’t. And how can you be sure it cancels if you cannot assume they are exactly the same value from prior estimation to current use which is how T appears one from each on both sides of the equation? How do you even know for sure that the black box is following the First Law (which is why I asked about the random generated variability)?

        Now I am wondering if F was derived as stated by M&F since if it was a simple as F=T-N with N being the listed TOA imbalance used for the model, then it would be a snap. But they said getting F was very hard, which is likely Forster’s expertise role for being in the paper. If it was hard it was because F had to consider variable feedbacks. If this is the case then the equation really does collapse because all you have then is the error in calculating F as being your tiny natural variance showing up.

        But the I am most interested in the truth gap in the news release. IT looks like the whole motivation of the paper was to get a Nature published paper which could have a new cycle and give a false impression that the models are right on track.

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 15, 2015 at 6:57 am |

        R. Graf,

        One the pi thing.

        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_tas_Amon_onemean_piControl_0-360E_-20-20N_n_+++.png

        Using climate explorer which may have some mask issues, that is the model mean for the pi run they have about +/- 0.1 C variability with that odd “noise” pattern. There isn’t a good direct comparison, but that is about 2 C cooler than today.

        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_tas_Amon_onemean_rcp45_0-360E_-20-20N_n_+++.png

        That is the model mean from 1861 which indicates that there wasn’t a LIA or MWP of any significance. Remember that is for 20S-20N tropics.

        https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-OvQHzJy8gFU/VLF3XHImAqI/AAAAAAAAMGM/X1vv5Tx0kiI/w689-h411-no/oppo%2Bover%2Bmann.png

        According to Oppo et al. 2009 there was about a 1.5C temperature swing in the tropics from the MWP to LIA, Mann of course matches the models.

        So most of the model variability is likely related to tropical feedbacks due to the high latent and cloud variation in the tropics related to a 2 C change.

        Models should include a convective triggering kernel with a value around 28C (301K) which is a negative feedback. If they miss the tropical actual temperatures they would need to “calibrate” convective triggering kernel which would create more variability between models if the calibration isn’t “standard”. That is probably the “natural” variability that Forster et al. “discovered”. Convective trigger doesn’t really kick in for another 50 years or so model years when models catch up with actual tropical surface temperatures.

        I believe Kenneth Fritsch (on the blackboard)is looking at something along the same lines.

      • R Graf | February 15, 2015 at 11:37 am |

        Capn, If I understand you correctly, if you run the models from the year 1000-1800AD you would get an oscillating noise line with peak anomalies about every 15-20 years. Is that a correct characterization in the absence of delta in CO2? There is no LIA of MWP or can the randomness meander to diverge from the line on 100-yr scales?

        If there is possible divergence from the line how do the models get back on track if random walk takes them off course from historical record?

        Can you look at the Forster 2013 quote I put in my comment to Jim D and give me your interpretation of what he is saying? Here is the link to the whole paper. Look around line 30. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mzelinka/Forster_etal_subm.pdf

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 11:50 am |

        Skeptics have been arguing for a long time that 60 years should be the minimum time period considered instead of the consensus 30 years since that just takes care of the oscillations were are fairly sure about. I can’t wait for the realization of a 1000 year oscillation hits them and they start warning us the warming will be intolerable 2000 years from now.

      • kim | February 15, 2015 at 11:55 am |

        Ignore the millennial at your perennial.
        =================

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 12:24 pm |

        steven, some skeptics are saying we should evaluate the models on 15 years, specifically the last 15 years, which was the target of the Marotzke and Forster paper, who said that is not going to tell you anything about the models. Many skeptics are now very unhappy that they pointed this out.

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 1:30 pm |

        And jimmy dee yammers on. The problem with the models is that they are not physical. they are very poor representations of the actual climate, period. This doesn’t bother the 97% crowd, who have convinced themselves they have got the physics right. And if you got the physics right you are justified in taking liberties with the logic and the math to get the correct answers to support the cause. The pal reviewers will back up their fellow travelers no matter how hinky the analysis. The 97% climate science is built on two pillars: confirmation bias and noble cause corruption. It’s teetering.

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 4:48 pm |

        Jim, so skeptics were saying the models were wrong after 15 years. Now climate scientists are saying they were too because they can’t do 15 years. The learning curve is poor but the consensus is slowly learning, isn’t that right? I guess we won’t be seeing that meme that 30 years equals climate anymore now?

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 4:53 pm |

        steven, the models can predict the amplitude of natural variability but not the phase, hence the lack of correlation in M&F. Let me know if you need more explaining than that. I know it is confusing, but keep plugging away at it, and you might get it.

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 15, 2015 at 5:56 pm |

        R. Graf “Capn, If I understand you correctly, if you run the models from the year 1000-1800AD you would get an oscillating noise line with peak anomalies about every 15-20 years. Is that a correct characterization in the absence of delta in CO2? ”

        I would simple say you get noise. Absent CO2 forcing you only have weak solar and weak volcanic since in model world neither have any significant impact.

        “There is no LIA of MWP or can the randomness meander to diverge from the line on 100-yr scales?”

        The only significant forcing I see is CO2 so there isn’t any significant meandering because everything else is muted. Volcanic forcing is model as only having a weak short term impact on the atmosphere with no longer term change in ocean heat capacity. The models basically don’t do anything until CO2 forcing kicks in.

        “If there is possible divergence from the line how do the models get back on track if random walk takes them off course from historical record?”

        Without “calibration” the models would tend to get off track. With “calibration” the model are given a software lobotomy so they don’t stray.

        “an you look at the Forster 2013 quote I put in my comment to Jim D and give me your interpretation of what he is saying? Here is the link to the whole paper. Look around line 30. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mzelinka/Forster_etal_subm.pdf”

        Forster is basically saying the CMIP5 models had lobotomies and the CMIP3 didn’t. Meaning the CMIP5 models are “over calibrated” and the CMIP3 models maybe under “calibrated” . “there is no indication of any tendency by modelling groups to adjust their models in order to produce observed global mean temperature trends.” Forster 2013.

        And they did a fine job of not getting anything right. In the future though the models produce a wide spread, i.e. start getting off track. So the models appear to not be “adjusted to match temperatures” but “calibrated to not run away due to being too sensitive to “natural” variability.

        “The inter-model spread of temperature change is principally driven by forcing differences in the present day and climate feedback differences in 2095, although forcing differences are still important for model spread at 2095. Ocean heat uptake efficiency differences between models did not significantly affect model spread.” Forster 2013

        Oh my, what could it be? Forcing in present day would be CO2 more than anything and feedback differences in 2095 have one thing in common, they don’t get tropical SST or tropical surface temperatures now and have a range of a few degrees. You need accurate absolute temperatures to determine water vapor, cloud and convective feedback.

        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_tas_Amon_ACCESS1-0_rcp45_0-360E_-20-20N_n_+++.png

        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_tas_Amon_CanESM2_rcp45_0-360E_-20-20N_n_+++.png

        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_tas_Amon_GISS-E2-H_p1_rcp45_0-360E_-20-20N_n_+++.png

        The tropical tas’s are all over the place. There is as much or more variability in their initial conditions as there is in their “forecasts”. So discussing Forster or M&F is pretty much a waste of time. The elephant in the room is inaccuracy of actual surface temperatures.

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 6:07 pm |

        Jim, explain it to me more. I need it. Does 30 years still count as climate as you have been saying here for years or doesn’t it? Were the skeptics correct when they said a minimum of 60 years to include the known oscillations or weren’t they?

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 6:18 pm |

        steven, 30 years is good. 15 isn’t. This shows why. It shows decadal trends obtained with differently smoothed data, 15 and 30 years. 15 years is all over the place, including the current dip. Thirty years shows what are probably the main forcing changes over the period without the spurious stuff. There is a clear difference.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:240/mean:120/from:1900/derivative/scale:120/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:120/mean:60/from:1900/derivative/scale:120

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 6:40 pm |

        Jim, if 30 years are good what is this 62 years they are talking about? I suppose I could go read it myself but I already know why they are saying 62 years since it is self-evident. Why it isn’t self-evident to you is just one of life’s little mysteries.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 6:48 pm |

        steven, they only examined 15 and 62 years. They didn’t say why. I think the trends over 30 years are dominated by forcing. They were asking a different question which was about detecting forcing differences between models.

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 6:55 pm |

        Jim, if models are good for detecting climate that means you have to define climate. It appears they have decided to define it as 62 years which is what you have to do to separate the secular trend out from the oscillations. That is why they didn’t mention 30 years. That is what skeptics have been saying all along. Like I said, the consensus learning curve is poor but eventually they will get there.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 6:59 pm |

        The secular trend is obvious at 30 years. However, they may need a longer period to separate the models from each other which was the goal of the paper. Put it this way. If any of the models had no feedback, that would have stood out by 30 years.

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 7:05 pm |

        “steven, they only examined 15 and 62 years. They didn’t say why.”

        Well, we know why: 15 and 62 years are kind of interesting, numerologically significant numbers and they look good together. Or, it could it be they tried other combos 15-61 and they didn’t get the answer they wanted, until they got to 62. It’s called confirmation bias, in the normal sciences. Supposed to be avoided, but what do those normal scientists know about the CAGW physics.

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 7:09 pm |

        Don, of course that is why. Poor Jim thinks they never even considered 30 years which is how they were defining climate for the last decade or more. That is as believable as Mueller slapping his head and saying suddenly it hit me to check CO2.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 7:14 pm |

        steven, OK, you can ask Don your future questions. You don’t accept reasonable answers from someone who has checked the paper, but believe his hook, line and sinker. I really don’t know why I bother.

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 7:21 pm |

        Jim, your answer makes no sense. They wanted enough time to separate the models? They could have picked 30 years and they would have all been just fine, right? So they could have just said the models are all great at 30 years! Well, maybe only for certain 30 years periods but not for others is the right answer of course.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 7:24 pm |

        steven, I said they did not say why they chose 62 years. Maybe 30 would have been just fine. I don’t know.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 7:28 pm |

        They say only this “We analyse trends over both 15 and 62 years,
        because these were the trend lengths primarily considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 5 (AR5)”. Make of that what you want.

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 7:33 pm |

        Poor jimmy dee knows everything else imaginable, but he doesn’t know why they picked 62 years, instead of say 57 years. Well, they didn’t reveal that info. The reviewers and editors at Nature didn’t care to know, so why should we? Stop bothering jimmy, steven. If they don’t want to tell, we can’t make them. They are in charge of the climate science narrative. And they apparently care enough about their credibility to give anybody a straight answer, or to make available their data and methods.

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 7:40 pm |

        Jim, not much to make of it I haven’t already explained. 62 is the new 30.

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 7:46 pm |

        You are on a roll, jimmy. You found the lame reason for 62 years, after all. We knew it couldn’t be legitimate.

        Pekka is really in a corner now, over on CA. He’s pinned and they are counting him out. Your two little plots could save him. Go get em, yimmy! I will actually be disappointed if Pekka goes down, ignobly. He’s one of the good guys.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 7:55 pm |

        It cancels out supposed quasi-cyclical things things like the PDO. AMO and stadium wave, but those only have an amplitude of a tenth of a degree, so you don’t need to because the warming is 0.6-0.7 C. The IPCC considered 1951-2012, which is 62 years. The next report might, at a guess, use a longer period.

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 7:59 pm |

        Jim, you are making progress. We can discuss amplitude some other time since you probably need some time to mourn your 30 year meme.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 8:09 pm |

        steven, you haven’t explained why you prefer 60 years to 30. Is it because of the stadium wave/PDO/AMO? Or is it because you only see the climate forcing signal if you go back to 1950 rather than 1980? I would only say 30 is a minimum, so 60 is fine if you want to use that instead. Also give your thoughts on using 15 years to look for climate signals.

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 8:24 pm |

        Jim, 60 years is the minimum you need to take into account ocean oscillations. Of course since they are oscillations and not cycles they don’t all take the same amount of time. So I would say if you want to properly take into account the most recent oscillations you should go from the 1940s to the 2000s. Why you guys like 1950 so much right after big temperature drop is beyond me (not really). I am not aware of any literature that states 15 years is long enough to falsify the models.

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm |

        Let me clarify, 15 years unless you adjust for ENSO. Then you have Knight et al 2008.

      • R Graf | February 15, 2015 at 8:31 pm |

        Don’t break this thread or anything. :) I just posted the basic algebra behind Pekka’s and ATTP’s argument about the T (temp) being different in 2013 versus 2015. It’ just amazing how someone could try to pull this off, and even more so that defenders got sucked in. This is huge. There is no way around that this thing is circular. I would be thinking that Nic, M and M have realized this and just want see who else wonders into the trap. ITS CIRCULAR!!!

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 9:14 pm |

        Nobody here has given me their view of whether they even expect dF and dT to be correlated in 15-year periods. This is the central point, and we don’t see any opinions. Maybe you want to have different answers for the real world and models. I don’t know what the skeptical argument is on this correlation. I understand the reluctance, because whichever way you go on this answer will contradict Lewis in some way because Yes means Lewis was wrong and No means M&F were right. It’s a tough predicament for the skeptics.

      • steven | February 15, 2015 at 9:39 pm |

        Jim, argue if there is circular reasoning involved? I don’t see how there can’t be if the models are involved so I haven’t bothered to pay attention to this particular scuffle.

      • R Graf | February 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm |

        “Nobody here has given me their view of whether they even expect dF and dT to be correlated in 15-year periods.”

        This is a “when did you stop beating your wife?” question.

        Clearly if the forcing is there it does not necessarily show up in the 16-year interval since CO2 would be forcing away are unprecedented pace for the last 16 years. If CO2 is not causing forcing then we better get on to engineering ways to stop Greenland from melting and develop fusion energy so we can do that and the other things, as JFK might say.

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 15, 2015 at 10:01 pm |

        JimD, ““Nobody here has given me their view of whether they even expect dF and dT to be correlated in 15-year periods.””

        Actually I did JimD, I said why would you expect wild assed guesses to be correlated.

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2015/02/on-marotzke-and-forster-wag-index.html

        Perhaps that is what climate models need, a WAG-Index?

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm |

        So, from the answers it seems that M&F are right that forcing plays very little into 16-year dT changes. The reason is that dN cancels the dT part in the formula. Otherwise you would get dT and dF being correlated, which is not true. The reason it is not circular is because dN is there, and it cancels every part of dT except for that caused by dF. It decorrelates dT from dF. In short periods dF is almost zero compared to these other two terms, and they therefore almost exactly cancel. Why is this not clear?

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 10:07 pm |

        “Nobody here has given me their view of whether they even expect dF and dT to be correlated in 15-year periods. This is the central point, and we don’t see any opinions. Maybe you want to have different answers for the real world and models.”

        I will help you yimmy, most of us would like to have the models that we fund give answers that match the real world. We don’t expect that, because we know that the models are very poor representations of the actual climate. Whether it’s model output compared with observations, or model output compared with model output, we have not been impressed. Show us what you got, yimmy.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 10:14 pm |

        captd, so Lewis thinks they would be correlated. What do you think of that view? Don’t be afraid of the skeptics who will come after you. Just say it.

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 15, 2015 at 10:23 pm |

        JimD, No, I disagree with Nic on this because I don’t think any part of the method is valid enough to determine anything. What is actually being “estimated” is the degree of wild assed guess error. You have to remember that in the addition to the circularity issue is the “selection” issue. Add to that the what f’ing surface are we talking about issue, the exactly how many assumptions are involved issue and you have mathterbationistics at their finest.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 10:30 pm |

        OK, Willis E has provided Forster’s forcing terms. Do they look like they are going to correlate with temperatures in 15-year windows. For 62 years, yes, and M&F say that, but 15 year variability is very weak except volcanoes. They correlate with each other because of volcanoes, but their annual temperatures won’t correlate with each other because of their internal variability. This is what M&F are saying.
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/cmip5-forster-forcings-all.jpg?w=560
        Here’s the CMIP5 temperatures. Do volcanoes dominate? No. Natural variability dominates. Lewis wrong. M&F right.
        http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/1_IPCCAR5WGI_AR5_Fig9-8.jpg

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 10:38 pm |

        captd, that is the point. With the models you have all the data you need, and can determine that dF and dT are not correlated because of the presence of dN. In the real world both dF and dN are very hard to evaluate precisely, but OHC and satellites tell us about dN, and GHGs dominate dF.

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm |

        JimD, “natural variability dominates”

        My ass, stupidity dominates.

        http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yuTurrl7dUM/VN_yqpHwrYI/AAAAAAAAMr4/Vif4ZzAlFhM/s1600/basins%2Bno%2Blag.png

        None of the model come close to the “natural” variability that caused the ~1915 dip and the 1941 pop. That is the three thermodynamic ocean Basins, the entire southern hemisphere oceans are one thermal basin thanks to the Antarctic Circumpolar current.

        http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vra-Dl3HwXU/VN_zkilDdtI/AAAAAAAAMsA/k6PI6mwNa44/s1600/basins%2Blag.png

        The Northern Atlantic lags the southern hemisphere oceans by about 5 years, the northern Pacific lags the northern Atlantic by another 5.5 years. Since the model don’t “get” the complex response to volcanic forcing M/F is estimating wild assed guess error.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 10:43 pm |

        Don M, Pekka has been hitting a brick wall over there. He has made his argument ten different ways and all you get in return is a repeat about circularity. It is a complete waste of time. Lewis should have checked the data itself. That’s what a good skeptic does. He might have found, annoyingly for him, that dF was somehow uncorrelated with dT after all. It must have been that darned dN term that he forgot to account for, he’ll say.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm |

        captd, those could easily have been solar variations. It is not just coincidence that the sun was weak in 1910, and strengthened up until 1940. In other words, the forcing change may have been underestimated if the models all missed it. Why have you ruled out the solar possibility?

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 15, 2015 at 11:02 pm |

        JimD, ” Why have you ruled out solar…?”

        I haven’t, I said “complex” volcanic forcing. It is difficult to separate volcanic and solar because the solar data sucks.

        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DX4uVxgjlRY/VN_4h5-rmfI/AAAAAAAAMsQ/ETc1Ql_h_LU/s1600/tropics%2Band%2BSH.png

        I am focusing on the tropics which has the greatest correlation with “global” oceans and land to try and tease some of that out, but there are a lot of stumbling blocks along the way.

        https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-OvQHzJy8gFU/VLF3XHImAqI/AAAAAAAAMGM/X1vv5Tx0kiI/w689-h411-no/oppo%2Bover%2Bmann.png

        Oppo et al. 2009 appears the be the best “global” temperature reconstruction for the past 2000 years and also the best Ocean heat uptake/loss estimate for the past t\2000 years. But that is a long way from figuring out what time frame needs to be considered for combined solar and volcanic forcing. But so far it looks like about half of the “forcing” of the 20th century is actual lagged response.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 11:12 pm |

        captd, then put the blame on the data, not the models, if they are driven by the wrong forcing data. There is a difference. Forcing is an area of uncertainty especially as you go back to pre-1950 times. You have to consider that the LIA and MWP (if it was global) might be just forcing too.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 11:17 pm |

        Don M, Willis is keeping quiet but he could prove Lewis wrong with his Excel spreadsheets in a second. That dN term is anti-correlated with dT. Who would have thunk it?

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 11:36 pm |

        You should probably read the Nic Lewis analysis, yimmy. Here’s part of it:

        “As is now evident, Marotzke’s equation (3) involves regressing ΔT on a linear function of itself. This circularity fundamentally invalidates the regression model assumptions. Accordingly, reliance should not be placed on any of the results in the Nature paper. That is particularly the case for the 62-year trend results, where the offending, non-exogenous ΔF’ term dominates the ensemble spread of GMST trends for start years from the 1920s on.

        Since the ΔF predictor variable is a linear function of the response variable ΔT, which becomes larger relative to noise as the start year progresses, it is hardly surprising that the across-ensemble variations of ΔF are the main contributor to the ensemble spread of GMST 62-year trends starting from the 1920s onwards. As the start date progresses the intermodel variation in 62-year trends in ΔF is increasingly determined by intermodel variation in trends in α ΔT: ΔN trends are noisy but intermodel variation in trends in ΔN is of lesser relative importance for later start years. However, since ΔT is not an exogenous variable, domination in turn of intermodel variation in trends in GMST by variation in trends in ΔF tells one nothing reliable about the relative contributions of forcing, feedback and ocean heat uptake efficiency to the intermodel spread in GMST trends.”

      • R Graf | February 15, 2015 at 11:58 pm |

        Jim D, You are correct that dN and dT are anti-correlated. You are also right that dN dominates dT in the short run. The models specify different dN values in each model because they do not currently know how long the lag is to be able to warm the troposphere from forcing. I don’t think it’s 15 years. It gets cold in the desert night in about 5 hours.

        It might be a tempting place for warmers to hide the warming on the way. Also, the ocean uptake was gladly added to CMIP5 as it gives another place to hide the energy. That reminds me, Marotzke says the oceans are warming even if the air is paused. Isn’t HadSST3 the ocean temp? Isn’t it lower than the air temp rise for the last 20 years?

        BTW, feel free to answer in a new thread at bottom.

      • Jim D | February 16, 2015 at 1:24 am |

        R Graf, dN comes from the model physics, especially the heat uptake rate of the ocean, which varies globally, of course, but dN represents an average. It is not a specified quantity in the same way that alpha is not. The exchange between the dT term and dN is the essence of natural ocean cycles like ENSO.

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 16, 2015 at 6:45 am |

        JimD, “captd, then put the blame on the data, not the models, if they are driven by the wrong forcing data. There is a difference. Forcing is an area of uncertainty especially as you go back to pre-1950 times. You have to consider that the LIA and MWP (if it was global) might be just forcing too.”

        Have you considered the combination of errors is greater than the estimated impact? Not ready for prime time is a good description of the situation.

      • R Graf | February 16, 2015 at 7:43 am |

        I understand what you say about the oceans delaying the warming with their heat capacity and thus leaving the tropopause out of radiative balance. I just don’t know if I buy it. Looking at the paleo climate trends for a few weeks, trying to take a crack at the glaciation cycle, I came up with the notion that perhaps oceans, when they have healthy currents, spreading heat more efficiently, that dilutes the atmospheric concentrations of temperature above them. Radiative loses efficiency at a greater than linear rate to drop in temperature, thus the Earth must warm to stay in balance. It is the same principle as GHE but has nothing to do with gases.

        BTW, You are missing the finally performance on CA when all wake up to the realization today that mathematics requires there be at least one independent variable in an equation somewhere.

      • Don Monfort | February 16, 2015 at 9:33 am |

        Pekka’s bottom lone:

        “…I have doubts on the justification of publishing the paper in a journal like Nature.”

        We will take that as a concession.

      • Jim D | February 16, 2015 at 11:31 am |

        Don M, it is a very simple study using ready-made datasets, but even then some had a hard time understanding what they did. The main reason it went into Nature is because of the op-eds that highlight the 15-year issue. Without those, there would have been no news value to these results which just stress things that were already obvious to all except those few in the minority creating negative talking points for governments.

      • Jim D | February 16, 2015 at 11:37 am |

        R Graf, the independent variable is dF. In this case you have to back it out of the known variables that also have some cancellation among themselves. This has been hard for some to understand. The parallel might be where you infer changes in solar strength from temperatures on Earth. It doesn’t mean that temperatures on Earth cause solar changes.

      • Don Monfort | February 16, 2015 at 12:39 pm |

        M&R is a lame attempt to use model numerology to self-validate the very same models that produced the numerology, by using bogus regressions. Model numerology does not produce physical variables. That this crap got into Nature and has been widely promoted in the BS media to claim that GCMs have been validated is just more evidence of the corruption in climate science.

        Ross M. told M&R what they need to do test their results. McIntyre asked them to show their work. They have gone into hiding.

        Ross McKitrick
        February 10, 2015 at 10:02 pm

        Sorry but dN and dT have to be statistical as they are estimated trend terms. In fact they are trends estimated over quantities that are averaged up over other quantities that are themselves empirical approximations to unobservable quantities that might, at a very fine level of resolution, be variables in an actual law of physics. But at the level of usage here, dN and dT are statistics, not physical variables.

        Exogeneity of dF cannot simply be asserted, but it can be tested. There are lots of cases in econometrics where endogeneity bias is suspected but can’t be established a priori. But it’s a big issue: if it is present, the regression results are absolutely meaningless. The prima facie case for endogenity bias here is certainly strong enough that an econometrics reviewer and editor would have demanded it be tested.

      • R Graf | February 16, 2015 at 3:13 pm |

        “… if they never work it out, and never apologize, and leave their original statement in place without justification, it would do a lot to diminish them in at least my opinion.”

        I found it interesting that this quote is at the top of this string. The debate is settled.

        The fundamental circularity comes from the fact that the only connection of the model to the real world is temperature. The energy balance and temperature trend was used to derive all the other components to the model, a model who’s output is same temperature and trends used to program it. The model can extrapolate into the future but it does not give you more insight than you already programmed into the model. The energy balance derived temperature output is useless to give information about past model run’s accuracy since they are only an artifact of your input. Temperature cannot play both the dependent and independent variable in the same equation.

        Please let your comments be heard on CA. This is a memorable day.

      • Jim D | February 16, 2015 at 3:36 pm |

        “Exogeneity of dF cannot simply be asserted, but it can be tested.” This is related to what I keep saying. Quit all the talk, and plot dF against dT on 15-year time scales and look for the dependence you suppose. If it is not there, the detractors have to just say they were wrong. There has been so much talk without doing anything with the data. That is not the way CA normally operates. Get on their case to use the data to prove their point, if they have one.

      • R Graf | February 16, 2015 at 3:49 pm |

        Jim,

        I am hoping you agree that you do not need to test a perpetual motion machine to know that it will not work.

        Many of our brightest minds were so engrossed in the plumage they never recognized it was a dead parrot.

        Read my previous comment again and tell me the flaw in any logic.

      • R Graf | February 16, 2015 at 6:36 pm |

        Don, I agree with your comment on CA, and appreciate the tongue-in-cheek, but they are taking action now saying that 97% of people in the know support proof of harm happening now. If we allow a paper to stand that even proponents agree does not support its conclusion, that has an invalid equation, (if all agree), when are we going to speak up? Nic spoke up against the majesty.

      • Jim D | February 16, 2015 at 6:55 pm |

        R Graf, my guess is that Lewis and McSteve have tested the correlation, found their idea not to work, while just reproving M&F’s results, and so they are now regrouping to try a different argument against M&F. Their assumptions neglecting that dN term will have come back to bite them.

      • Jim D | February 16, 2015 at 7:15 pm |

        You have to follow Nic’s logic through which nobody in all these long discussions has done. If dF was as highly correlated with dT as he asserts, M&F would not have found the low correlation in 15-year periods. Their result proves they are not doing what Nic thinks they are doing, so he has to use their data to show what he means, because so far the results presented with the data are against him. Like I said, it is probably slowly dawning on him that the fiasco was his own. Lucky he didn’t make a big deal all over the place about it. Perhaps by just keeping quiet, people will forget. I say that if you are at CA and you care, ask him to put the data where his mouth is. Hold him accountable with data. Do the audit.

      • JCH | February 16, 2015 at 7:22 pm |

        I think they’re just celebrating Presidents Day. Or, maybe there was an emergency on the Mann 98 audit.

      • R Graf | February 16, 2015 at 8:10 pm |

        Jim, I am disappointing that Nic is AWAL, whatever his position is. The equation is circular, period. Though I think it is important to note that you have the safety of good company who still won’t jump into the acceptance that a peer reviewed paper has a circular equation. M&F’s results, practices, and perhaps intentions will come under great ridicule I predict. The effect of a circular equation with error in it is to produce nonsense. M&F admitted they saw some nonsense but attributed to volcanoes. Look at the results of my algebra on CA and you will see. I would like to see if you can help me find my flaw if there is any.

    • Jim D | February 13, 2015 at 11:40 pm |

      Seeing the debate still going on at CA and CLB, and most people now overcomplicating it, because the basic issue is whether dT and dF are correlated, I will repost what I wrote on Week in Review.
      Let’s put it this way and see if it helps. Take, first, the unforced system and let’s use temperature units to give dT+dN=0. Here we see that the temperature perturbation and imbalance have to be anti-correlated, not approximately, but exactly. What does this mean? It means a very simple thing. If you start in equilibrium and perturb the temperature by dT, the imbalance is dT. It just measures the distance from equilibrium so it has to be exact. The way the climate acts, this dN also provides a restoring force towards a dT=0 state.
      Now, having understood the simple meaning of dN, we can add a forcing, dT+dN=dF. In very short time scales around one year dF is still essentially only a few percent of these other two large canceling terms. Over longer time frames dF gets large and dT and dN both follow it to some extent while also keeping these canceling oscillations. Later when dF goes to a future steady state, dT rises to oscillate around its ECS value and dN returns slowly to oscillate around zero. The TCR is dT/dF, and given dN, you can also get the ECS as (dT+dN)/dF.
      It is always useful to have a physical concept of the terms, and especially why dT and dN are exactly anti-correlated in unforced conditions.

      • Rud Istvan | February 14, 2015 at 12:31 am |

        Jim D, you really do not want to go where you just did here, at least not with denizen mathematicians and econometricians.
        Your above post is statistical nonsense. Defending the indefensible is NEVER a good strategy.
        Your pseudo sophisticated math ignores Nic’s simple posted proof that Forster’s dN was derived as a function of dT. Therefore delta T was regressed on a function of T. BAD!!. Let me rephrase… Not just wrong, STUPID!!!
        You also ignore the simpler logical disproof argument posted there, and later here upthread. Golly.
        Very bad show, JD. Total FAIL.

      • Jim D | February 14, 2015 at 12:46 am |

        Rud, dT and dN are anti-correlated whether you like it or not, and yes it is as simple as that and, by not knowing the physical meaning of the terms, they just miss it and focus on dT instead of the sum. Nic can verify for himself that dF looks nothing like dT, but has not done that as far as I can tell. There are papers that show these plotted, and you can tell that for 15-year segments you will not see much correlation between dT and dF, the former dominated by ENSO cycles etc., and the latter not. This whole argument could be settled with two plots.

      • Rob Ellison | February 14, 2015 at 1:05 am |

        Not even close. It sometimes adds to warming – 1976 to 1998 – and sometimes counteracts. The quantum of natural variability is essentially unknowable – but can be extreme. I’d count on a centennial cooling influence.

      • R Graf | February 14, 2015 at 9:23 pm |

        Jim D: “Over longer time frames dF gets large and dT and dN both follow it to some extent while also keeping these canceling oscillations.”

        How long? Is there any data on this? I have to admit after much study this week you seem to be correct that some big minds are saying that dT does not affect the approximations of alpha and kappa feedbacks since the First Law keeps them anti-correlated as you said. I am still dubious about the paper’s worth or intention in proving essentially that the models are right that nature is unreliable. But the new broadcast is simply the models are right and correctly predicting warming. Being not completely trash and being right on target is seems to me a significant difference, an opposite almost, the difference that can account for a lot of the divide.

        I can tell from the treatment you get around here you are no a lukewarmer but I am glad you’re here and hope you can help educate me.

      • Jim D | February 14, 2015 at 11:34 pm |

        R Graf, you ask how long. Just going by Marotzke and Forster, by the time you get to 62-year time scales, especially towards the end of the 20th century, the dF signal becomes a large enough factor that it can distinguish the models from each other. The bottom line was that for 15-year periods, what the models were doing was indistinguishable against the background noise, which is the dN/dT cancellation. In other words, from 15 years you can’t tell which sensitivity is correct, but from 62 years, there is enough of a dF signal in dT that the models’ different effective dF’s can predict their dT evolution. The interesting thing was that dF was the main predictor, not alpha or kappa. I have not thought much about that aspect yet.

      • Jim D | February 14, 2015 at 11:55 pm |

        Thinking about why dF, not alpha and kappa are distinguishing features of the models, I would say this points to how they handle aerosols and volcanoes which affects dF. The factor alpha relates to their equilibrium sensitivity, which is basically the final positive feedback, and kappa relates to the delaying effect of the oceans. Apparently for a given forcing change, the models do more or less the same on positive feedback and ocean delays meaning those factors don’t distinguish their dT evolution much.

      • R Graf | February 15, 2015 at 12:50 am |

        Jimmy, I replied to both you and Capt D above. I found Forster 2013 says: “The inter-model spread of temperature change is principally driven by forcing differences in the present day and climate feedback differences in 2095, although forcing differences are still important for model spread at 2095.” Here he is saying that feedback difference lead to the greatest difference 85 years out from 2010. This seems to contradict 2015 finding. There is the constant feedback of clouds and convection that does not dampen with time, unlike ocean heat uptake.

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 2:23 am |

        Mr. Graf, their point is that when you understand the physics you may take liberties with the math. And the climate models inability to get the physics of natural variability right is proof that they are doing a good job predicting climate. Little jimmy will keep you going round in circles on this, until you get really dizzy and fall over. Ask him why he is afraid to go over to CA and tussle with the big boys.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 11:32 am |

        R Graf, that is an interesting statement by Forster. The way I would interpret it is that the forcing change is much stronger in the 21st century, possibly three times that in the 20th century, and perhaps the uncertain role of aerosols decreases in favor of the more certain GHG effect making the forcing change more consistent in the models. Then maybe feedbacks will distinguish the models more.

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 1:47 pm |

        And the discussion on CA continues, without timid little jimmy dee and his two plots that could solve the whole thing. He needs to help Pekka, who is struggling to sub for Nicky “Racehorse” Stokes, whose customary CA role is defender of the indefensible.

        This summation by davideisendstat nails it:

        “Roman:
        First, a compliment…you are patient and competent and articulate. Now, if the concept that the same variable shouldn’t show up on both sides of the equation in a regression scheme doesn’t strike one as…incorrect, then where can you go with the dialogue? People who should know better, who would know better, feel its ok to violate the basic assumptions that form the foundation for statistical analysis. The concept of ensemble means, as if the models were independent…
        Using linear regression to model nonlinear functions….
        Using decentered PCA, looking at paleoproxies right side up, or upside down, depending on what gives you a better R-squared, these are the hallmarks of this field today.

        Its really no different than marketing derivative investments, made up of portfolios of sub prime mortgages, and arguing that the performance of all those sh#tty pieces of paper were actually independent from each other. One violates the basic assumptions necessary for linear regressions at one’s own risk, or in this case our own risk.”

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 2:00 pm |

        Yes, I am tracking CA, and Pekka is the only rational one there. Clueless Lewis seems to still think the same things he thought a week ago.

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 2:14 pm |

        You are tracking from afar, little timid jimmy dee. Go show Clueless Lewis and the rest of those who cling to their outmoded, unimaginative statistics your two plots. No guts no glory, yimmy.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 2:19 pm |

        Lewis should be capable of just plotting dF and dT for himself. He can then look for the correlation he posits in the 15-year periods. No correlation and, bingo, his whole argument bites the dust. Why he did not check this first before criticizing the paper, I do not know. It would have saved him a lot of embarrassment that is about to come to him and indirectly to his host, McSteve.

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 3:25 pm |

        I wonder why the defenders of M&F in various discussions on various venues have not challenged Clueless Lewis on that oh so obvious point, yimmy. Are they all just as clueless as Clueless Lewis? How embarrassing for them, including M&F. But little jimmy dee could solve the whole thing, if he only had the guts to venture onto a freaking blog. How pathetic. Do you want me to lead you into battle, yimmy? I’ll place your comment on CA for you, if you will commit to taking part in the discussion if anybody takes your claim seriously. Come on jimmy, I have made heroes out of characters like you many times. Let’s go get em. All the way, airborne.

      • Matthew R Marler | February 15, 2015 at 3:33 pm |

        Jim D: It is always useful to have a physical concept of the terms, and especially why dT and dN are exactly anti-correlated in unforced conditions.

        Useful, yes, but not sufficient. It is necessary also to consider how they are measured/estimated for use in modeling and inference. Percy Bridgeman coined the phrase “operational definition” for this part of physics: however you intend for the meaning of mass, space, and time (to pick a few examples out of countless), physics is about them as they are measured.or estimated. deltaF is computed from deltaT, and so is not independent of it.

      • Matthew R Marler | February 15, 2015 at 3:42 pm |

        R. Graf: I have to admit after much study this week you seem to be correct that some big minds are saying that dT does not affect the approximations of alpha and kappa feedbacks since the First Law keeps them anti-correlated as you said.

        The point asserted by Lewis and others and by me is that deltaF as used in the regression equation is computed from deltaT as used in the regression equation.

        The point asserted by Marotzky and Forster and others, and by Jim D, is that the aforementioned computation of deltaF as used in the regression equation from deltaT as used in the regression equation doesn’t matter because deltaF refers to the physical forcing of which it is an estimate.

        So you get a choice: should you regard deltaF in terms of how it was computed, or should you regard deltaF in terms of what it is intended to represent?

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 3:51 pm |

        Please don’t scare him, Matt. I am trying to get him to man up. He is convinced that the basic issue is whether dT and dF are correlated.

        Pekka has a more sophisticated take in his latest CA comment, it begins:

        “I try to explain once more, how the M&F approach proceeds, and what is the physical assumption that makes it free from circularity. It is, indeed, dependent on an assumption or hypothesis, but this hypothesis is justified by physical understanding and earlier research.”

        Like I said above, if you are certain in your assumptions, you are overconfident in you understanding of the physics and you confirm your very own prior research, then you don’t have to worry about logic and math conventions. Use whatever makes your boat float.

      • Jim D | February 15, 2015 at 4:46 pm |

        Let’s just ask the skeptics whether they think dT and dF are correlated if you compare these values in 15-year windows. M&F didn’t think so and they have the paper to show it. Lewis thinks so, but M&F’s correlation results disprove him mainly because he has the concept wrong, and didn’t try to use the data for himself. If Lewis was correct, M&F would have obtained a result opposite to what they had, which would be that dF explains a lot of short-term variability. As it was, he wasn’t, and it didn’t.

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 5:31 pm |

        The deltaF they are using in their regression equation is computed from the variable deltaT, yimmy. Does deltaF in that regression vary with deltaT in that very same regression, yimmy? That’s all I have for you. JC SNIP

      • Don Monfort | February 15, 2015 at 7:09 pm |

        Everybody knows it anyway, Judith.

    • Matthew R Marler | February 15, 2015 at 2:43 pm |

      miker613: I’m interested in the moral issue that some have raised about the Nic Lewis/M&F issue. I’m assuming that now that M&F have posted their response describing their methodology at Climate Lab (http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/marotzke-forster-response/), it is no longer obvious that their statistical methods were a beginner mistake.

      That is an interesting debate, of a kind that I have had many times.

      ATTP, Marotzky and Forster, and some others assert that deltaF is intended to be independent of deltaT, because “by definition” it is deltatF that drives deltaT.

      Lewis, McKittrick, McIntyre and others assert that the estimate of deltaF that is used in the regression is computed from deltaT, and that operationally the estimate of deltaF can not be independent of deltaT.

      That is why Lewis et al assert that it is a statistical problem, whereas ATTP et al assert that it is not a statistical problem because of “the physics”.

      Clearly (?) if you believe that the deltaF used in the regression is exactly equal to what it is intended to equal, then you’ll agree with the original paper by M&F. If you think that the estimate of deltaF is correlated with deltaT because deltaF is calculated from deltaT, then you’ll agree with Lewis et al.

      Either way, the resultant values used in the regression are a vector-valued time series (probably non-stationary), and simple multiple linear regression is not a good method for examining the hypotheses that were the focus of M & F in their Nature paper.

      To me, the most important result reported in the paper was that the 15-year and 62-year projections were never accurate enough for public policy purposes. By a simple induction, it is unlikely that longer-range projections are accurate enough to be relied upon.

      • R Graf | February 15, 2015 at 3:23 pm |

        From my read of Forster 2013 (just search “CMIP5 Forster” and look for the washington.edu) is that he wanted to strip out the components of CO2 forcing from the air and ocean feedback. He did this by knowing temp outputs, TOA imbalance starting inputs (assumed by CO2) and “diagnosing” the two groups of feedbacks. It seems to me that M&F would have been on better ground using the same model set data that Forster (2013) did to eliminate extrapolation of error by adding a new variable, new model runs and some new models. Now they have possible selectivity on bias on top of being a generation away from their assumed correctly derived input placed in the independent variable spot, F. Why did they expand and do new model runs when they had almost as good of a data set from 2013? Here is the 2015 paper also if interested: http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/global%20temperature%20trends.pdf

      • Matthew R Marler | February 15, 2015 at 3:48 pm |

        R Graf: he wanted to strip out the components of CO2 forcing from the air and ocean feedback. He did this by knowing temp outputs, TOA imbalance starting inputs (assumed by CO2) and “diagnosing” the two groups of feedbacks.

        I agree that was what they wanted. How they did it introduced a circularity into the regression equation.

      • Tonyb | February 15, 2015 at 4:12 pm |

        In the blue corner are a bunch of very clever guys led by Nic et al arguing one thing and in the red corner a bunch of very clever guys led by forster arguing the opposite.

        At the fights heart are some highly theoretical interpretations of amongst other things highly complex statistics that few people understand fully.

        That climate science is having to focus on these extremely fine nuances in obscure corners of the science suggests that the overall debate is still wide open.

        I think finding evidence from the past , including Mosh’s instrumental reconstructions and that of other records, would provide a much more solid basis for argument on whether the present is highly unusual, which in turn would enable us to focus on the reasons.

        The CA debate is the equivalent of angels dancing on the heads of pins that are themselves balanced on pins held by dancing angels.

        Tonyb

      • rls | February 15, 2015 at 5:15 pm |

        Tony

        I believe you are right. And the major problem may be that needed research is being neglected; Curry, Koonin, et al are telling all who will listen that the science is not settled, that interactions in the atmosphere and oceans are not adequately known. My hope is that their voices will soon be heard in the form of new research.

        Richard

      • tonyb | February 15, 2015 at 5:40 pm |

        rls

        The climate debate is being managed by a group who are esoteric in the extreme

        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/esoteric

        Of course you know what that means, but I wanted to ensure nothing had been lost in the translation.

        It is this esoteric group who manage the climate debate, control the agenda and hold the purse strings. There is no reason whatsoever for them to cede power and change any part of that process that sees the sort of debate currently going on at CA.
        tonyb

      • rls | February 15, 2015 at 6:28 pm |

        Tony

        I didn’t know what esoteric meant, but now do. Thanks for the education. My hope in the US is that the new congress will direct government research funds to honest climate science research. The US Congess has total control over the budget; the president can only veto funding appropriations. There are separate appropriations bills for each department; Dept of Defense, Dept of Energy, etc. The president is unlikely to veto funding for an entire department based on his opposition to a relatively small segment of an appropriations bill, such as research funding. The process just described may have been ignored in the recent past, but is the way our government functioned in prior years, considered regular business, and is the way promised by the new congress. Also, regular business assures that appropriations bills require only a majority vote in both chambers of congress.

        Richard

      • kim | February 15, 2015 at 6:37 pm |

        The speedy and dextrous lassoing of alarmist paper after alarmist paper, is ensnaring the debate, getting a strap around one leg of the agenda and drawing roses if not purses from the crowd.
        ==============

      • Matthew R Marler | February 16, 2015 at 3:10 am |

        tonyb: The CA debate is the equivalent of angels dancing on the heads of pins that are themselves balanced on pins held by dancing angels.

        Not so. It is about how a quantity that is used in a multiple linear regression is computed from another quantity that is used in that same multiple linear regression.

      • tonyb | February 16, 2015 at 4:15 am |

        Matthew

        you replied

        ‘Not so. It is about how a quantity that is used in a multiple linear regression is computed from another quantity that is used in that same multiple linear regression.’

        Does this debate move us one iota more forward as to what has happened in the past, why it happened and whether it will occur again in an even more exaggerated fashion, thanks to co2 and its supposed forcings?

        BTW, an iota is a technical term for the smallness of the heads of pins that angels dance on.

        tonyb

      • Matthew R Marler | February 16, 2015 at 6:52 pm |

        TonyB: Does this debate move us one iota more forward as to what has happened in the past, why it happened and whether it will occur again in an even more exaggerated fashion, thanks to co2 and its supposed forcings?

        I can’t tell. Can you tell me how iotas are measured?

      • willard (@nevaudit) | February 17, 2015 at 10:10 am |

        > Can you tell me how iotas are measured?

        I thought it was deltas and that there was no need for any measurement since the equation is purported to be a tautology or something.

      • Pekka Pirilä | February 17, 2015 at 12:42 pm |

        I have written so many comments on this issue elsewhere that I don’t restart here. My most comprehensive comment has been waiting in moderation for about 9 hours at CA.

        I haven’t conceded anything. During the discussion I have learned to understand better the exact nature of the error Nic made. Very briefly. Noc’s alternative approach contains a strong circularity. What he presented as circularity in M&F work is actually an essential step to remove the circularity present in Nic’s alternative.

        M&F did not introduce circularity, they removed it as well as it can be removed based on the available information.

  52. David Wojick | February 13, 2015 at 1:23 pm |

    The eight NARUC questions should be a study in themselves, perhaps even more important than the debate over them. Bad questions are a plague on the numerous climate change polls. I can hardly wait to see these eight negotiated and refined questions.

  53. HR | February 13, 2015 at 2:51 pm |

    Just a little nugget of info, but I thought it was interested. it was pointed out in a comment on Ed Hawkins blog. The heat content of the sub-polar atlantic gyre has collapsed over the past year or so. Look pretty dramatic, any thoughts on the consequences?

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat700_-50–20E_45-60N_na.png

  54. Tonyb | February 13, 2015 at 3:06 pm |

    Sou at hot whopper has provided links to half a dozen articles criticising homewood and booker for cherry picking. Whether either of them have got any more examples to reinforce their case I don’t know . At the moment I veer towards thinking their criticism was unfair as they have cited so few examples.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/paul-homewood-and-christopher-booker.html#more

    Tonyb

    • Joshua | February 13, 2015 at 3:49 pm |

      tony –

      ==> “At the moment I veer towards thinking their criticism was unfair as they have cited so few examples.”

      Geez, what could possibly make you question the scientific veracity of Booker’s viewpoint?

      The Telegraph article concluded that these changes were part of the “greatest and most costly scare the world has known.”

      • Joshua | February 13, 2015 at 3:55 pm |

        Oh, wait, it gets better- conspiracy theories? What conspiracy theories?:

        This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

        Good to see that Booker isn’t getting any play at all at any of the more well-known “skeptical” blogs. I am encouraged that “skeptics” as a group are moving away from that whole “hoax” thing – by isolating the kind of extremism we see from Booker.

        Huh?

        What?

        Er…nevermind.

      • Tonyb | February 13, 2015 at 4:04 pm |

        Joshua

        I question their scientific veracity as it doesn’t look much like science.

        They need to produce a more comprehensive listing of supposed wrong doings before their examples can gain real traction with those that matter.Unfortunately those that matter don’t include you or me.

        BTW booker sometimes produces some very good work, don’t automatically think he is a journalistic hack because those on such as attp say so. He tends to be stronger on the political and economic material

        Delingpole is also a very sharp cookie. I met him a few months ago and was more impressed than I expected to be.
        Tonyb

      • Joshua | February 13, 2015 at 4:23 pm |

        tony –

        ==> “Unfortunately those that matter don’t include you or me.”

        I don’t know much, but I do know that me not mattering is not unfortunate.

        ==> “BTW booker sometimes produces some very good work, don’t automatically think he is a journalistic hack because those on such as attp say so”

        Sorry tony, but I have a hard time reconciling non-hackerism with that conspiracy-mongering.

    • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 6:48 pm |

      Tony, that was the BEST response also. But the Steirou sample was all GCHN with a reasonably continuous 100 year record. Not a cherry pick, and found statistically significant warming bias. NZ NIWA is the whole country. Mosher’s response was NZ is a cherry pick…maybe not. See Goeff Sherrington’s new comment and data upthread for Australia. ditto. See essay When Data Isn’t (you know where) for the US. Ditto. Pretty soon Mosher resorted to cooling in Africa to justify the BEST net neutral result, except most of Africa is infilled. (I looked at GISS, not BEST, since Homewood was criticizing GISS, so this observation could be a cherry.)
      Still a tempest in a teapot for reasons posted on the recent BEST thread here.
      Frankly, given Sou’s general rant propensity, I value Mosher’s opinions much more than hers. And as he said, there is no time or energy to run everything to ground from first principles and primary observations. Ah, the sole subject of my second ebook (another shameless plug). regards.

      • Steven Mosher | February 15, 2015 at 5:44 pm |

        NZ

        There was some silly group who used a method and came up with
        .3C per century
        NWS has .9C
        Berkeley has .64C

        1. The NWS and the “skeptics” dont use ALL the data.
        2. One is at .3C, the other is at .9C
        3. We use all the data and split the difference.
        4. Ask THOSE GUYS why they didnt use all the data

    • MichaelS | February 13, 2015 at 6:48 pm |

      Joshua,

      Rather than fretting over the musings of some inconsequential “hack”, why not focus your attention on the gang of misfits who have been sabotaging your cause for the past 5+ years.

      Your band of obstructionist misfits has done more damage to the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming than a dozen Bookers, Delingpoles and Homewoods could do in a lifetime.

      It amuses me to no end, watching the gang who couldn’t shoot straight (unless it’s at their own foot), prophesize, fantasize, fictionalize and overdramatize the issue while their noble cause is systematically dismantled by a bunch of climate denialist, old farts.

      Dammit man, you have the consensus, what the hell’s the problem! If you can’t pull this off with the amount of money and blind faith you’ve accrued, you don’t deserve the label of world changers.

      You’re your own worst enemy.

      • myrightpenguin | February 13, 2015 at 6:57 pm |

        I agree with that. Most of what I’ve seen of Joshua’a participation in these threads has been snarky in tone, not indicative of someone genuinely interested in the truth, but more with a predefined agenda. Snarkiness and deflection aimed at people just seeking transparency particularly looks bad. As Willis said on the previous thread to Mosher a good scientist would disclose their data and code in full without anyone asking and deflecting with nonsense about “bad faith”, etc.. “BEST” was supposed to be groundbreaking in terms of transparency and has hardly been “BEST” in meeting expectations in line with how it was sold.

      • Joseph | February 13, 2015 at 7:06 pm |

        I am not sure what you are talking about. The opposition to doing anything about climate change (at least in the US) comes for the most part from conservatives based on ideology not because of what any individuals may have done or not done.

      • MichaelS | February 13, 2015 at 7:16 pm |

        @myrightpenguin

        Joshua has an agenda and that’s fine but he’s wasting his time here because the real problem lies with the AGW experts who are continually portrayed as dishonest, obstructionist and deceitful.

        To think that a 97% consensus can be broken by a rag-tag group of retired deniaists is absurd…unless they’re on to something…

      • myrightpenguin | February 13, 2015 at 7:17 pm |

        Joseph, that kind of pedestrian nonsense has no place in a discussion like this and I would suggest you go elsewhere with your outdated strawmen. Climate change happens, always has. The arguments are based on human causation vs. natural causation, climate sensitivity, and IPCC positive feedbacks. Furthermore, in line with Lomborg and others once you have assessed everything in the balance you look at costing adaptation to climate change (regardless of natural or human), particularly with defences managed at a local level vs. centrally planned grand plans which we are seeing are corruptible by special interests, the Al Gores of the world as well as the governor of Oregon that has just resigned.

        Go take *your* ideology somewhere else, this is not about conservatives vs. the left, it is about science and moreover truth and rationalism/realism.

      • MichaelS | February 13, 2015 at 7:18 pm |

        Joseph

        Please clarify, I don’t know what you’re referring to or who you are speaking to.

        Thank you,

      • Joseph | February 14, 2015 at 3:04 pm |

        Climate change happens, always has. The arguments are based on human causation vs. natural causation, climate sensitivity, and IPCC positive feedback.

        Then why is the opposition to action or “skepticism” of climate change coming primarily from conservatives if it isn’t ideological? 99% on both sides don’t understand the technical arguments well enough to have an informed opinion.

      • AK | February 14, 2015 at 3:41 pm |

        Then why is the opposition to action or “skepticism” of climate change coming primarily from conservatives if it isn’t ideological?

        I suspect it’s a small subset of “conservatives”, the sort with a high overlap with creationists, who don’t really understand science as anything but rationalizations for ideological agendas. For such people, the prominence of an essentially socialist agenda (destroying the Industrial Revolution, world government, etc.) drowns out the fact that there are many people with solutions that they wouldn’t choke on.

      • Steven Mosher | February 15, 2015 at 5:40 pm |

        Penguin. the data is there the code is there. you didnt even bother to look.

  55. jim2 | February 13, 2015 at 4:17 pm |

    From the article:
    …
    Writer Adam Estes has tested over a thousand dollars worth of smart home gear from companies like Wink, GE, Lutron, Cree, and Leviton. Most of it worked correctly out of the box — which he said was great. But almost immediately, devices stopped responding and defects manifested themselves. Even after getting replacements and reconfiguring the devices, he found himself wondering if it was worth the effort to wrestle with all these devices, and ended up appreciating the simplicity of a plain old light switch.

    Estes says, “Installation woes and bugs aside, my smart home never seemed handy. I had to tape off the regular switches so that the power would stay on and the bulbs’ smart features would work. Even then, I had to pull out a smartphone or a tablet any time I wanted to dim the lights. That was never convenient. I could turn the lights on from my office, but that didn’t really make my life better. I could impress my friends with a stray smart home feature here and there, but more often than not, I found myself embarrassed by the glitches of my smart home gone dumb.” He concludes that while many smart home products can and do work, the biggest lie their marketers tell us is that it’ll be simple and easy to set up and operate all these gadgets.
    …

    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/02/13/207203/smart-homes-often-dumb-never-simple

  56. Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 4:34 pm |

    Just came in from a short break outside. Looking north and noticed a persistent east/west contrail. Saw a jet following the same route with significant but reducing contrail and saw another about 5 miles north of the first and about 5 miles behind with a much shorter dissipating trail.
    Watching them for a few minutes, and the dynamics changed. The further south contrail was now shorter and disappating and the further north was longer and more persistant.

    Then I noticed the original contrail still remained. And I wondered.

  57. Rob Ellison | February 13, 2015 at 4:43 pm |

    What convoluted illogic. The 255K is an imaginary world without CO2 or water vapour – absorbing about the same amount of energy as the Earth does. It is compared to an average temp in the real world – one with carbon dioxide and water vapour of course.

    The Steffan-Boltzmann calculation for a grey body is illustrative only. It is very odd the things people make much of.

    • Rob Ellison | February 13, 2015 at 6:06 pm |

      I know I encouraged arbitrary deletions on the grounds of a lack of any credibility – but – two things – you don’t go nearly far enough and leaving orphaned comments is disconcerting.

      • Wagathon | February 13, 2015 at 7:28 pm |

        …leaving orphaned comments is disconcerting…

        On the other hand, we do here the sound of one hand clapping.

      • R Graf | February 13, 2015 at 8:06 pm |

        saved another orphan. :)

      • R Graf | February 13, 2015 at 8:16 pm |

        Speaking of orphan comments, mine is standing 5 hours on CLM challenged Forster and Marotzke to stand behind their alleged proof that CMIP5 models are right on target. In case you did not hear Nic Lewis stuck his neck out pointing out a circularity in the statistical methodology and it seems like there are mostly surrogates defending M&F. Great debate this week and currently on ClimateAudit.

      • Wagathon | February 13, 2015 at 11:12 pm |

        …and, F-M creatively arrived at a valid conclusion – that the GMST (global mean surface temperature) trend over the period studied (1900 and 2012) is dominated by internal variability – that is not actually established by anything in the paper

      • Wendy Thompson | February 15, 2015 at 9:03 pm |

        This comment was in reply to Ellison’s here but you, Wagathon, could perhaps also read my comments here which are endorsed by the Chairman and others in our group of persons qualified in physics. What Pierrehumbert and Hansen have assumed is a travesty of physics.

      • Wendy Thompson | February 15, 2015 at 9:08 pm |

        The reply to Ellison continues in this comment that refers to the 255K figure being incorrect in Pierrehumbert’s book because he mulltiplied 0.7 for albedo rather than 0.9 for albedo without clouds that reflect 20% of the insolation.

      • Rob Ellison | February 16, 2015 at 2:38 pm |

        The amount of energy absorbed by the Earth is modulated by albedo – the approximate residual (that not reflected) is then used in the an SB calculation that is not remotely realistic. But Wendy misses the point – what there is of it – utterly.

      • Wendy Thompson | February 17, 2015 at 9:47 pm |

        Judith Curry

        Yes, but now the gravito-thermal effect has been proven correct with empirical data from a centrifuge, and, furthermore, the effect has been proven directly using the Kinetic Theory of Gases and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is the most critical issue in the whole climate debate, so maybe you should be the first blog in the world to announce the new paradigm with an article our group would be happy to submit. Otherwise some other blog will beat you to it.

    • Wendy Thompson | February 15, 2015 at 7:39 pm |

      Without water vapor there would be no clouds. Thus the albedo would be closer to 10% than 30%. Thus you should use a factor of 0.9 rather than Pierrehumbert’s incorrect use of 0.7 when multiplying the effective insolation and then using S-B calculations. The resulting correct temperature is 16.5 degrees higher than 255K, thus reducing the proverbial “33 degrees of warming” to 16.5 degrees, and that is before we even consider that water vapor reduces the thermal gradient and thus lowers the surface temperature.

      The only inevitable conclusion is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is right after all when it implies directly that gravity induces a temperature gradient because such is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy and no unbalanced energy potentials.

      All opposing responses to this comment are expected to contain the usual personal slurs, but not a word of sound physics.

      • Rob Ellison | February 16, 2015 at 4:55 am |

        Are replies working at all?

        The calc assumes that an amount of energy is absorbed – equivalent to the amount absorbed by the Earth. It then says that here is another planet without greenhouse gases and if it absorbed that amount of energy it would be at this temperature. But the Earth is not – so the difference is greenhouse gases. It is a fairly rough and ready calc – but your response – Wendy – is at the level of logical inconsistency rote learned from Doug before we even get to invalid physics.

      • Wendy Thompson | February 17, 2015 at 6:06 pm |

        Rob Ellison

        The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to deduce that, when entropy is a maximum, the state of thermodynamic equilibrium exhibits a thermal gradient. That is what accounts for the surface temperatures of planets like Earth and Venus to be hotter than the effective radiating temperature.

        You cannot explain, for example, how the necessary thermal energy gets down to the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus from the methane layer in the stratosphere where the insolation is absorbed. Nor can you explain how the surface of Venus actually rises in temperature during four months of insolation. We can explain all temperatures above and below any surface of any planet or moon:with the 21st century new paradigm that is a very significant breakthrough in science, and which is based on sound physics in which you, Ellison, are not qualified I suspect, because you don’t understand entropy for a start.

        Water vapor does not cause the temperature gradient to go from isothermal to the “wet adiabatic lapse rate” thus increasing the magnitude of the slope. You know as well as I do that it does the exact opposite and reduces the magnitude of the thermal gradient from the “dry” rate that is induced by the effect of gravity acting on molecules in transition between collisions, in accord with the Kinetic Theory of Gases. You cannot prove us wrong without proving the Second Law of Thermodynamics wrong, because what we say about the effect of gravity is a direct corollary of the Second Law, which it appears you don’t understand because you don’t understand when, how and why changes in entropy occur. Come back when you know and understand this basic thermodynamics.

        Doug, Jim, John, Lindsay, Alex and Wendy.

      • Rob Ellison | February 17, 2015 at 6:38 pm |

        So where have we heard and ignored these arguments – in exactly the same words – before?

      • Wendy Thompson | February 17, 2015 at 7:14 pm |

        Where have you heard this before Rob Ellison? Well the peer-reviewed paper on core and surface temperatures in all planets first appeared in February 2013, but you may have read some of the dozens of comments from our group in this thread, or on about 500 social media threads, or been one of nearly 5,000 visitors to the group’s website in the last 6 weeks.

      • curryja | February 17, 2015 at 7:21 pm |

        Wendy, this is very repetitive. Doug Cotton has written hundreds of similar comments. Several months ago I had a thread Gravito-thermal discussion thread http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/01/gravito-thermal-discussion-thread/, its closed now. Please keep your comments short and very few if they are going to be on this same topic

  58. JeffN | February 13, 2015 at 4:58 pm |

    There is a pattern to “scientific” fiddling on behalf of political causes. Here’s one that was very hot and will likely be again soon- a professor produces a study that get’s wide attention as it appears to support the urgent need for policy, yet it falls apart on closer examination.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/

    “Does this persistent tendency to choose odd metrics that inflate the case for some left wing cause matter? If Warren worked at a think tank, you’d say, “Ah, well, that’s the genre.” On the other hand, you’d also tend to regard her stuff with a rather beady eye. It’s unlikely to have been splashed across the headline of every newspaper in the United States. Her work gets so much attention because it comes from a Harvard professor. “

  59. Physics_Group | February 13, 2015 at 6:14 pm |

     

    It’s now two years since this paper was written and I would still encourage all who are interested in understanding all planetary temperatures (above and below the surface) and the necessary heat transfer processes to study it, or at least read our group’s website from which the paper is linked..

    This is the new 21st century paradigm shift in climate change science.
     

    • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 8:16 pm |

      Mr. Cotton,

      Thank you for the link. I’m not a scientist and have no basis for questioning your assertions but I can find no other independent verifications, citations, reviews, or rebuttals. After two years since the paper was published can you offer any feedbacks? Can you provide assistance?

      • Rud Istvan | February 13, 2015 at 10:50 pm |

        Danny, with respect to Doug Cotton (a Sky Dragon), careful.
        But your return question to him was that of a master Yoda through a young Jedi Luke Skywalker. Hope you can grok the many analogies.
        Very well done, Sheriff.

      • Physics_Group | February 14, 2015 at 4:38 am |

        The paper is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and so cannot be refuted using any other laws of physics. However, it was withdrawn mid-2013 and replaced with my book in March 2014. In light of repeated accusations that I was just trying to sell my book, the paper has now been placed on-line again and the content summarized in the group’s website, visited by over 4,250 since January 8th. If you had read our group’s website (itself endorsed by our group of persons suitably qualified in physics) you would have seen a link to the book and could have read on Amazon the positive reviews thereon, such as this ,,,

        “Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”
        John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

      • Physics_Group | February 14, 2015 at 4:42 am |

        See also this article.

      • Physics_Group | February 15, 2015 at 8:32 am |

        Doug Cotton is not a sky dragon or in any way associated wit PSI.

      • Physics_Group | February 15, 2015 at 8:38 am |

        This page outlines the gross errors made by the “Sky Dragons” who are now dominated by Joseph Postma’s postulates and not in any way associated with our group..

  60. Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 6:47 pm |

    Just ran across this one: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/HmMxDCVASOzcIalxTqQOxK/IPCC-approves-draft-text-for-climate-negotiations.html
    I’ll see if I can locate the draft.

    • R Graf | February 13, 2015 at 8:04 pm |

      We are recycling now but much of the world is in the 1970s still.

    • John Vonderlin | February 13, 2015 at 10:30 pm |

      Hi Danny,
      When I’m not getting educated at CE, I am a scientist/artist obsessed with marine debris, especially non-buoyant sinksam. While the headline’s usage of “clogging” made me laugh, it is a long term problem that the world needs to deal with, for aesthetic reasons more than anything else. Having created the world’s largest organized collection of marine debris, researched its components and subsequently used some of it in the creation of hundreds of pieces of environmental art, I probably know more than anyone should about flotsam and sinksam. If you’re curious about what’s out there, especially on the benthos, you can see some of my various collections, mostly gathered from a unique phenomenon known as Neptune’s Vomitorium, here on the Collections page of my Flickr account Enjoy.
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnvonderlin/collections/

      • Danny Thomas | February 13, 2015 at 10:42 pm |

        John Vonderlin,

        That’s amazing! One man’s trash…………

        Please come to S. Texas. Padre needs ya: https://guidesoftexas.com/south-padre-island-talkin-trash/

      • Rob Ellison | February 14, 2015 at 12:58 am |

        I knew a guy who superglued plastic cigarette lighters to his TV set and called it video art.

        I used empty plastic 2L milk bottles to count freshwater shrimp one summer.

        http://www.thames-explorer.org.uk/images/65t.jpg

        In the little creeks coming off the mountain at my wife’s village – they are several inches long and you can catch them in nets made out of recycled orange bag netting. At least my wife can – my skills lie in falling over and letting them all go. To the sounds of much merriment then and later. The ones that don’t get away are cooked in seawater and coconut cream. Very delicious. The orange bag netting can re-recycled into fishing lures.

      • jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 11:26 am |

        JV – what do you think will be the state of all the sinkum from, say today, in 500 years? Will it be completely recycled at that point?

    • R Graf | February 13, 2015 at 11:04 pm |

      We might as well admit the empty milk jug is the perfect housing for an oceanographic tracking beacon. They’re tested tough. But bleach bottles are even better I hear.

    • jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 12:05 pm |

      Danny, the numbers look big, but the ocean is huge. Notice there are only qualitative descriptions of the trash. So, what percent of sea turtles are killed by the trash? That’s an important question. That is, what is the TRUE impact? Is it a disaster? Probably not, I’m thinking. But it does pay the salaries of the people who study it. It is on them to prove this is something that deserves spending money to “fix.”

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 12:23 pm |

        Jim2,

        It’s for way more selfish reasons than that. Stuff messes up my fishing! It also kills wildlife (try unwrapping an uncooperative pelican or gull wrapped in the stuff), and makes the beaches look like heck. As I said, it’s something I can really get behind.

        CaptD?

      • jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 12:25 pm |

        Danny, the beaches can be cleaned. But it is just this sort of mindless emotionalism that leads to onerous regulations and needless expenditures financed by a dwindling middle class. I think we need solid proof that this is a real problem before we charge off with swords drawn. Big picture, please.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 12:58 pm |

        Jim2,

        You a sportsman at all? Big picture? We spend lotso money on wildlife, this stuff kills wildlife (whales, fish, turtles, manatee, birds). Cleaning beaches? We spend lotso money on cleaning beaches, this stuff comes to the beaches from where? Kinda counterproductive, wouldn’t one say? And I did say this was the kinda thing I (me) could get behind. Just so ya know, I do. I have done beach clean up (tractors w/rakes work well and volunteers can run ’em but the tractors and fuel gets paid by taxes). Plus, frankly, I don’t care to live in a dump. Come join us some day and let’s get dirty. I’ll buy the beverages.

      • jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 1:14 pm |

        Danny, you seem to be avoiding answering the quantitative impact question. Just sayin’.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 1:17 pm |

        Jim2,

        Some things don’t require quantitative analysis. Some times it’s just asthetics.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 1:20 pm |

        Jim2,
        Sorry. Can’t get images to work. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Yosemite_National_Park.jpg

      • jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 3:37 pm |

        Clean the beaches, that’s fine with me. But let’s not spend a half a billion to stop all plastic from hitting the seas. Turtles have a long life, there could be billions of them. If 100,000 die of plastic somehow, it’s not worth worrying about. And, I might point out, no one counts the turtles and probably couldn’t if they tried. Nests are counted, but I’m not even sure all those get counted and not sure how nest counts relate to populations. Turtle numbers are an unknown.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 3:54 pm |

        Jim2,

        “Turtles have a long life, there could be billions of them. If 100,000 die of plastic somehow, it’s not worth worrying about.” And their might be 100,000 of them. (What kind of argument is that?). And this leaves out all the other animals who are known to be harmed, this plus asthetics. Think you and I won’t reach agreement on this one.

        I’ve not bothered to look behind these numbers, but your offering said:”But let’s not spend a half a billion to stop all plastic from hitting the seas.”
        According to this link, we spend near $72M for beach clean up in California alone and this excludes collateral damage. I personally would prefer not to step on one of your used syringes.
        http://www.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp-economics.html

        I guess the answer is No, you’re not a sportsman.

      • jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 3:57 pm |

        Sorry, Danny, I didn’t answer your question. No, I’m not a sportsman per se. I do a little fresh water fishing.

        What is bothering me is that any time anyone acquires a pet peeve, they want the government to pick up the tab to fix it. I don’t exist to pay for your pet peeve and neither does anyone else. If it bothers you, then you find a way to pay for it other than taxing the rest of us. This principle applies to a lot of the BS the government spends my money on today, and due stuff like your pet peeve, the government wants more of my money every year.

        I hope I have communicated my objection clearly.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 4:04 pm |

        Jim2,
        I understand your objection, but by that logic if I pollute your river shame on you. There are times when “the collective” (Oooo, is that a borg:) foots the bills for “the collective”. I’m okay with paying to pick up other folks trash in that I receive benefit (asthetics, wildlife, safety). So if I pay for it, and you don’t do you promise to not use it?

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 4:11 pm |

        Jim2,

        Um. I sold my car, so you can’t use my tax money for your roads. I, uh, don’t fly so we’ve gotta cancel the FAA. I’m anti war, so no defense for you.
        (all hypothetical and not posted for accuracy). It don’t work that way.

      • jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 5:09 pm |

        Danny, it would be one thing if the government were selective about what it spends money on. But it passed all rational bounds long ago. It spends like a drunken sailor already. We actually need to see what we can cut spending on instead of finding more boondoggles.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 5:33 pm |

        Jim2,

        No argument that in many ways it’s over done. But scapel wielded by skilled hands not a butcher knife by you or me. Still say we could get much of the way there with a couple lawn chairs and appropriate beverage.

      • jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 5:11 pm |

        Also, I was specifically discussing sinkum, not floatsam.

      • jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 5:11 pm |

        90% of the plastic sinks, BTW.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 5:35 pm |

        Jim2,
        I didn’t know it was that high a percentage, but some does. The stuff on top is hard on wildlife and asthetically unpleasing. And it washes up on that evil old cancer causing sand beach. :) So, I’ll pay for your road, but you gotta let me have the plastic cleaned up. Deal?

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 5:40 pm |

        Jim2,

        From Ed Martin’s offering. Do you eat fish?

        “Exactly what happens to all that plastic once it gets into the ocean remains unclear, the scientists said. Another study, published in PLOS ONE in 2014, concluded that as much as 250,000 tons of plastic — some 5.25 trillion pieces of various sizes — is floating on the ocean surface.

        Some believe that much of the rest is sinking to the ocean bottom or being broken down by microorganisms. But an even bigger worry is that some of the waste breaks down into tiny — sometimes even microscopic — pieces called microplastic, which is being consumed by aquatic animals ranging from worms to whales. The scientists said that some of it eventually will make its way into the human food chain and there is some evidence that it’s already happening.”

      • jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 10:04 pm |

        In most cases, I don’t have a problem eating microparticles of plastic, especially after they’ve been degraded and leached by the sunlight and oceans. They’ll just pass right through.

        I would even bet there are some animals that will find that the plastic is a nice substrate. It’s mostly just carbon and hydrogen – not exactly like mercury or arsenic.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 10:25 pm |

        Jim2,

        I’ll save mine for you. I’m not in to the whole ingestion of petrochemical products myself. And I still don’t care for the asthetics. But that’s just me. :)

      • jim2 | February 15, 2015 at 10:44 am |

        Danny – considering dust from your petrochemical clothes is all over the place, you already ingest it. Also, most of your food and drink are contained in plastic. It’s everywhere!

        Anyway, we are discussing this as if the US is the only source of the plastic. It’s out of our control.

        Shouldn’t the Saudis clean it up since a lot of it is made from their oil?

      • John Vonderlin | February 14, 2015 at 9:33 pm |

        Hi denizens,
        Sorry I didn’t hang around to discuss this subject more, but with today being the second day in a row with beach temperatures in the high 70s here in the Bay Area, staring at a computer screen is no way to lead one’s life.
        About 46% of plastic resins have a specific gravity greater than sea water. The globe has a number of Gyres, large currents that move the water and flotsam around in ocean basins in a generally circular pattern. Here on the West Coast we have the North Pacific Sub-tropical Gyre: The NPSG is the largest of the gyres as well as the largest ecosystem on our planet. Like other subtropical gyres, it has a high-pressure zone in its center. Circulation around the center is clockwise around this high-pressure zone. Subtropical gyres make up 40% of the Earth’s surface and play critical roles in carbon fixation and nutrient cycling.
        This gyre covers most of the Pacific Ocean and comprises four prevailing ocean currents: the North Pacific Current to the north, the California Current to the east, the North Equatorial Current to the south, and the Kuroshio Current to the west.
        Because study of plastic pollution is a new area, advocates tend to promote hyperbolic alarmist views of the dangers poised. Being very knowledgeable about this branch of science I often find myself disturbed by what the media and even scientific papers posit as the truth in this arena. Alarmism, whether by climate scientists seeking grant money or advocacy groups seeking publicity or funds, seems to be the way the game is played. In all matters I maintain: Be skeptical, be very skeptical.

      • Danny Thomas | February 14, 2015 at 7:54 pm |

        Catweazle666,

        Interesting. Wonder if the Storm Petrel that feeds on the “water spiders/sea striders” ingests the plastics too? Everything impacts something, eh? Butterfly wings?

    • Ragnaar | February 14, 2015 at 8:28 pm |

      http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/movement/how-debris-accumulates
      If stuff goes to the middle, something must leave the middle by my thinking. Perhaps it’s an atmospheric lower pressure area.

  62. jim2 | February 13, 2015 at 8:35 pm |

    From the article:
    …
    Kitzhaber, 67, did not appear in public on Friday and neither did his fiancee, Cylvia Hayes. Instead, he issued a page-long statement that was released Friday that made clear his pain and frustration with having to abandon what was to be a historic fourth term. Yet, he wrote, he understood why the move was necessary.

    Criticism had mounted in recent weeks over how Kitzhaber had handed Hayes’ roles as an unpaid clean energy and economic policy adviser in his office, and as a consultant paid to promote the same topics. Since Kitzhaber took office in 2011, Hayes had collected at least $213,000 from contracts, records showed.

    Questions remain as to whether Hayes reported some of that income on her federal taxes.

    Get Flash Player
    Kate Brown addresses media after Kitzhaber’s resignation
    Hear Kate Brown’s full statement to the media on Friday afternoon.
    Last week — the day after Rosenblum called the allegations “serious” and “troubling” — newly released emails showed Hayes directing senior officials as Kitzhaber lent support to hiring a key expert on a policy Hayes pushed.
    …

    http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/02/governor_john_kitzhaber_will_s.html

  63. DocMartyn | February 13, 2015 at 8:57 pm |

    Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber resigned Friday, giving in to mounting pressure to abandon his office amid suspicions that his live-in fiancee used her relationship with him to land contracts for her green-energy consulting business.

    http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-governor-resists-mounting-pressure-resign-085601228.html

  64. Dan Pangburn | February 14, 2015 at 12:01 am |

    Cooking the books doesn’t hide the proof that CO2 change has no significant effect on average global temperature.

    CO2 (at any level that ever existed) has no significant effect on average global temperature. It is trivially easy, based only on existing CO2 and average global temperature measurement data-sets to prove it.

    Temperature responds gradually to a forcing. If CO2 is a forcing, a scale factor times average CO2 level times the duration divided by the effective thermal capacitance (consistent units) equals the temperature change of the duration. During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.

    Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature.

    See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

  65. R. Johnson-Taylor | February 14, 2015 at 12:08 am |

    BBC Newsnight report -Has the Sun gone to sleep?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

    • A. Voip | February 14, 2015 at 9:55 am |

      How is that possible,
      Man made global warming, you are no fool.
      Same sex marriage is fine, you are no fool.
      Eggs and butter and bread, Oh my… you are no fool.
      In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded into all of this, you are no fool.
      Abortions are all about the right to choose, you are no fool.
      We don’t need love we need better sex, you are no fool.
      Just because you wear Nike on you feet, it does not mean you are the idolater, no fooling.
      Mixing the DNA of three will have no consequences, a scientist told me.
      I am still an agnostic about that though…

    • JustinWonder | February 14, 2015 at 12:41 pm |

      Interesting…

  66. Dr. Strangelove | February 14, 2015 at 8:42 am |

    “You’re Still Not Sure Global Warming is Real?”

    It should be restated as “you’re still sure global warming is real?”
    According to RSS satellite data, no warming trend since 1997. Also, no warming trend from 1979 to 1996. However, 1998 was a very warm year due to super El Nino. According to HADAT2 radiosonde data, cooling trend from 1958 to 1978. But we are sure the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

    “Many news reports state that nearly 97% of climate scientists agree that manmade greenhouse gases are changing the world’s climate.”

    Many news reports don’t know what they are talking about as there is no such thing as “97% consensus.” There is in fact a 1% minority opinion among climate scientists that manmade greenhouse gases is causing most of the current warming.

    In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

    Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

  67. AK | February 14, 2015 at 1:26 pm |

    Power to Gas – Microbial Methanation, a Flexible and Highly Efficient Method
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzF7xtGdFeI
    Highly embarrassing to me: this was posted Apr 10, 2013, just 17 days before I put up my Methane Game blog post, but somehow I didn’t find it in my (obviously too cursory) search for prior work. Nor any time subsequent that I referenced it here.

    The process they’re prototyping is slightly different than what I talked about, but close enough to fall under the same rubric: hydrogen from solar-powered electrolysis is combined with CO2 to produce methane which is fed into the existing system. In principle, the ratio of CO2 and hydrogen provided from solar energy could probably be raised to many times the actual amount of biomass fermentation, given appropriate economics (very cheap PV).

    Later in the presentation (~17:00?) she discusses the alternative of putting electrolytic hydrogen directly into the gas distribution system. Apparently, it’s limited to about 5%, and even then only in areas with continuous high flow. Converting to methane can allow the entire system to be solar powered, assuming cheap enough solar PV.

    According to the article La transition énergétique, une chance pour le gaz? (“The energy transition, an opportunity for gas?” in French but Google Translate did a fairly good job):

    The main argument in favor of the gas capacity of the gas network, contrary to the grid to store large amounts of energy. Maintain a high use of electricity for non-specific purposes, such as heating, requires either developing competitive storage solutions, if we want to feed the network with intermittent renewable energy sources, or to resort to nuclear power to power the network of mass and continuously. [via Google Translate]

    However, the current French gas network can store up to 25 terawatt hours of energy in the form of hydrogen , incorporating 6% hydrogen in methane. “It is now possible to play on the complementarity between networks by converting hydrogen into electricity or gas, ” says Benjamin Dessus, a member of Global Chance. The gas network could then store the surplus production of electric renewable energy. The conversion of gas into electricity, if electricity demand dictates, posing no problem. [via Google Translate]

    The main advantage of this approach is to limit investments in the energy network. “Investments have been made ​​in the gas network, they are very important and their life is very long,” says Benjamin Dessus, concluding that “it would be extremely costly to base the energy transition on the deployment of new energy networks”. [via Google Translate]

    The fact that prototype developments are already underway for this conversion, combined with the USN’s research into CO2 extraction from surface seawater, makes for optimistic projections for development of power→gas/fuel for storage and transmission of solar energy within the next decade, as solar PV costs become ever more competitive.

    Basically, given a globalized gas distribution system, anywhere with plenty of sunlight and ocean surface could become a source of marketable gas (methane), simply with the deployment of some (eventually mass-produced) equipment. And such a strategy would go to preserve the value of short-term investments in gas storage, transmission, and electrical generation.

  68. jim2 | February 14, 2015 at 9:59 pm |

    For all those who believe putting ANYTHING on the internet is a good idea, read this.
    From the article:
    …
    The bank’s internal computers, used by employees who process daily transfers and conduct bookkeeping, had been penetrated by malware that allowed cybercriminals to record their every move. The malicious software lurked for months, sending back video feeds and images that told a criminal group — including Russians, Chinese and Europeans — how the bank conducted its daily routines, according to the investigators.

    Then the group impersonated bank officers, not only turning on various cash machines, but also transferring millions of dollars from banks in Russia, Japan, Switzerland, the United States and the Netherlands into dummy accounts set up in other countries.

    In a report to be published on Monday, and provided in advance to The New York Times, Kaspersky Lab says that the scope of this attack on more than 100 banks and other financial institutions in 30 nations could make it one of the largest bank thefts ever — and one conducted without the usual signs of robbery.
    …

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/world/bank-hackers-steal-millions-via-malware.html

  69. angech2014 | February 15, 2015 at 7:04 am |

    From the .← Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data

    “One final way to compare the results of various data producers is by comparing the spatial variability against that produced by global climate models.
    While positive, this comparison does indicate which temperature products are consistent with the variability found in simulations and those which are less consistent.
    The homogenized Berkeley, NASA GISS and NOAA, all broadly agree with historical global climate model runs on this metric.
    On this metric, Berkeley, NASA GISS and NOAA are all consistent with GCMs but on the low side of the distribution.”

    Zeke, .
    An initial glance suggests you are comparing the climate model predictions with the Berkeley Earth Data and in a reassuring way saying the climate models agree with the Berkeley Earth Adjusted Data.
    But,
    the metric is [in fine print of course] 1950 -2000.
    So all you are saying is that the Climate models are programmed to reproduce the past.
    Which we already knew.
    They have to.
    Plus they do it poorly even then.
    You are comparing nothing as an argument
    but you make it read as if you are running a comparison of global climate models to Berkeley Earth estimates now, ie 2000-2015.

    For the record how does Berkeley Earth 2000 to 2015 agree with the Climate models and what does this say to you about the Climate models accuracy?

    • Steven Mosher | February 15, 2015 at 5:36 pm |

      “An initial glance suggests you are comparing the climate model predictions with the Berkeley Earth Data and in a reassuring way saying the climate models agree with the Berkeley Earth Adjusted Data.”

      1. they are not model forecasts. They are hindcasts.
      2. We show both raw and adjusted.
      3. The chart doesnt show anything dispositive as I wrote.

      The main point of the argument would be this. ALL observation datasets
      are MODELS ( estimates) of the truth. all we can show is that the
      observed smoothness is consistent with our best models of physics.
      Not very strong evidence.

      But,
      the metric is [in fine print of course] 1950 -2000.
      So all you are saying is that the Climate models are programmed to reproduce the past.

      NO. spatial VARIABILITY is NOT programed in. duh.

      if you want to see how we compare with models look at the slides on our web site.

      • angech2014 | February 16, 2015 at 7:00 pm |

        Steven Mosher | February 15, 2015 at 5:36 pm | Reply
        “1. they are not model forecasts. They are hindcasts.”
        Who would have thought when programming the models that they could hindcast so successfully.
        Ie they were aware of Pinitubo.
        They were aware of the unexpected warming in the 40’s
        They were able to do the big jump in 1980 and the 1997 super El Nino.
        I would love tho see a program that could hindcast or forecast successfully that El Nino in particular.
        Since the programmes cannot do this, the past was programmed into the settings was it not?
        It had to be because if the climate models disagreed with the past as much as they do with the present no one would have anything to do with them.
        Like Stock Market and Racing Computer guides they will “hindcast” perfectly because they want people to buy their programmes and use them.
        They are hindsets not hindcasts.
        As I have mentioned previously when a program gets predictions 100% right 100% of the time there is no currency to such a program . You are being had, Feynman. Since there is no value in them why bother using them as an argument?

  70. Gautam Kalghatgi | February 15, 2015 at 7:14 am |

    Recently on Dot Earth there was a post on the heat that is going directly into the deep ocean without bothering with the surface, to assert that global warming has not stopped and the”pause” in surface temperatures is misleading (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/a-fresh-look-at-the-watery-side-of-earths-climate-shows-unabated-planetary-warming/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Climate Change&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body).
    Surely this heat sequstered in the deep ocean is “lost” as far as future surface warming is concerned because heat cannot be transferred from the cooler deep waters to the warmer surface waters. I think Prof. Curry pointed this out after the last IPCC report.
    I am just curious why isn’t this point made more loudly. All the climate concerned should be relieved that this is happening!

  71. R. Gates | February 15, 2015 at 3:12 pm |

    Excellent new resource for understanding climate change:

    http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=24953

    Page 16 should particularly interest Judith.

  72. Wendy Thompson | February 15, 2015 at 4:57 pm |

    The Ranque Hilsch vortex tube “provides empirical evidence that a force field acting on molecules in flight between collisions causes an interchange of molecular potential energy (relative to that force field) and kinetic energy. This creates a temperature gradient in the plane of the force field because only the kinetic energy component affects temperature. That temperature gradient in a steady force field represents the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will tend to evolve autonomously. We note that specific heat (Cp) appears in the denominator of the temperature gradient, just as it does in expressions for the temperature gradient caused by the force of gravity in all planetary tropospheres.”

    Such temperature gradients continue in sub-surface regions of Earth even down to the core. Because the gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, any additional thermal energy supplied at the ccoler (outer) end will disturb that state. The Second Law tells us a new state will evolve and this obviously entails some thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection towards the warmer regions as explained in our group’s website.

    Therein lies the explanation as to how thermal energy from the Sun makes its way to the core of any planet or satellite moon, including our own Moon where core temperatures are over 1300°C.

  74. Ragnaar | February 15, 2015 at 6:02 pm |

    David Appell http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/15/denizens-ii/#comment-674887
    “We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979.”
    It appears the no ice insulation situation is the release of 100s of watts per square meter in Arctic. Trying some rough math:
    Loss of 10% of the sea ice
    Total effect 6.4 W/m2 on the entire ocean
    64 W/m2 on the area lost going into the ocean
    200 W/m2 leaving the same
    Their statement seems to refer to the albedo change only. That is, not the net of the albedo and the heat venting to the atmosphere.

  75. jim2 | February 15, 2015 at 6:08 pm |

    From the article:
    …
    Stewart added that “it’s like the Bush administration hired Temple Grandin to build a machine that kills the truth.” Even the audience of devotees seemed to find this simile baffling.
    The idea that “Bush lied” is itself a lazy, ill-informed and false statement.
    As Judge Laurence Silberman, co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week, essentially nobody in the Washington intelligence community doubted the major report that Iraq had an active WMD program in 2002.
    The National Intelligence Estimate delivered to the Senate and President Bush said there was a 90 percent certainty of WMDs. Democrat George Tenet, the Clinton CIA director who continued to serve under Bush, said the case for WMDs was a “slam dunk.”
    John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Joe Biden all looked at the intelligence and voted to authorize force. Sen. Jay Rockefeller argued strongly for the war. Then, years later, when it wasn’t going so well, he published a highly politicized report ripping Bush.
    There is a serious case to be made against the Iraq War, but it’s a lot more complicated than the playground taunt, “Bush lied about WMDs.” (“Hey, I’m a comic, you expect me to do serious? Please welcome our next guest, Henry Kissinger!”)
    …

    http://nypost.com/2015/02/15/how-jon-stewart-turned-lies-into-comedy-and-brainwashed-a-generation/

    • kim | February 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm |

      The FBI one morning
      Lost its notes suborning.
      Eckenrode,
      Where is that toad?
      He’s wanted at a harrowing.
      ====================

  76. Wendy Thompson | February 15, 2015 at 7:31 pm |

    The current slight cooling since 1998 (or “pause”) is due to the fact that the superimposed 60-year natural cycle is declining for 30 years, whereas the long-term (934-year) cycle is still increasing until about the year 2059, after which nearly 500 years of cooling will lead to another “Little Ice Age” no warmer than the last. These cycles are seen quite clearly in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets. Glacial cycles are regulated by the roughly 100,000 year cycles in Earth’s eccentricity, due primarily to the gravitational pull from Jupiter. Variations in eccentricity affect the annual mean distance from the Sun, and thus the intensity of insolation. Meanwhile magnetic fields from the planets also affect Sun spot activity and cosmic rays intensity, this affecting the Earth’s albedo due to variations in cloud cover.

    So there you have it in a nutshell and carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. Greenhouse gases like water vapor do not warm the surface by 33 degrees and rain forests are thus not 30 degrees hotter than much drier regions. Instead, gravity induces a temperature gradient (as per the Second Law propensity towards maximum entropy) which enables diffusive and convective heat transfers into the surface that raise its temperature above the effective radiating temperature of Earth, and likewise for other planets and moons with significant atmospheres.

  77. Peter Lang | February 16, 2015 at 4:40 am |

    David Appell, February 15, 2015 at 3:25 pm, said on the Denizens II thread:

    The only place it’s cold right now is northeastern North America and western Greenland.

    …

    If you’re going to be a skeptic and not a denier, you need to look at all the science, not just the pieces that you think support your position.

    The first sentence is wrong, dead wrong! The whole planet is cold. In fact, this is only the third time in the past half billion years the planet has been in a such a cold period. For 75% of that time there’s been no ice cap at either pole.

    David Appell would do well to take the advice he gives in his last sentence.

    • JCH | February 16, 2015 at 10:44 am |

      He was entirely correct. He was not talking about the last 1/2 billion years. He was talking about February 15, 2015. On February 15, 2015 the only areas of the surface of the earth that were cold were the eastern half of North America, Greenland, and a portion of Siberia. The vast majority of the earth was either at baseline, or above baseline, and much of it far above baseline.

      January 2015 appears to be 2nd warmest January in the instrument record.

      February also looks to be hot. Far hotter than February 2014.

      • Peter Lang | February 16, 2015 at 4:04 pm |

        JCH,

        The baseline is arbitrary. The long term baseline for global average temperature is some 8 C above current temperatures.

        So, both you and he are entirely incorrect. As Appell said (correctly) “You need to look at all the science, not just the pieces that you think support your position”.

      • JCH | February 16, 2015 at 4:08 pm |

        LMAO.

      • phatboy | February 16, 2015 at 4:30 pm |

        JCH, You cannot describe temperatures of -10C to -30C as “not cold”, regardless of the relationship to the baseline.

      • JCH | February 16, 2015 at 4:42 pm |

        Yes, the Medieval Not Quite So Cold Period and the Little Extra Cold Age.

        Global Uncolding.

      • JustinWonder | February 16, 2015 at 4:55 pm |

        JCH
        “January 2015 appears to be 2nd warmest January in the instrument record.”

        Yesterday was the hottest day ever – over the last two days.

  78. A C Osborn | February 16, 2015 at 6:21 am |

    I posted a link further up

    A C Osborn | February 15, 2015 at 5:07 pm | Reply

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/noaa-settled-science-earth-at-5824f-in.html

    Cooling the Past.

    but nobody bothered to respond, so let me make it clear what that link shows.

    Between 1997 and 2014 NOAA reduced the 1997 Temperature by at least 4.2 Degees F, yes 4.2 degrees F.

    From 62.45F to below 58.24F.

    Where does this data come from, why NOAA’s own Annual Analysis.

    More proof that Steve & Paul are correct and that Mosher & Zeke are defending the indefensible and as they keep telling us BEST is so close to the other datasets, by implication BEST are also wrong.

    • nottawa rafter | February 16, 2015 at 7:59 am |

      I read the NOAA report 4 times to make sure the linked analysis said the same thing that the source document, NOAA report, also said. The language in the link is slightly different than the NOAA language. The NOAA language is a little convoluted.

      However, if the linked analysis proves to be a correct interpretation of what NOAA said AND intended to say, this is beyond extraordinary.

      I am already imagining the weasel words that may be used trying to get out of it.

      Perhaps Judith would be kind enough to interpret what the 2 NOAA releases said.

    • Scott | February 16, 2015 at 10:31 am |

      AC Osburn and Tonyb
      Also have the same questions I asked. Rud suggested I check on the BEST data myself. Looked at Paul Homewood’s numbers and am trying to track them to understand. The changes started revising from Steve Goddard are worth a serious investigation. Thanks you guys for keeping issue open.
      Scott

  79. Danny Thomas | February 16, 2015 at 8:47 am |

    Wanna toss out a different approach. When I started looking in to this topic I had effectively zero grasp on why so much politics in a “scientific” topic. That’s changed. There is apparently some science in a political topic. So I have a question.
    What can be agreed upon politically to address the needs of both sides?
    Examples that I can see:
    Land use changes improving ag practices and soil erosion.
    The need for further research in to alternative energy sources as fossil fuels are a limited resource.
    Improved infrastructure.

    I’d sure like to see some common ground as further left/right (I’m in the middle) just creates acrimony. I wish to task each and every one to “give” on something. (Naively posted). Working today but will check in when I can. Regards all.

    • curryja | February 16, 2015 at 9:54 am |

      The Breakthrough/Hartwell approach suggests this kind of thing – adaptation to extreme weather, better land use, research into energy technologies.

      Breathroughers get demonized by ‘true believers’ for taking their eye off the main ball: reducing CO2 emissions ASAP

      • Jonathan Abbott | February 16, 2015 at 10:01 am |

        This demonisation is prime evidence that it is really a political issue.

      • Danny Thomas | February 16, 2015 at 1:22 pm |

        Dr. Curry,

        Thank you. I will look for that.
        Re:”Breathroughers get demonized by ‘true believers’ for taking their eye off the main ball: reducing CO2 emissions ASAP”

        At least this will even out my bruising.

      • Planning Engineer | February 16, 2015 at 2:45 pm |

        It needs to be emphasized that SCIENCE can’t determine the “main ball”. Even with perfect knowledge science can only help you evaluate tradeoffs between various values, it can’t choose or tell you how to weigh values. Hunger today versus future weather risk? Add in unknowns and science clearly can’t shoulder it alone. Today’s economic progress versus future storm damage? True believer skip values and scrimp on the science, believing they already have the main ball, disrespecting both science and politics. You’re a good man Danny – asking for a broad consideration of competing ideas will get you bruised. “Breakthrough” solutions may or may not be the answer but they merit consideration.

        We often see those who doubt the politics of climate compared to those who doubted Darwinian evolution. I think the better comparison often would be to those who doubted the need, efficacy and appropriateness of various eugenic policies, which grew from Social Darwinism. Building from misunderstandings of Darwin’s science, many were consumed by fears of degeneracy and sought remedies that they thought were scientifically motivated and justified. But it was not a case of science saving humanity, but just some very bad politics being advanced under a false banner of science. The goals and methods of the eugenics movements have been left in the dust while the Darwin’s science has stood. Is there a Social Climatist movement that’s gone far from the science of climate that will crumble even as the original science stands? We hear the 97% scientist think (ignoring the myriad of other problems) to advance policy positions as if that means the policy choices are supported by science. That needs some serious unpacking.

        I’d love to see a longer bit on climate as science versus policy.

    • jim2 | February 16, 2015 at 10:10 am |

      Danny, it is telling you can’t accept nuclear energy. This will obviate the need to spend a lot more Federal dollars on “alternative” energy and a solution that many would like to see happen anyway.

      Why didn’t you mention nuclear as a “solution?”

      • Danny Thomas | February 16, 2015 at 1:51 pm |

        Jim2,
        I was hoping someone else would fill in the blanks. I only put up 3.
        Plus, are you “giving” by stating this, and comfortable politically to provide the technology to say……..Iran? (I’m fine with nucler stateside as long as DHS remains funded:)

      • jim2 | February 16, 2015 at 2:56 pm |

        Obama can stop Iran getting nuclear any time he wants. I can’t explain why he doesn’t. From what I’ve read, it appears he wants a feather in his cap, that being that he found a “peaceful” way to get Iran to cooperate. But also from what I’ve read, he is prepared to use force against Iran if necessary. Either way, I hope he succeeds. To me, however, he appears to be playing with (nuclear) fire.

      • Danny Thomas | February 16, 2015 at 3:57 pm |

        Jim2,
        Please re-look at the original post. This entire conversation is from two opposing points of view. We’ve all been there and done that. So trying to think just a bit differently (but not originally) I wanted to try coming at it from the middle. Then we all stop trying to bring others to our view, but instead make a conscious choice to offer a berry from a twig from the olive branch.

        This thought comes out of discussion with a life long friend. He’s CAGW with a capital C. I don’t (yet) see that. I see aGW (little a). I’ve suggested what I’m looking for here (give and take) and I’ve gotten bruised. I’ve tried same a couple months ago at WUWT (I’ll let you guess the response). RC I couldn’t even get in the door.

        There’s got to be some common ground somewhere. And it doesn’t have to hurt anyone and may be beneficial to us all until this all gets figured out. I can’t do the science part, but maybe can help foster just a bit of consideration of building an out. As I said, naievely posted. (But hopeful). I enjoy this blog as much as any I’ve visited because folks from all side can offer views and don’t get way-laid for it. Ya’ll even accept me (low standards?:)

      • jim2 | February 16, 2015 at 4:24 pm |

        Danny, I see nothing compelling about common ground. It’s not an objective. We need better science, not some agreement for agreement’s sake.

      • Danny Thomas | February 16, 2015 at 9:17 pm |

        Jim2,

        Common ground is not an objective? If it’s needed to get the nuclear you desire, you’re willing to forgo? Do I understand that correctly?

      • kim | February 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm |

        Common ground is rising before us. Human caused warming is mild and most likely benevolent, with exceptions. Human caused greening is jes tremenjus, all fall down and thank the Lawd, er, the Lady, Gaia.
        ==================

      • Danny Thomas | February 16, 2015 at 9:12 pm |

        Kim,

        Must be trouble with my cable as the picture doesn’t seem to be coming thru quite a clearly on my set. Seems to be a bit fuzzy mostly on the edges but I’m seeing hints of a picture in the middle. Could be a problem with my provider, however.

      • jim2 | February 16, 2015 at 9:54 pm |

        When it comes to climate science, common ground isn’t an objective. Better?

      • Danny Thomas | February 16, 2015 at 10:10 pm |

        Jim2,

        “When it comes to climate science, common ground isn’t an objective. Better?”

        Why can’t the climate science be removed from the equation? There are definable areas of common ground that have climate oriented side benefits. Why (just trying to understand the thinking) can’t those be done? I get this from AGW and I get this from you, and I just don’t get it. I’m not asking you to give much, just a little. Remember the berry on the twig of the branch of the olive? Do you want nuclear? Would you be willing to support (you fill in the blank here maybe……….solar? I don’t know, toss somthing out) that the AGW side desires? Why does this have to be so hard? I don’t want it imposed, I want you to provide it out of (amorphous) good will. Please help me grasp why this is so wrong minded of me.

    • tonyb | February 16, 2015 at 11:14 am |

      Danny

      I have said here a number of times that I would like to see a Western led CERN type project which would bring scientists together in one facility with a large guaranteed budget for at least ten years. Their purpose would be to explore new forms of alternative energy, improve existing sources and to develop the means to store energy.

      tonyb

    • JustinWonder | February 16, 2015 at 2:04 pm |

      Danny

      “… land use changes…”
      Yes
      “…reasearch…energy sources…”
      Yes, but no forced taxpayer subsidies for commercial enterprises – let the free market take care of that..
      “…improved infrastructure…”
      Yes, a no brainier – prepare for floods, snow, wind, etc…

      • Danny Thomas | February 16, 2015 at 2:19 pm |

        JustinWonder,

        Thank you for that. Forgive my asking, but was there any “giving” from your individual side w/r/t?
        Picking a nit here, but no word from an AGW’er so far.

      • JustinWonder | February 16, 2015 at 3:36 pm |

        Danny,

        ‘…any “giving”…’

        Yes, publicly funded research on alternative energy. In general, I prefer the market to explore this as an r&d activity toward a future opportunity. Companies do this all the time. I am willing to give on that as a concession. In return, I request no more Solyndras. Beware of Tesla-like circuses and their pitchmen. I am not holding my breath.

    • chuckr | February 16, 2015 at 11:32 pm |

      Danny,

      I remember when you first started posting. You had no idea how dishonestly this issue was being used. But to your credit you have always been completely open minded to new evidence. And you’ve had the ability to overcome your preconceived biases and political inclinations. We can all learn from you in that regard. So I can kind of relate to you Danny.
      Me …I post very little… I really don’t have much of value to add. I have a art degree. Am now a craftsman…fine woodwork. I can make almost anything. I don’t remember how I stumbled on Climate Audit…the Air Vent, Bishop Hill and Lucia…but some how I was following these obscure blogs that few read. and a lot of guys I could barely understand. And then….out of nowhere I was a witness to history. One of a few hundred or maybe thousand that witnessed a world changing event as it happened. I was reading Jeff’s blog as it happened….and have followed it ever since. Let me tell you that’s pretty cool to be in that group.
      Even though I still have little of value to contribute i will be here and occasionally make some half hearted attempt to contribute.

      One last point….I miss bender

      • chuckr | February 16, 2015 at 11:44 pm |

        Oh shoot…I thought I was posting on the denizens thread

      • Danny Thomas | February 17, 2015 at 3:00 pm |

        ChuckR,

        I’m taken aback by your kind words. I guess I began as a cynic of skepticism while being skeptical of CAGW. Now I’m mostly skeptical of CAGW, but not aGW. I’ve been mulling over your offering and admit to my eyes being opened to the many machinations in my short few months of effort. I’m better informed thanks to the kindness of many others. I still see warming, suspect CO2 has some cause but can’t find more than substantial correlation (guess I’m not alone here). I can’t imagine taking from another that which they’ve worked so hard to gain w/o good reason as an attempt to address that which may not be cause.

        At this moment in time, I can best express my impression of AGW prognosticators who are so focused soley on CO2 via words given to me by a welder long ago. He said to me:”I can fix anything from a broken heart to the crack of dawn”. I see the CO2 focus as akin to this all while missing dark asphalt, poor urban planning, dark rooftops, bad ag pracitices, deforestation, and so on as being that which we can address w/o punishing folks for “the wrong crime”. I will continue to seek more grounding, will watch the science evolve, and speak out for a cleaner planet all while trying to be a sensible voice in the defense of those who’ve labored diligently to get where they are.

        I’ve not posted on denizens as I’ve not yet reached a point where I feel that description has yet been earned. I’m in a bit of awe over the level of contribution folks are willing to volunteer. I cannot help but (naievely?) believe we’d all stand shoulder to shoulder to address it if the evidence was there for CAGW (for the sake of mere money at the risk of ????). And I cannot express well my thanks to the blog and Dr. Curry for being my teacher(s) by distance.

  80. R. Gates | February 16, 2015 at 10:19 am |

    Yet one more reason why Anthropocene is an appropriate term (as if reasonable people needed one more reason):
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-humans-adriatic-ecosystems-nature.html

    • tonyb | February 16, 2015 at 11:19 am |

      Rgates

      I would highlight this piece from the article you cite;

      ‘The fossil record shows 125,000 years ago the Adriatic region’s climate and sea level were similar to today. However, the authors found significant ecosystem changes in the most recent centuries, including a decline in seven out of the 10 historically dominant mollusk species.

      So this is nothing to do with climate change but our effect as the dominant species on others who live on this planet.

      With some 7 billion of us it would be amazing if we did not have an effect on other species.

      I really don’t know the answer, except to gradually reduce our numbers, but then some here start uttering the word ‘malthusian’ and all rational debate goes out of the window.

      tonyb

      • JustinWonder | February 16, 2015 at 2:20 pm |

        Yes. I would add, there were many extinctions at the end of the current glacial. There was a catastrophic loss of tundra species and an invasion of species from warm refugia. :) The climate changes and species migrate. That said, I personally don’t like the thoughtless destruction of local habitat and the extirpation of species due to bad planning and development practices. We can do better. We can build cities with permeable surfaces, living walls and roofs, rain gardens, urban forests that serve as flood management devices, and urban parks populated with native flora and fauna. We can do it.

      • R. Gates | February 16, 2015 at 4:49 pm |

        “So this is nothing to do with climate change but our effect as the dominant species on others who live on this planet.”
        _____
        This really is the essence of the Anthropocene, as climate change is only one of a multitude of effects.

      • Rob Ellison | February 16, 2015 at 5:38 pm |

        The impacts of climate change are minor even when wildly overestimated. Yet climate change the economics of fossil fuels – and specifically coal fired electricity – dominate the space for policy development. Leading to neglect of far more critical and tractable processes for decades.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/threats_lpi_populations_11.png

        Even then the contribution of emissions from electricity generation are the minor part of a minor problem.

        http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsBySource.png

        The best responses to climate change involve building societal resilience in ways that are not merely compatible with emissions mitigation – but absolutely essential in a broad strategy involving multiple gases, aerosols, population and conservation. The oddness of the climate war is that there is a pervasive progressive politics that is horrendously misguided on both science and policy – but they are utterly convinced of their righteousness and perspicacity. This seems the main barrier to development of rational policy.

        Randy the video guy exemplifies this with his silly and pointless labelling.

    • Lucifer | February 16, 2015 at 12:49 pm |

      Human footprints are declining, not due to central government but economics.
      Never before in human history has fallen as it has or been as low.
      And urbanization continues to be a global trend – which increases efficiency and reduces area occupied.

    • Danny Thomas | February 16, 2015 at 2:17 pm |

      R.Gates,

      Have you seen the actual study?
      Re: “”The changes found by the study researchers are alarming, but there’s reason to believe that other areas have been even more profoundly affected by the effects of pollution, habitat disturbance, lack of oxygen and climate change,” said Steven Holland, a University of Georgia paleontologist not involved in the study. “This is a clear fingerprint of the effects of humans”

      I might buy that last sentence if I saw the study but would expect a direct link as a “clear fingerprint” that each of the effects including climate change are man caused. Lacking that, even I can see “hand waving” and I’m a rookie.
      One additional guess I’d make is invasive species, but that could fall under “habitat disturbance” I suppose.

      Just found this after clicking the link right below your offering: http://phys.org/news/2014-02-individual-ecosystems-survived-largest-mass.html#inlRlv
      From it, this quote: “‘Looking at the global picture, ecosystems were fairly unchanged,’ Twitchett explains. ‘But when we looked regionally, at smaller scales, we saw there were dramatic changes. Before the extinction event the tropics had the greatest ecological diversity, but immediately after they become too hot for ecosystems to function. It was a time of global warming and you actually see the peaks in diversity move north, to more temperate latitudes.’

      Fan the flames, put them out, fan the flames, put them out………………..

  81. Mi Cro | February 16, 2015 at 2:42 pm |

    DocMartyn commented on Denizens II.
    in response to Mi Cro:
    here http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/15/denizens-ii#comment-675226

    What line-shape do you think best describes the daily cooling?
    I could not follow you link, but am interested.

    I hope you find this Doc, maybe this will be better?
    http://www.science20.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/543663916-global.png
    And figures 10-13 here are an example of that shows what the slope value represents.
    http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/analysis_night_time_cooling_based_ncdc_station_record_data-115410

  82. jim2 | February 16, 2015 at 3:26 pm |

    This was in response to Roger Sowell’s Denizen II post.

    jim2 | February 16, 2015 at 2:45 pm | Reply
    I looked at your link, and right off the bat see something that isn’t true. Originally, nuclear power plants were projected to last 30-40 years, not 60 as you say.

    …

    The initial design lifespan is usually 30 to 40 years. This is the figure used for the financial depreciation of the investment in the plant. However, nearly all elements in a nuclear power plant can be replaced except for the reactor vessel. This is consequently the crucial element in determining the true life expectancy of the plant. The safe and useful life of a reactor vessel depends on the degree to which it is neutron leak proof. This factor is monitored by surveillance capsules.

    http://www.leonardo-energy.org/blog/life-expectancy-nuclear-power-plants

    and then I find that existing nuclear reactors have been granted license renewals so they already have lifetimes of 60 years. I’m not seeing how you can say your take on nuclear power is factual.

    …

    So far, 66 of 104 reactors have been granted license renewals. Most of the 20-year extensions have been granted with scant public attention. And the NRC has yet to reject a single application to extend an original license. The process has been so routine that many in the industry are already planning for additional license extensions, which could push the plants to operate for 80 years, and then 100.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43556350/ns/us_news-environment/t/how-long-can-nuclear-reactors-last-us-industry-extend-spans/#.VOJIVB-c1B0

    So, it appears 80 to 100 years is doable. What say you?

    jim2 | February 16, 2015 at 3:01 pm | Reply
    And, France stacks up pretty well against other European countries:

    http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-electricity-prices-kwh

    jim2 | February 16, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Reply
    From the article:
    …
    Nuclear Power in France
    (Updated February 2015)
    France derives about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. This share is to be reduced to 50% by 2025.

    France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.

    France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

    It is building its first Generation III reactor.

    About 17% of France’s electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.
    …

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/

    • Roger Sowell | February 16, 2015 at 3:55 pm |

      @ jim2, whose arguments above appear to be two: 1) nuclear plant life of 60 years, and 2) France is a fine example to emulate regarding nuclear power.

      My response to point 1 is to refer you to two articles, both mine, at http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/bolting-for-safety-at-nuclear-plants.html, and http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-ten.html. Nuclear power plants have quite a number of individual components, with each having a design life. The component or components that determine(s) the ultimate life of the plant is(are) typically the one that can no longer be operated for one of two reasons: 1) plant safety is compromised, or 2) replacing the component cannot be justified economically.

      I would also quote from my Conclusion article: “Next, nuclear plants are claimed to run for 60 years before replacement. This assertion is simply not true; the Rancho Seco plant (California) mentioned just above lasted only 18 years, while the two reactors at SONGS (San Onofre in California) plant lasted just under 30 years. The Three Mile Island Reactor 2 (Pennsylvania) melted down after only one year of operation. Per the NRC, at this time the oldest US operating reactors are 44 years old. Of the 28 shutdown nuclear reactors in the US, none made it to 60 years before shutdown.”

      The response to your point 2, France, is found in one of the most widely-read articles on TANP, number 11, “Following France Is Not The Way To Go.” http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part.html

      Quoting also from the Conclusion article, “This fact, France having 85 percent nuclear power on their grid, is frequently thrown out by nuclear advocates to show that nuclear power is the best power choice, and that other countries would do well to follow France’s lead. The reality is quite different. This is discussed at length in TANP part 11. France has few fossil fuel resources (at least up until now when natural gas is widely available but un-tapped via hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling). Power before 1974 was provided by oil-burning power plants, using imported oil. The OPEC oil embargo raised oil prices so much that France chose to build nuclear plants rather than import oil. This is a theme that will be considered in greater detail in Part III of this concluding article. . . . .

      “As shown in part 11, France had to subsidize its power industry, and must to this day sell excess power at night to other countries (primarily Italy) to avoid reducing the nuclear plants’ output each night and increasing again each day. Only with the Italians’ cooperation is this possible. France has also been found in violation of illegally subsidizing its power prices. Finally, even with vast subsidies, France charges its customers between 50 percent and 100 percent more (essentially double) for electric power compared to prices in the US. This is hardly a roadmap for anyone else to follow. Indeed, no other country follows France in building so great a share of nuclear power on its grid. After 40 years from the Oil Embargo, if it were a good idea, surely some other country would have done so. ”

      These are the facts about France, and its nuclear industry. There is much, much more, but none to recommend following France.

      • jim2 | February 16, 2015 at 4:30 pm |

        You seem to believe that selling power to other countries is a bad thing, it isn’t. Some newer nuclear designs automatically or otherwise follow load, so even the no-load-following is no longer true.

    • Roger Sowell | February 16, 2015 at 5:35 pm |

      @jim2, I invite you to read this article, TANP Part 2, regarding nuclear power plants that export power, and load-following.

      http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-two.html

      Also, importing nuclear power in Italy is highly controversial with many Italians opposed. If nuclear plants were forced to load-follow instead of operate as base-load, the sales price per kWh generated would skyrocket. This is a known fact, and is the primary reason few (if any) nuclear plants operate in load-following mode.

      The effect, one among many, of nuclear power exported by France to other countries is the other countries must cut back their own generating plants at night. This, in effect, subsidizes the nuclear plants by imposing startup and shutdown costs on the receiving countries. Or, if not shutdown and startup, there are costs associated with ramping up and down.

  83. KenW | February 17, 2015 at 4:06 pm |

    Tonyb, that deranged individual has gotten way too much attention lately. Without us, she is nothing.

    • Tonyb | February 17, 2015 at 4:11 pm |

      KenW

      More specifically without WUWT she is nothing! but she does seem to be turning her attentions increasingly to Judith. The credentials of many of the denizens is first class. You don’t disparage that breadth of knowledge unless you see them as a threat.

      She has confirmed several times that she has limited knowledge of climate so it would be nice to know who supplies her with the background information on a wide variety of climate related subjects.

      Tonyb

  84. JustinWonder | February 17, 2015 at 4:14 pm |

    Is it the end of snow as we know it, dammit?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html?_r=0

    What a difference a year makes!

    • KenW | February 17, 2015 at 4:28 pm |

      from the article:

      ” Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level.”

      buahahahahahahahahahahah!

      • JustinWonder | February 17, 2015 at 5:17 pm |

        I wonder how all those people get to the ski resorts,or up the hill, or keep warm inside the lodges drinking fluids that are warmed how? I was just wonderin …

  85. Joshua | February 17, 2015 at 4:58 pm |

    KenW –

    Looks like Judith broke out the Zamboni –

    In case you’ll see it here:

    ==> “we make no claim to authority here, Joshua. ”

    So is your point is that the credentials listed in this thread are irrelevant to evaluating the beliefs espoused?

    If so, I can’t say I agree. The credentials listed are of some value, just as they are when we consider the scientific credentials of the vast majority of scientific experts on the climate – who hold a set of beliefs that are different than the typical view here.

    The scientific credentials of those involved in the discussion, and the prevalence of respective views among those with scientific background and training, is of some value for me, as someone who isn’t very bright or technically qualified, to assess probabilities.

    Also, for me as someone who can’t evaluate the technical arguments on their own merits – the consistency of logic in the reasoning displayed is of some value. If someone makes logically inconsistent arguments in one area it doesn’t necessarily mean that the logic of their arguments in other areas is similarly afflicted by poor logic. But logical consistency is information that I can use to help me evaluate probabilities.

    But of course, scientific credentials and logical consistency in other areas are both of limited value, as ultimately technical arguments should stand on their own merits. It would be wrong for me to think that either is dispositive.

    • KenW | February 17, 2015 at 5:15 pm |

      Joshua, nobody is making a technical argument.

      Our Hostess asked us to tell her who we are. We know who she is, so many of us thought it fair to tell her who we are.

      We can’t help it – who we are.

      You can make more of it if you want to, and apparently some people are bothered about who we are, but there’s really no more to it.

    • Mike Flynn | February 17, 2015 at 5:59 pm |

      Joshua,

      You wrote –

      “But of course, scientific credentials and logical consistency in other areas are both of limited value, as ultimately technical arguments should stand on their own merits. It would be wrong for me to think that either is dispositive.”

      Would you be so good as to let me know what you mean by ” . . . credentials in other areas . . . “?

      I assume you are referring to expertise in areas other than climatology, which of course is a non science. Therefore, any person claiming expertise or qualifications in the area of climatology is either a fool or a fraud, albeit unknowingly.

      You move on to say that arguments should stand on their own merits, and I agree. The merits of the arguments involved should, and must, stand on facts. Of these the Warmists have none. No Great Moments in Climatology, no Nobel Prizes for Climatology, no Climatological Contributions to Humanity Through the Years.

      Nothing.

      The fact that people with higher degrees believed in the luminiferous aether, or the fixed nature of the continentsthe, or many other things, did not make them true.

      I am an unbeliever in Global Warming for two reasons. First, the globe is not warming. Second, the proposed non existent warming mechanism involving CO2 has never been shown to exist. It’s all a pious hope, backed up with fervour rather than fact.

      I choose not to believe in the non-existent. You believe the opposite, obviously. Good luck with your belief!

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

  86. Joshua | February 17, 2015 at 5:20 pm |

    Thanks for the explanation of your view that there’s nothing meaningful about the thread

    • KenW | February 17, 2015 at 5:35 pm |

      Why certainly it is meaningful, you now know who we are, Earthling.

      • Joshua | February 17, 2015 at 5:41 pm |

        What is the meaning of who you are? Is there nothing to who you are other than the few details posted by some of “you?.”

      • curryja | February 17, 2015 at 5:56 pm |

        They are given 500 words to comment, and each selected something to say that they thought was either interesting or relevant. I thought most very very interesting, and few were fascinating. Joshua, did I miss your Denizens bio?

      • KenW | February 17, 2015 at 5:47 pm |

        You now know who many of us are, and we have said what we think. You are welcome to do the same.

    • Lucifer | February 17, 2015 at 7:01 pm |

      Joshua, I confess that I had to look up ‘denizen’ ( ‘an inhabitant or occupant of a particular place.’ )

      Given your posting frequency, you definitely qualify – why not contribute?

  87. rls | February 17, 2015 at 5:58 pm |

    Joshua

    I find biographies very meaningful. The experiences of some people can be remarkable and can affect our own lives.

    Richard

  88. Mark Silbert | February 17, 2015 at 6:40 pm |

    Joshua,

    I would really like to know why you do what you do and say what you say on this blog. There may be others as well. Do you know? Do you have the humility to tell us? Where are you coming from? What is your knowledge base?

  89. R. Gates | February 17, 2015 at 6:55 pm |

    More evidence as to why Arctic sea ice will continue to decline and why increasing ocean heat content has real world implications and doesn’t just “harmlessly diffuse”:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-tides-deep-atlantic-arctic-ocean.html

    • curryja | February 17, 2015 at 7:00 pm |

      thx for the link

    • maksimovich | February 17, 2015 at 7:18 pm |

      The recent increase in ohc however is not global,it is local and mostly confined to the extra tropical southern ocean.The inversions (and observations) suggest transport is ballistic and not diffusion ie wind driven and not radiative hence a constraint on model behavior.

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n8/full/nclimate2293.html

    • R. Gates | February 17, 2015 at 7:35 pm |

      This quote, from the researchers:

      “We studied the warm body of water from the Atlantic that represents the largest oceanic input of heat into the Arctic – it is four degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding water, and it is the warmest it has been in nearly two thousand years…”

      ____

      As pointed out in multiple other studies, the Atlantic water entering the Arctic is the warmest it has been in nearly two-thousand years. Setting aside the cause of this warmer water for a moment (as the cause may be complex and multiple), what the research specifically looked at is how this warmer Atlantic water actually melts the ice since it is “sandwiched” between two colder layers. The study makes the point that over the long-term, the more the ice is melted, the more likely for tidal mixing to occur that the warmer layer can get mixed into the upper colder layer and cause greater melting. We see this during large Arctic cyclones, such as we saw during early Aug. 2012 (The so-called Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012). Warmer water was brought up from depth and caused a great deal of flash melting of the sea ice. How much this single cyclone impacted the record low sea ice that summer is hard to say, but it could have been significant.

    • steven | February 17, 2015 at 8:05 pm |

      The Gulf Stream is melting the Arctic ice. Never would have occurred to me.

  90. Lucifer | February 17, 2015 at 7:10 pm |

    Recently did an Arctic refresh. Subject to future observation, of course,
    but it appears as if Arctic sea ice recently started surviving to be older:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/Figure4b1-350×271.png

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/04/Figure5-350×618.png

    And consequently thicker:
    http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png

    • kim | February 18, 2015 at 12:12 pm |

      Hee, hee, this is why I’ve been telling Jim Hunt to watch volume recovery, poorly measured as it is. There are theoretical reasons, which I can’t intuit this day, to expect recovering volume to be an early indicator of recovery. Mebbe it’s just the more dimensions thing.
      =====================

  91. Jim D | February 17, 2015 at 9:52 pm |

    Catching up with today’s goings on about Lewis and M&F at CA, Pekka has issued a summarizing statement that has now converged with what I have been thinking. You have to step back and realize that dT has two parts, the forced part and the internal variability part. The Lewis view seems to be that Forster has not provided a dF that is independent of the natural variability part of dT despite the fact that Forster had all the model data required to make that separation. Yet by its lack of correlation over 15-year periods, M&F have demonstrated that it is independent, and that the forced part of dT is relatively small until you use 62-year periods. What I don’t understand is why Lewis thinks dF is correlated with the natural variability part of dT when M&F have demonstrated it isn’t, and you can see dF is just GHGs, aerosols, solar and volcanoes by the plots. What does Lewis think dF should look like if not just the sum of those processes? Does he really think Forster was unable to separate out the natural variability from dT when he had all the data to do so? If so, why did he not complain about Forster’s 2013 paper instead of M&F? These are the questions, and they point more towards Lewis than M&F.

    • R Graf | February 18, 2015 at 5:57 pm |

      Check it out today. The noose is tightening. Frank, Roman and Greg are doing really well to hem things in. Don had a great comment.

      • R Graf | February 18, 2015 at 6:14 pm |

        Pekka is clearly devoted. I believe M&F do not deserve such devotion. There is many indications now that look like intentional intentional stretching of conclusions in the paper.

      • R Graf | February 18, 2015 at 8:01 pm |

        Not Gregory Peckka; ooey…

        Nice picture though — Pekka guarding the M&F gang from unpredictable danger.

      • JCH | February 18, 2015 at 11:01 pm |

        Like the book, Pakka and Atticus were protecting somebody from a mob that wanted short-cut justice because, well, because their blood was up.

        You added the noose.

      • R Graf | February 20, 2015 at 1:12 pm |

        The models create their own political issues that are getting in the way of the science. Science papers on fundamental questions are rarely ready for prime time but the news reports are hungry. Real climate research news is incremental and boring. One thing even the supporters of M&F agree on is that their conclusions are not warranted from their methods and results. The news release form Max Plank Inst. was even more unwarranted as it further exaggerated. Then reporters embellished on this to declare “ALL the models are predicting accurately”. Whisper down the lane in the modern age, by accident or design?

        Capn, How do you like my working analogy of radiative forcing to a flimsy ship rudder on the high seas? The M&F paper is trying to assert proof that despite the rudder being flimsy and overpowered by the waves, is large and going to turn the ship any wave now? The question becomes how many waves until you know your rudder isn’t there?

        As a captain I was thinking you might have special insight.

    • Jim D | February 18, 2015 at 10:30 pm |

      I think they are only now starting to ask whether there is a correlation between dF and dT at short time scales. Lewis only wants to look at the 62-year correlation, which is surely not what drives the 15-year result. The fact that the 15-year correlation is so weak is the point of the paper, and this is what needs to be addressed, not what Lewis is asserting which is, I think, that the correlation should be strong because it is “circular”. If it was strong, he would have a point, but it isn’t which by itself shows he was wrong. If Lewis is complaining about the dF used by M&F, he should be asking for Forster et al. (2013) to be retracted. The fact that he isn’t implies that he thinks this dF is OK, but only that papers that use it should be retracted. So, two questions. Does Lewis think Forster et al. (2013) should retract their dF? Does Lewis believe that 15-year temperatures are not correlated well with dF?

      • R Graf | February 18, 2015 at 10:59 pm |

        I am not a climate scientist, just a mere regular scientist, but this circularity thing I can agree with you that if M&F are guilty Forster 2013 is likely too. It would not be surprising if this were not the first infraction. I know that you point is the opposite, if they did it before what’s different now.

        I re-read CLB from the top again tonight and see that all were befuddled, and one may still be, what constitutes circularity. I admit I had to do some research to back up my longtime gut. Most people use their gut. But that is wrong. Systems analysis can quickly become so complex that you need to check carefully. You saw my definition in CA. I stand behind it. Any means even a smidgen of circularity is instant death to the method. The only way around pulling forcings from earlier diagnosis is to show that they are either constant all the time or in sync with all of your other assumptions. The F is not constant with T or else there would be no meaning to the equation or analysis. I was shocked to read Ed on CLB even ask. Since models are black boxes with varying T and F relationships that also depend on 3 to 5 other variables. One is sunk the moment one plugs any one of them in independently from another outside source. As I said, I think that has been going on a lot.

      • Jim D | February 18, 2015 at 11:21 pm |

        I would be interested in their response if you go to CA and suggest that it follows from their argument that Forster should also be retracted. This might tell us a lot about how they are thinking. It needs a prod to get them to say what they mean sometimes. I also notice they don’t take kindly to anyone noting that McIntyre has been absent from that discussion on his own blog. Push them. Ask them to audit how dF and dT really correlate. They are not serving their readers by prolonging this. While you are at it, ask Lewis why it is OK for him to plug one form of an equation into an approximated form of the same equation. Could that lead to a false appearance of circularity, for example? All kinds of questions still unanswered about what Lewis was actually doing.

      • R Graf | February 19, 2015 at 11:30 pm |

        Jim D,

        You have some good and fair insights. On Steve M, there could be any number of reasons but there is no reason to presume anything. Nic is presiding. Maybe Steve is taking advantage of having a breather. I would bet he’s researching, though. You were prescient on M&F not being the first to err. Other’s are thinking the same it seems today.

        I think everybody is re-pondering again the equations as you say. My thought is that the issue at hand is a symptom, not the disease. The oversimplification of what is going on in the super-computer is likely the disease. It has become tempting to liken it to an oracle that must be protected and can be interpreted only by it’s few keepers.

        I have been trying to make more sense of the equations that are at the heart and feel they simply do not represent the physics being described.
        Radiative forcing is basically added CO2, and the initiation of a new equilibrium is being incrementally added. Now, increase by that amount of TOA imbalance, the theoretical manifestation of radiative forcing. The effect is temperature rise to regain radiative equilibrium. But, another effect is increased cloud formation, increases albedo, reducing radiative imbalance without requiring temperature rise.

        In this scenario does one assign the cloud feedback to be a temperature modifying variable, like Forster? Or, is it rightfully a TOAI factor because the cloud effect is really not about temp clouds are about radiation, albedo? Or, could you just simply reduce your forcing and to simplify calling it a force when it really is naturally and automatically countered? It is arbitrary; but it might be affecting the math.

      • Jim D | February 20, 2015 at 12:10 am |

        R Graf, you are referring to the balance equation, a*dT+dN=dF. In this the ‘a’ value contains all the feedbacks that contribute to the equilibrium response, so this is cloud and water vapor feedback, possibly some ice albedo and CO2 outgassing too. This links the forcing change to a new equilibrium temperature. The ‘a’ term as derived from test runs exceeds the Planck value, and so the feedback is net positive. On short time scales dF is nearer zero, and the other terms tend to cancel because dT can still be large from year to year. As I said, dN also has a kind of restoring force to keep dT from deviating too far from the equilibrium value. Today at least one skeptical person on CA (andersongo) has started to finally have an inkling of this dN and dT cancellation. Let’s see how that goes. No sign of Lewis there today. If this thing had legs, it would be snowballing rather than fizzling out, but no one understands what Lewis is doing, because he asserts a circularity where the data says there isn’t. I think he is confused because the long-term dT was used to compute dF and a, but there is another component of dT that dominates in 15-year spans, and that is natural internal variability. By not seeing these two components as separate he thinks there is circularity. His logic goes something like.
        Forcing causes temperature changes
        Natural variability causes temperature changes
        therefore Forcing is correlated with natural variability (wrong)
        The equation shows two distinct terms (dF and dN) that are not functions of each other, but both affect dT.

      • R Graf | February 20, 2015 at 12:36 am |

        Why did they design the models not to be able to output a clear readable data stream of the relevant variables? How can you put so many feedbacks that all follow different causes and dependencies on one simple factor and make an equation? How do you integrate 80% chaos for 15 years?

        What they did, taking assumptions from one set of model runs and applying them to another set of model runs would not be accepted in medical trials. As a matter of fact perhaps farming out the regression work without indicating the purpose would be a good blind to eliminate real and suspected bias.

        The model seems a handy too to test hypotheses against historical T plots but, outside that, hope of having a predictive tool were overblown. I say take the 10 best models and figure out what they did better and make ever more additions, keeping the old ones just to keep an eye on how they plot. Do they still occasionally run CMIP3 models to see how they are doing?

      • Jim D | February 20, 2015 at 12:50 am |

        R Graf, I think it is better that they get the sensitivity from out-of-sample simply forced runs than if they used the same runs. That way, they have control of the forcing strength, and are not trying to infer it from nature alone. The simply forced runs are necessary towards the understanding. It is better not to ignore them.

      • R Graf | February 20, 2015 at 9:20 am |

        They actually did make controlled runs, one set with no forcing and another by giving an immediate burst of 4X CO2. Still, the models are so complex the results took much deduction, a diagnosis that included assumptions. Why were not the computers originally programmed to output the desired types of data?

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 20, 2015 at 10:16 am |

        R Graf, “Why were not the computers originally programmed to output the desired types of data?”

        Hind sight. the models were originally designed to output what was thought to be the desired types of data. With the models performance less than desired, the search turns to what may be the required data outputs,

        There are two major problems with the models that I see. The first is that thermodynamics requires actual temperature estimates and the models don’t get actual temperatures. The second is historic volcanic forcing. Crowley and Unterman 2013 is the latest historic volcanic forcing estimate and it is significantly different than the forcing used in CMIP5 model runs for AR5.
        http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/5/187/2013/essd-5-187-2013.pdf

        There is a link to the technical details of reconstructing volcanic forcing.

        If the major problems are model inputs not “natural” variability, the M/F paper is a waste of time. The models simply aren’t ready for prime time.

      • kim | February 20, 2015 at 10:45 am |

        They’re fantastic, and digestible.
        ======================

      • Jim D | February 20, 2015 at 9:03 pm |

        The forcing is not a direct quantity in the model. They add aerosols or volcanic dust, and these affect clouds or radiation directly, and that affects albedo in various ways around the world, and that results in a forcing change. You can’t a priori know what that change is until you have run the model. Even GHG forcing increases, although easier to predict, are not exact because the global water vapor and temperature distribution significantly affects this geographically. In the end you have to back out the forcing change by the type of method used which is the radiation budget.

  92. Wendy_Thompson | February 17, 2015 at 10:10 pm |

    Rob Ellison and others:

    Some of our replies to you are being deleted, so I suggest you read this comment which is applicable to your conjecture about radiative forcing.

  93. PhysicsGrp | February 18, 2015 at 12:08 am |

    Rob Ellison

    We could argue that an imaginary Earth without any atmosphere at all would receive mean radiative flux of 342W/m^2 for which Stefan Boltzmann calculations yield a temperature of about 279K which is only 9 degrees cooler than the assumed temperature of 288K which I believe to be wrong anyway, and probably should be closer to 280K. So what happened to the IPCC’s “33 degrees of warming.”

  94. AK | February 18, 2015 at 9:42 am |

    Methane Hydrates are a Promising Energy Resource

    The total quantities of methane hydrates are quite staggering when compared to conventional fossil fuels. It is thought that there is at least twice as much carbon stored in hydrates as there is in all conventional oil, gas, and coal combined, but not all of the hydrates are in formations amenable to development. For instance, the Gulf of Mexico is particularly rich in hydrates with total estimates around 21,000 trillion cubic feet (tcf), but only around 6,700 tcf are considered producible. For comparison the US consumed 26 tcf of natural gas in 2013 and global gas consumption was around 111 tcf. Rough estimates for producible hydrates globally are in the tens of thousands of trillion cubic feet of methane.

    […]

    Hydrate formations being explored for energy production are distinct from the formations at risk of melting. Only a small subset of hydrates present any potential environmental risk, and likewise only a subset of hydrates are amenable to energy production. Formations at risk of melting are near the surface, while those being explored for energy are deep below the surface.

    […]

    Carbon dioxide can also form hydrates and this has become a very promising line of research for both carbon sequestration and for energy production. It is a well-documented phenomenon that injecting CO2 into a methane hydrate will release the methane and the carbon dioxide will take its place in the ice. Supercritical CO2 has been successfully used as a production fluid for releasing the methane, but only limited experimentation has been done to try and use hydrates for large scale CO2 sequestration.

    […]

    An important test site was run in Alaska under a collaboration between the US NETL, ConocoPhillips and the Japanese. In this test at the Ignik Sukumi site onshore, a blend of supercritical CO2 and nitrogen was injected into the hydrate formation to produce the methane. Though short-lived the test was successful, a video on the project can be seen here.

    […]

    A big concern in producing the hydrates is that it could cause destabilization of the sea floor, subsidence is not uncommon in conventional oil and gas drilling and avoiding subsidence is a critical technical concern in hydrate technology development. One of the benefits in using CO2 as a production fluid is that it exchanges with the methane in the ice and works as a cement to maintain structural stability. One of the challenges in using CO2 it has a tendency to immediately form hydrates with the mobile water and interfere with the methane production. For this reason a blend of carbon dioxide and nitrogen was used in the Ignik Sukumi test to create the proper thermodynamic conditions for the methane to flow while maintaining stability of the reservoir.

    […]

    Drilling methane hydrates is much cleaner than conventional gas drilling or hydraulic fracturing. First of all, there are no neighbors to be bothered when working offshore or in remote arctic regions. Secondly, there is no dirty water to be disposed of, and unlike hydrofracking no harmful chemicals are needed, the only chemicals used are carbon dioxide and nitrogen so there is no risk of environmental contamination.

    http://breakingenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/02/dodge-meth2.jpg

    Commercial production of methane hydrates could be a complete game changer in global energy markets. In the same way that hydrofracking for shale gas caught energy markets by surprise, methane hydrates will likely do so on an even bigger scale. The reason is that the resources are simply enormous and widely distributed around the world. Every continent has substantial hydrate deposits and that means that countries that have never had domestic gas resources before may soon find themselves players in a new gas revolution.

    Not just that! Notice that it offers a very productive method of sequestering CO2, potentially enough to balance the methane being removed. Combine this with the USNavy’s (potentially very cheap) process for extracting CO2 from the ocean surface, and you’ve got essentially inexhaustible supplies of fossil-neutral methane. Yet another reason to focus on short-term expansion of gas-generated energy: “renewable” resources might turn out to be unneeded.

  95. R. Gates | February 18, 2015 at 11:42 am |

    Though many denizens here are not fans of Dr. Jennifer Francis for some reason or another, it seems her ideas of a wavy jet stream and extreme weather are getting more and more support:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-evidence-link-wavy-jet-stream.html

    To remind some here of Dr. Francis’ overall perspective on a warming planet and the effect on the jet stream, see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAiA-_iQjdU

    If February is not considered “extreme” by those living in the NE, then “there is no pleasing you.”

  96. Andrew M. | February 18, 2015 at 5:44 pm |

    Is this the future of climate?
    Time will tell.
    And following in the footsteps of the “professionals” at the IPCC, if my prediction turns out to be wrong I will just blame it on “short term natural variability” being unpredictable… as though that is some sort of acceptable excuse when the vast majority of the last 60 years’ climate change has been natural. :)

  97. Peter Davies | February 19, 2015 at 7:41 am |

    Just read VeryTallGuy’s contribution to the Denizens II thread. A perfect example of a scientist speaking about something he is not qualified in and making a good fist of being afflicted with head up backside syndrome. I sincerely hope that he takes his sanctimonious comments well away from Judith’s blog in future.

  98. PlanetaryPhysicsGroup | February 19, 2015 at 6:17 pm |

    Don Monfort

    I appreciate your various comments above pertaining to the incorrect physics which our “Planetary Physics” group has also demonstrated here. You and any others from any English or German speaking country with qualifications in physics are welcome to join the group via the email address in the linked website.

  99. Jim D | February 20, 2015 at 12:18 am |

    The Denizens 2 thread is starting to look a little cookie-cutter now. It goes, I used to believe, then climategate, hockey stick…, Realclimate was rude to me or others, found CE, now I am a skeptic. Check the number that have all of these elements. I think someone is playing a joke.

    • kim | February 20, 2015 at 7:18 am |

      The One-Two Punch knocked out the lights, but so many still see stars.
      ===============

    • Danny Thomas | February 20, 2015 at 11:04 am |

      Jim D,

      Interesting observation. I saw the same trend. Please share this with Michael and his “pearl clutching”. When I first started this quest, I had exactly the same experience. So to me, this says much about the folks at RC. Having said that, I’ve had many folks here provide me with links, research materials, and points of view (confirmational bias for me that the answer lies somewhere in the middle). AGW has “projected” many things that have been proven inaccurate yet one is expected to accept the future projections as backed by some “consensus” supported IPCC. After the 20th time my doctor/lawyer/dentist/whatever told me that this would happen after that track record………I’d get a second opinion. Wouldn’t you?

      I percieve that it would work wonders if the AGW side would admit falibility and provide balance but that does not occur. It’s all alarmism. I also percieve a range of “skeptics” here so they (we) should not be all painted by the same brush.

      Please tell me. Who’s wrong and who’s right? My answer, just for discussion, is both.

      And would one have the same perception of the AGW side w/r/t:” starting to look a little cookie-cutter now”? I’d say the entirety of the CC issue cannot be cookie cutter.

  100. RickA | February 20, 2015 at 7:08 am |

    Jim D:

    Better watch out.

    Sounds like conspiracy ideation.

  101. Danny Thomas | February 20, 2015 at 10:26 pm |

    JimD,
    Koonin vs. Pierrehumbert
    The “committee apparently made a decision to formulate a panel, but by appearances Koonin was soley responsible for the selections. Is that accurate?
    “But these experts were “balanced” with people picked disproportionately from the tiny wing of climate skeptics: Dick Lindzen, Judy Curry, and John Christy. One participant in the process described it to me as being set up as “a show trial of the IPCC”—that is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—rather than an educational event aimed at probing the deeper questions concerning global warming. If you expose a panel of physicists who are ignorant of climate science to 50 percent wisdom and 50 percent nonsense, one cannot hold out much hope for a good outcome.”
    Held, Santer and Collins are “wisdom” and Curry et al are “nonsense”?
    What occured at the discussion? What was unbalanced? I don’t know, but I can see what’s implied.

    “Major policy decisions are routinely made in economic and national security areas in the face of far greater uncertainty than prevails in climate science.”
    And how do those national security decisions turn out? How many bazillions of dollars have we spent on homeland security and what did that stop? Where is the analysis? I’d say uncertainties abound, and P’s fine with those uncertainties balanced his way, but not okay with uncertainties tilted against
    Not spending bazillions is a known, spending bazillions is a known with unknown results. Which is better and why?

    These in contrast with Koonin are exactly why I suggested in the intellectuals thread that all labels should be removed (including or especially names) and the discussions be it science or in this case Pierrehumbert’s apparently preferred polices be subject to analysis.

    Pierrehumbert indicates Koonin has no standing.”What makes Koonin’s piece noteworthy more than anything else is the messenger.” What makes Pierrehumbert have more standing?

    Is Koonin responsible for all of BP’s business decisions?

    Ad hom’s by Pierrehumbert:”The word I have from inside APS is that Koonin has resigned from the Panel on Public Affairs to allow himself greater latitude to make public pronouncements on climate change, so we can expect to be hearing much more from him in the future. There is a lot of good will (and intelligence) on the remaining panel, so there is a good chance that it will be able to recover from an inauspicious beginning.”
    Implying that it’s okay for Pierrehumbert to have a voice, but not Koonin and that since Koonin left the panel is now intellegent?

    I see a lot of attacks on the person, but where is Pierrehumberts defense of the models on which Koonin focused.

    Pierrehumbert picks “standard climate skeptics’ canon” but talks not of the misses on the AGW side.

    Pierrehumbert chastises Koonin for elaborating “uncertainties” then states:”Climate science has been refined in the fires of such disputes for well over a century now, and the constant turmoil of questioning still dominates the professional journals and meetings. Indeed, most of the uncertainties highlighted by Koonin were first identified and reported in professional journals by climate science “insiders” (in some cases even IPCC authors), and continue to be vigorously discussed there”. From my view that indicates the uncertainies have been in place for over a century and are still unresolved.

    And nowhere, did I see Koonin mention Pierrehumbert or any other scientist by name. Only the policy based on models with a poor track record.

    • Jim D | February 20, 2015 at 11:26 pm |

      If the scientists in a field are 30:1 of a view, why would your panel to get at the truth be 3:3? Then Koonin’s article only parroted the views of the 3 skeptics with nothing from the other side even being conceded. Pierrehumbert has written textbooks on aspects of climate, and you can find others equally knowledgeable for your panel. A similar thing happens with congressional panels that are not weighted according to those who actually work in the scientific field. The APS got into trouble when they said in 2007 that the evidence for global warming was incontrovertible, that created a lot of noise and some resignations, which is why they were forced into bringing skeptics into a new report. That statement now seems tame, and even congress has acknowledged this much. Such is the way that vocal minorities get their way.

      • Jim D | February 20, 2015 at 11:33 pm |

        The 2007 APS statement. Their most recent to date.
        http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

      • Danny Thomas | February 20, 2015 at 11:42 pm |

        Jim D,

        Did Koonin state or imply otherwise?

      • Jim D | February 20, 2015 at 11:35 pm |

        Actually the link included a more extended commentary from 2010 too.

      • Danny Thomas | February 20, 2015 at 11:42 pm |

        JimD,

        “Then Koonin’s article only parroted the views of the 3 skeptics with nothing from the other side even being conceded. ”
        Simply inaccurate:”The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter”
        “We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth’s global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”
        “There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.” (Maybe an issue with the last sentence but that’s unsettled—but note, I didn’t exclude it by cherry picking)

        It makes no sense to copy the entire article so I won’t go thru all the rest.

        My take, and it may be confirmational bias, was that Koonin stated making policy based on the proven inaccurate models was poor decision making. Since temps are not increasing as models projected, that gives the impression to me that A) we don’t know how to model climate B) urgency may not be as critical C) time with more study may lead to different and improved information.

        So making less draconian decisions I’m all for.

        You know, Einstein was a bit of a maverick in his time. How’d that turn out? Could it be, just could it be, that today’s mavericks are more correct than mainstream?

      • Danny Thomas | February 20, 2015 at 11:49 pm |

        JimD,
        Unanswered questions by you and P.
        What occured at the discussion? What was unbalanced?
        Not spending bazillions is a known, spending bazillions is a known with unknown results. Which is better and why?
        Is Koonin responsible for all of BP’s business decisions?
        Implying that it’s okay for Pierrehumbert to have a voice, but not Koonin and that since Koonin left the panel is now intellegent?

        Again:”And nowhere, did I see Koonin mention Pierrehumbert or any other scientist by name. Only the policy based on models with a poor track record.”
        P provided strawman, ad homs, and made the discussion personal. Koonin was more reasonable, provided factual basis, and then wrapped up with the opinion that basing policy on models in less than prudent.

      • Jim D | February 20, 2015 at 11:57 pm |

        Koonin only accepted as much as the skeptics do. He didn’t go against anything they said. the skeptics used to believe a positive feedback was impossible, but now ten years later they are almost up to 2 C per doubling, and given another ten who know, maybe they will converge with the IPCC given their progress so far. In fact, the temperature record alone indicates that 2 C per doubling is even a likely transient rate, so the models may be right on that score after all. Someone using today’s IPCC numbers (2C TCR) in 1950 when CO2 was at 310 ppm, would have said that by the time it reached 400 ppm, it would be 0.7 C warmer, and you know what, they would have been right. If that works for a 60-year change, why not make that a central estimate going forwards, and with ECS being maybe 50% higher at 3 C per doubling. In fact, this might be low because aerosol effects are being controlled better now and that was a mitigating factor in the past. So, what I am saying is no, it is not the models, it is a lesson from history.

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 12:10 am |

        JimD,
        Koonin wrote the article in 2014. Did you see Lucifer’s points on models vs. actual? “Ray P, like many extremists, is in denial of actual observations:

        MODEL: IPCC5 (RCP8.5): 4.2C/century
        MODEL: IPCC4 Warming High: 3.2C/century
        MODEL: Hansen A: 3.2C/century ( since 1979 )
        MODEL: Hansen B: 2.8C/century ( since 1979 )
        MODEL: IPCC4 next few decades: 2.0C/century
        MODEL: Hansen C: 1.9C/century ( since 1979 )
        MODEL: IPCC4 Warming Low: 1.8C/century
        ———————————————————————
        Observed: NASA GISS: ~1.6C/century ( since 1979 )
        Observed: NCDC: ~1.5C/century ( since 1979 )
        Observed: UAH MSU LT: ~1.4C/century (since 1979 )
        Observed: RSS MSU LT: ~1.3C/century (since 1979 )
        MODEL: IPCC5 (RCP2.6): 1.0C/century
        Observed: RSS MSU MT: ~0.8C/century (since 1979 )
        Observed: UAH MSU MT: ~0.5C/century (since 1979 )

        And I take notice that you provided no answers to the questions posted. I’m receptive to evaluation of the recent data. The modes missed the pause (okay, in the error bars but the ensemble runs hot and the pause is on the lowest end). Evidence provided above.

        So what about the more current history of the models. Why would I ignore that evidence? I really do not understand.

      • Jim D | February 21, 2015 at 12:18 am |

        There were also estimates by Hansen in 1981 and Broecker in 1975 that got it right for today, but are rarely mentioned. These had equilibrium sensitivities in the 3 C range and roughly right emission estimates. As I mentioned, you could have predicted the change since 1950 with a simple TCR of 2 C per doubling. The hard part would have been knowing when exactly we would cross 400 ppm. The IPCC numbers, not just based on models, can account for the warming so far. Why abandon those numbers for projections?

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 12:26 am |

        JimD,

        I refer back to Lucifer’s numbers.
        That’s a pretty thorough indication that the “projections” were less than reliable. Why would I, thinking critically, presume future “projections” based on the same information is more reliable?
        Since temps have not done as projected, why would I not invest in further study and delay draconian measures while dealing with alternative energy research (I’m for, but not complete implementation), better land use practices and urban planning, infrastructure to address “yesterday’s weather” as Steven Mosher suggests. Why be more alarmed than the data suggests one should vs. the observable inaccurate model based projections towards so unknown future potentials. That makes no sense to me. Why does it make sense to you?

        And still no answers to the questions posed in the original post P vs. K!!!!!

    • Joshua | February 21, 2015 at 12:06 am |

      Danny –

      ==> “Not spending bazillions is a known, spending bazillions is a known with unknown results. Which is better and why?”

      Hmmm.

      Interesting approach to uncertainty. Have you worked out the cost/benefit ratio of efforts to lower ACO2 emissions – including (positive and negative) externalities?

      Are their only unknown results with “spending bazillions?” Are there no unknown results from “not spending bazillions?”

      Do tell.

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 12:18 am |

        Joshua,

        You bank only on uncertainties. I see current evidence as provided to JimD and produced by Lucifer in more detail than the general “models missed the pause”. I will make my decisions based on the most current, you can make yours on “uncertainties” and risk management based on those.

        I’ve been told of an ice age in the 70’s. Didn’t happen.
        EPA said in 1986 to expect 1 foot of SLR in 30-40 years. Didn’t happen.
        Models said temps would be higher than observed (IE the pause)
        More frequent and severe hurricanes. Nope.

        Spend your money your way. I chose differently based on observable evidence.

        I’m not saying no warming, but evidence NOT uncertainty leads me to distrust IPCC “projections”.

        You asked me:”Interesting approach to uncertainty. Have you worked out the cost/benefit ratio of efforts to lower ACO2 emissions – including (positive and negative) externalities?” And you only ask this kind of question while never providing answers. Show me yours. I presume you did so 20 years ago based on the above list of AGW “projection” errors, right? Show me that too.

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 12:32 am |

        Joshua,

        While you doing your calculations. Please include the “risk management and uncertainty analysis” of:
        Magnetic poles flipping
        Giant solar flares
        ISIS attacking the US
        Asteroid strike
        Yellowstone’s eruption (It’s been 600k yrs., we’re due)
        Earthquakes
        Kansas previously unknown virus: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/science/mysterious-virus-that-killed-a-farmer-in-kansas-is-identified.html
        Global warming

        I know you’ve covered the thinking about all uncertain uncertainties and associated risk management and “the world wonders”. I’d be happy to evaluate your analysis.

      • Jim D | February 21, 2015 at 12:34 am |

        Danny, why is it more important to the skeptics that the models missed the pause than that they missed the 1998 El Nino event? Most scientists would say that, being internal variability, few would expect the models to get them, since they started with an initial state over a century earlier, but I think skeptics have some false expectations in this direction, or perhaps just a misunderstanding about specific internal variations like the pause or El Ninos and their predictability. Do you actually think that if you start a model in, say, 1850, it will get the pause circa 2000? I have a hard time understanding what the skeptics are expecting in this regard. Would it be considered a failure if the pause was 20 years earlier instead? What would your hopes be for a 150-year run? Maybe that the average model warming over the whole period is about right, which it is.

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 12:53 am |

        Jim D,

        “Do you actually think that if you start a model in, say, 1850, it will get the pause circa 2000?” No, I don’t think so. And that’s the point. Even with historical data, as I understand it, Mann didn’t even get the MWP or the LIA in hindcast with historic observable data. This is all an indication that climate is just not well understood. I’m fine with the more prudent planning as suggested in my last note to you, but not draconian. We can implement today, things which make sense as stand alones with side benefits of mitigation of CO2. Why not do those, study more, improve models and go from there. We address known issues of poor land use, bad urban planning, transit issues, infrastructure for yesterday’s weather. Again, I see warming, but I see no catastrophe. If you see catastrophe it can only be based on models because observable evidence is it’s not happening today. What I see from models is:
        Temps not rising with CO2 (the pause).
        Not more frequent and severe hurricanes/typhoons
        Ice is melting (has been since +/- 1850), but Antarctica is not performing as expected.
        Arctic ice is aging (recent last couple of years) matching the continuing pause? (speculative on the last part). Greenland lost 474Gt 2012-2013, but “only” 6Gt 2013-2014 (why?)
        Record cold temps in eastern U.S.
        SLR predicted in 1985 to rise 1 foot in 30-40 years in New York. Miss.

        I do see longer growing seasons according to USDA, has good and bad results. Crop rates are improved. Is that CO2, GM’s, what? I don’t know, but extended growing seasons I do know has benefits. (My cousin’s in farming).

        Thinking strictly critically with my just over 4 month history more deeply in to this why in the world would I trust the models future projections. IPCC’s 97% consensus carries no weight. I do not believe for one minute that all the scientists agree on all the science and certainly not all the suggested policies put forth by IPCC. I’m skeptical. Will look for your answer and forward to more discussion tomorrow. And I will rest well tonite believing the evidence I see with my own lying eyes tells me there is no reason for alarm. Concern, yes, but not alarm. Regards.

      • Joshua | February 21, 2015 at 12:51 am |

        Danny –

        Suffice it to say that you and I have different degrees of certainty about what would or wouldn’t be “draconian” and differing levels of certainty about the accuracy of specific (economic) modeling.

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 12:54 am |

        Joshua,

        Do I take that to mean you’ve not done the analysis?

      • Jim D | February 21, 2015 at 1:23 am |

        Danny, it is good that now you don’t expect the models to have predicted this particular pause, because for a while there it looked like you did by what you were quoting. You need to distinguish between forced climate changes and internal variability. The forced changes are visible in the 150 years since 1850, while internal variability does things like the pause and next El Nino. History tells us, paleoclimate too, that changes in GHGs have large impacts. Even if it seems 700 ppm may not matter to you any more than 350 ppm, paleoclimate shows it to be the difference between the 20th century and the mid-Eocene, 50 million years ago, with an iceless hothouse world. I realize skeptics have a definition of catastrophe that extends to what they can see in their backyard today, but they do need to be more circumspect taking into account past climates too. When we talk about 700 ppm, it really is a big change, and we could be there within a century. At least you might think that we should slow down emissions because of this and look hard for better ways to produce energy than those with consequences. You also fall for the meme about mitigation collapsing the global economy (Steyn is not an economist). If you look at WG3 by actual economists, the cost is well within the uncertainty of GDP growth by 2100 which has a range like 400-800% of which mitigation reduces it by about 5-10% excluding the benefits of a stabilized climate.

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 10:48 am |

        JimD,

        We have a misunderstanding. When you asked if I expected the pause to have been modelled starting from 1850 and I answered no, my thinking is that since the pause was missed in a much nearer term (+/- 30 years) then I would put less value on future projections on those same models. But that’s what I’m being asked to do today.
        It would not surprise me a all that future scientists find that good old natural variability has “kicked in” as a result of unusual (to her) changes we’ve made to her energy balance and in fact “the pause” is her showing she has control and is cooling herself via some unknown mechanism. Just as she has done in the past as a result of whatever caused earlier warming periods that led to cooling periods……….and the cycle continues. I don’t expect that nature recognizes “man” in her equations. She changes her reactions to imbalances of energy within her climate systems. Maybe she moves the increased IR to her oceans, moves it to the poles, melts ice, creates evaporation leading to more snow to more ice while dissipating heat energy through the thinner atompshere there and viola` creates balance.
        She was already warming for some 200 years before the “magical” date of 1850 as a reaction to something. And the cycle has been ongoing for eons.

        700 ppm of CO2 would seem to matter, but we’ve already reduced (in the US) our contribution, my math was some 290 years to reach 800 years based on Mauna Loa. Do you expect 700 by 2100 when we’ve gone from 280 to 400 in 160+ years? Please tell me how. Plus this brings up that whole attribution bugaboo. Is it 50%+/-30% as I understand our host percieves (lots of uncertainty). Is it more? Less? From where does the non anthro portion come? If not anthro it’s mom nature in control.

        I wouldn’t say I “fall” for any economic meme of any kind. But I can differentiate that if I spent zero dollars today anything more will have a negative impact as opposed to “more appropriate” investment should the anthro CO2 not be as big a contributor as IPCC models indicate (and right now evidence is it’s not for 18 years and running).

        So, to me, there are competing “catastrophe’s” economic vs potential unknowns. This leads me back to why I suggest land use changes, less deforestation, research in to alternative energy (FF won’t last forever no matter use), improved urban planning, infrastructure (takes concrete), improved farming methods………….and all those can be done w/o the acrimony associated with the C-Agw meme and are based on knowns not models. What is wrong with that thinking?

      • Jim D | February 21, 2015 at 11:15 am |

        Danny Thomas, “700 ppm would seem to matter”. Yes, it matters a lot. So, how do we get there? Basically business as usual growth in both global population and CO2 per capita (aka development). Population is projected to be about 10 billion. Currently the annual emission is just under 40 GtCO2 per year growing at 2.5% per year. To get to 700 ppm, we need to average 50-55 GtCO2 per year through 2100 assuming 50% goes into the ocean. This actually corresponds to a significant reduction in the current emission growth rate.

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 11:45 am |

        JimD,
        I’ve not done it via Gt (stlll learning), but when I did it on Mauna Loa the range was broad to double to 800. Here’s my work when I first started:”I came up with 1.65 ppm average increase in CO2 per year over that 55 years. Then starting at 400 ppm/1.65 I came up with 242 years to reach 800 ppm.

        Just for giggles, I ran the 10 year avg. and it’s 19% higher at 2.05 ppm/year leading me to 195 years with a worrisome change in the rate of increase.”

        I’d appreciate you evaluation.

        Then (in my mind) there’s that pesky “pause” thingy that has yet to be fully explained (unless one counts the 50+ theories) but seems to have settled on focusing on oceans (TBD). How long will it last? How will it manifest if in oceans? Has mom nature got tricks up her sleeve that we have no idea about?

        The “good news” is it’s not business as usual here in the US, but it is in China & India. Plus, technological changes will come about. They always do and are a big uncertainty.

        Since you didn’t address them, do I presume my thoughts on “prudent” mitigation are agreeable?

      • Jim D | February 21, 2015 at 11:55 am |

        Danny Thomas, keeping it flat at 2 ppm per year would be a significant mitigation effort already, because, given population growth, that would be a per capita decrease despite global development. So that is your assumption. Taking that 2 ppm per year and adding the current 2.5% per year emission growth rate gets you rather higher than 700 ppm by 2100 (actually ~1000 ppm).

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 12:10 pm |

        JimD,

        +/- 2.5 has been the last 3 years. I’d say having given carte blanche to China to continue “business as usual” was an error. The US has reduced.

        Thanks for the discussion. See ya a WIR.

      • Jim D | February 21, 2015 at 12:23 pm |

        Danny, yes, the average over the industrial era is about 2% growth in emissions per year. It is an upwards curve that, when extrapolated, hits 1000 ppm in 2100, which is quite a significant amount of CO2.

      • JCH | February 21, 2015 at 1:13 pm |

        The anthropogenic component of atmospheric CO2 has been doubling about every ~30 years, so your calculation is off.

        Each and every year the human race starts with zero addition, and then the industrious little nut cases set about burning everything they can get their hands on. There’s billions of them, and they like to drive and be warm and be cool and they like to have a lot of stuff. That’s their behavior. Their behavior will drive the growth.

        Why on earth do you think they will starve themselves of fossil fuel. They never have in the past.

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 1:25 pm |

        JCH,
        “The anthropogenic component of atmospheric CO2 has been doubling about every ~30 years, so your calculation is off.”

        I used Mauna Loa starting in 1958 thru last fall. My calculation is not off but did not use only the past 3 years (I did it 3 times). I showed my work. I see only an assertion by you. Please provide specifics. If you have that specific of an attribution I’d love to see it. Then, what is the source of the non anthro portion (plants, man, animules?). Have those numbers changed (do you include man as anthro?).

        “Why on earth do you think they will starve themselves of fossil fuel.” Money. When alternatives are viable in the market, they will compete. AK has done some great work showing “likely” changes to the penetration based on exponential growth and associated cost effectiveness. In fact, I expect “all” energy companies to be on the forefront of those changes as it’s their business. There is already a major investment in LNG by the likes of Exxon, and the “conspiracy” of who funds what is in play where companies like Exxon (and strange bedfellow Sierra Club) are using AGW theory against coal for business competitive reasons. It’s down and dirty, just like the politics associated with AGW.

      • Jim D | February 21, 2015 at 1:22 pm |

        Doubling every 30 years is about 2.3% when annualized. That’s about right too. I use 33 years.

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 1:28 pm |

        Jim D,

        Why are you assuming a continued increase in the rate of increase? China? India? The US numbers have fallen. What makes you so pessimistic?

      • Jim D | February 21, 2015 at 1:50 pm |

        Danny, actually 700 ppm is a decrease in the increase rate. 1000 ppm is a continuation of the increase rate. Hopefully we will do better than either of these scenarios, and actually bend emissions down rather than less up. Reductions in emissions at 5 GtCO2 per decade, from our current value in excess of 35, would get us to 480 ppm by the time we reach zero emissions. This shows the kind of target that is needed.

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 2:04 pm |

        JimD,

        I used the rate of increase for the last decade to find 2.05% Where does 2.5% or even 2.33%? Did you do a longer term? The entire set since 1958?

      • Jim D | February 21, 2015 at 2:15 pm |

        For added CO2 amounts, this exponential is a good fit back to when it was 280 ppm. You can take an anchor point like 370 ppm (90 ppm added) in 2000 and work backwards or forwards with this rate and it fits. E.g. 33 years earlier (1967), at a 33-year doubling rate, the value is 45 ppm (=325 ppm).

      • Danny Thomas | February 21, 2015 at 3:02 pm |

        JimD,

        Just finished the SLR video by Dr. Chambers and he provided a chart that based on RCP 8.5 CO2 doubling +/- 2065 or 50 yrs. FYI.

  102. JCH | February 21, 2015 at 12:16 am |

    In 2012 I started hinting here that the surface was about to warm rapidly.

    the current warming rates

    Oceans can delay warming by taking up heat (indeed they are, as ocean observations confirm), but the warming will be made up with a vengeance once the oceans stop taking up heat, as they eventually must. – Pierrehumbert

    I was once called stoopid here for saying this exact same thing. This place is not the friendly joint you seem to think.

    2011 to end of GISS data – .49C per decade (49 months of data at more than twice the IPCC’s .2C per decade
    2012 to end of GISS data – .67C per decade (37 months of data at more than 3 times the IPCC’s .2C per decade
    Last 12 months – 1.7C per decade (12 months of data at more than 8 times the IPCC’s .2C per decade.

    Feb 2014 was .44C. Feb 2015 could easily top .75C, and may even top 1998’s .86C. This will shatter 2014’s record for warmest year, and just two months later.

    The surface is currently experiencing a significant heatwave, and there is no end in sight through June.

  103. rls | February 21, 2015 at 1:41 am |

    JCH

    Pierrehumbert has lost his mind, as evident by his attack on Koonin. He has no clue as to the deep ocean heat. Some of the most respected paleoceanographers would differ with Dr P. The OHC has been greater in the past than it is today and it then cooled, and there was no catastrophe.

    Richard

    • JCH | February 21, 2015 at 1:50 am |

      Pierrehumbert has not lost his mind. Koonin should have been more thoughtful. He should have asked more questions. He blew it. I don’t know why he quit, but hopefully it was to read a book.

    • AK | February 21, 2015 at 8:31 am |

      There’s nothing new here. It was all discussed a couple months ago when the articles were published. If Koonin has actually quit, there’s no news of it. My guess, the claim was just one more ad hominem attack by Pierrehumbert. After a Google search, the best discussion (IMO) is here:

      “Climate science is not settled!”

      “Climate science is settled enough!”

      As you can see, there’s no winner here. Just another factual stalemate followed by bad analogies and a couple ‘yo mamma’ jokes. (Ok, not in print, but you know they wanted to.)

      That leads to the second reason no one wins these debates. These debates aren’t about science or modeling. They’re really about solutions.

      1) Worldwide social engineering – Often consists of creating heavy taxes and stalling economic growth (i.e. the equivalent of slamming the emergency brake while everyone runs to the back of the bus so it doesn’t fall over the rocky ledge and send us a thousand feet into a billowing fireball at the bottom of the gorge).

      https://biasbreakdown.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/cliffgif.gif

      This requires hyper accurate prediction models and requires all seven billion people to agree on (or be coerced into) a single course of action and stick to it. Neither is possible. (Also, you developing countries who don’t yet have a modern economy and can’t feed yourselves? Suck it.)

      2) Technological adaptation – No models needed. Just be awesome and innovate. Because that’s what the human race does.

      https://biasbreakdown.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/meshon-nyt-bus_190.jpg

  104. Jack Smith, TX | February 21, 2015 at 11:14 am |

    For long term thinkers…
    “The main arguments against geo-engineering (direct climate intervention) to stop global warming are: 1) It would be a massive, irreversible, risky bet; 2) everyone has to agree to it, which they won’t; 3) the unexpected side effects might be horrific; 4) once committed to, it could never be stopped.
    What if none of those need be true?”
    http://longnow.org/seminars/02015/feb/17/patient-geoengineering/

    Really good Cli-Fi material backed up by plausible scenarios.

    • kim | February 25, 2015 at 11:38 am |

      AnthroCO2 is clearly the safest, most easily reversible, most immediately and longer term beneficial and side beneficial method of geo-engineering that we could imagine. Such partnership with the plants! Who could ask for anything more?
      ================

  105. cjshaker | February 23, 2015 at 4:21 pm |

    Snort! Snort! Snort! I wonder if the ‘greens’ understand how this precedent bodes for Dr. Michael E. Mann and his battle to keep his supposedly ‘proprietary’ emails secret?
    “Greenpeace was able to access all of eminent solar physicist Willie Soon’s emails from his employer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center regarding the paper. But they found nothing suggesting any kind of foul play, deception or receiving of illegal funds. Mr. Bannon mocked the Harvard-Smithsonian center for having released Soon’s correspondence, sarcastically referring to the institution as a “profiles in courage” for providing all of Soon’s private emails.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/23/experts-smeared-by-media-and-greenpeace-for-debunking-global-warming/

  106. KenW | February 24, 2015 at 9:09 am |

    WUWT been hacked?

    • curryja | February 25, 2015 at 11:29 am |

      Post on this coming later today

      • Danny Thomas | February 25, 2015 at 11:34 am |

        I’m sorry to hear that you have to deal with this, but expect nothing but good will come as a result. Have a bottle of aspirin standing by should you need. Will leave any further comment for later.

        My regards.

      • Rob Starkey | February 25, 2015 at 11:41 am |

        Judith

        I echo Danny’s comment. Seems an example of trying to silence dissent through fear. How do they justify letters not having been sent to others whose funding comes from sources supporting the notion of cAGW

      • A. Voip | February 25, 2015 at 11:47 am |

        Let’s save the ink.
        …an example of trying to silence dissent through fear…

      • A. Voip | February 25, 2015 at 11:56 am |

        Be sure to pass it on too.

      • kim | February 25, 2015 at 11:56 am |

        The iron first, no velvet glove.
        ==========

      • AK | February 25, 2015 at 11:57 am |

        IMO they’re getting desperate. They’re losing everybody but the small core of watermelons, trying to drum up a lynch mob. People often don’t think rationally when they’re desperate.

        Why are they desperate? IMO because it’s becoming clear the “problem” can be solved using existing technological development. Neither the urgency nor the need exists for the drastic “solutions” they advocate.

  108. Danny Thomas | February 25, 2015 at 2:59 pm |

    Link for this:”Conflicts of interest in climate science” says file not found, error 404.

  109. RickA | February 26, 2015 at 5:05 pm |

    Here is a new topic – the new Realclimate post blaming the pause on ocean currents:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/climate-oscillations-and-the-global-warming-faux-pause/

    Way back in 2010 I questioned whether ocean currents couldn’t enhance and then mask global warming:

    https://prajwalk.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/is-it-reasonable-to-deny-climate-change-based-on-the-evidence/

    Now, the Realclimate post seems to be saying that there is no pause – the warming is being offset by ocean currents.

    This was my question in 2010 – and I was called a denier for asking it.

    If there is a 60 year cycle in ocean currents – how much good quality data do you need to subtract that out to find the actual CO2 signal?

    60 years, 120 years?

  110. Danny Thomas | February 26, 2015 at 8:06 pm |

    Tonyb,

    For your consumption. Wonder how it got underwater like this? :http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/02/dna-recovered-underwater-british-site-may-rewrite-history-farming-europe

  111. Danny Thomas | February 27, 2015 at 7:31 pm |

    Hmmm. A pretty straight up “projection” that it’s fixin’ to get warm: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-spurt-looms-will-it-change-minds-on-climate-change-18716

  112. Danny Thomas | March 1, 2015 at 9:43 pm |

    Out to do all I can to prove my ignorance. Latest attempt follows. KevinK’s commentary on Rud’s offering w/r/t Monckton, Soon, Legates, Briggs.

    If one were to wish to reverse engineer the global climate would one take on the entirety or do so one bite at a time. It seems the approach today is largely focused on CO2, clouds, oceans, etc, etc. But how about an approach where the whole is the sum of it’s parts? Thinking since we currently have “climate zones” has anyone attacked using what we do know about climate systems over these zones, adding up the results and creating a “global” evaluation that way? It could be approached where multiple teams of scientists could in an open format with predetermined boundaries applying state of the art understanding to create a “global” valuation. Presuming variance in the end result then each puzzle piece (climate zone) could be compared and evaluated leading to who knows what result. My simplistic thinking is one doesn’t eat a whole pie, but instead takes it one bite at a time. Has this been done, and I’m just late to the party. Thoughts?