by Judith Curry
The time for debate has ended. – Marcia McNutt, editor of Science
We have had many discussions on the topic of scientists who advocate for public policy. Some seem to think that I advocate for public policies (but they can’t really say which policies), although I do not regard myself to be a policy advocate.
Here is a clear-cut example of advocacy by a scientist, Marcia McNutt, who also happens to be the Chief Editor of Science: The beyond-two-degree inferno. Read the whole thing, its only about 600 words. I cite here the passages that I particularly want to comment on:
The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed. The Paris-based International Energy Agency recently announced that current commitments to cut CO2 emissions [known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)] from the world’s nations are insufficient to avoid warming the entire planet by an average of more than 2°C above the preindustrial level. To set more aggressive targets, developed nations need to reduce their per-capita fossil fuel emissions even further, and by doing so, create roadmaps for developing nations to leapfrog technologies by installing low-CO2–emitting energy infrastructure rather than coal-fired power plants as they expand their energy capacity.
I applaud the forthright climate statement of Pope Francis, currently our most visible champion for mitigating climate change, and lament the vacuum in political leadership in the United States. This is not the time to wait for political champions to emerge. Just as California has decided to go it alone, every sector (transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, construction, etc.) and every person need to do whatever is possible to reduce carbon pollution by conserving energy, adopting alternative energy technologies, investing in research, and capturing CO2 at the source.
In Dante’s Inferno, he describes the nine circles of Hell, each dedicated to different sorts of sinners, with the outermost being occupied by those who didn’t know any better, and the innermost reserved for the most treacherous offenders. I wonder where in the nine circles Dante would place all of us who are borrowing against this Earth in the name of economic growth, accumulating an environmental debt by burning fossil fuels, the consequences of which will be left for our children and grandchildren to bear? Let’s act now, to save the next generations from the consequences of the beyond-two-degree inferno.
JC reflections
So why am I highlighting this essay? It’s typical boilerplate stuff from the ‘alarmed’, although the Dante’s Inferno stuff is sort of clever. I happen to disagree with most of what is written here, but that is not my particular concern. My concern is with WHO wrote this essay, combined with WHERE it was published.
If this essay had been written by James Hansen, a climate scientist and self-avowed global warming advocate who is now retired from NASA, and posted on his personal web site, I would have no problem with this essay (other than my personal disagreement) and I wouldn’t bother to highlight it at Climate Etc. .
So, with her very impressive credentials, is McNutt an expert on climate change? McNutt is a geophysicist who has no apparent primary expertise in climate science, although she has been involved in assessing geo-engineering proposals. By stating ‘the time for debate has ended,’ she appears to be speaking beyond her expertise and has latched onto a real tar baby. The IPCC doesn’t think the ‘the time for debate has ended‘; they are gearing up to write their 6th Assessment Report.
But my main concern is this – the editorial was published in Science and written by McNutt who is the CHIEF EDITOR for Science. I have previously raised the concern about advocacy by professional societies (e.g. AGU, APS) in terms of their policy statements about climate change. These professional societies publish journals, and such statements can bias the editorial process. So is this really a major concern? Maybe not for the APS; they publish very few climate-related papers. The AGU publishes a lot of climate papers; one can hope that at least some editors/reviewers are evaluating papers without bias (or pay no attention to AGU’s policy statement).
My concern re introducing bias in Science is several orders of magnitude greater. Science, along with Nature, has far and away the highest impact factor of any scientific journals on the planet – Science matters. Like Nature, Science sends out for review only a small fraction of the submitted papers. Apart from the role the Chief Editor may have in selecting which papers go out for review or eventually get published, this essay sends a message to the other editors and reviewers that papers challenging the consensus are not to be published in Science. Not to mention giving favored status to papers by activist authors that sound the ‘alarm’ – pal review and all that. After all, ‘the time for debate has ended.’
In 2013, Marcia McNutt wrote an editorial Climate Change Impacts, that at least acknowledges the complexity of the problem:
Tackling problems of cumulative dimensions is a priority if we are to find viable solutions to the real environmental crises of the coming decades. There is a need for all scientists to rise to this challenge.
Activism and advocacy by editors of scientific journals reduces the credibility of the journals, introduces biases into the science, and interferes with the policy process that is informed by science.
Can anyone identify any other scientific journal editor that has written that the time for debate about climate change has ended? Can anyone identify another example where an editor of Science or Nature has declared that the debate is over for any other scientific topic? I don’t read their editorials often enough to have a sense for this.
Re the Dante Inferno allegory. Digging In the Clay has an interesting and entertaining post Climate Scientists Road to Hell:
But there is another road to hell for climate scientists and editors of journals and professional societies, that involves
- Appeal to authority
- Absence of doubt
- Intolerance of debate
- A desire to convince others of the ideological ‘truth’
- A willingness to punish those that don’t concur
JC message to Marcia McNutt: You have an important and influential position as Chief Editor of Science. You also have the power to damage Science and science through your activism and advocacy of climate change policy, particularly your declaration in a Science editorial that ‘the time for debate has ended‘.
Especially given that your salary is paid by the AAAS, I encourage you to read the report from the AAAS Workshop on Advocacy in Science, and the discussion of this Workshop on my blog (Ir)responsible advocacy.
There is more than one road to hell in the debate on climate change.
p.s. I have met Marcia McNutt several times, most recently at the Workshop on Ethics of Communicating Scientific Uncertainty, where she gave a presentation on fracking the first day, then left. Too bad she didn’t stay for the entire Workshop.
At least she is aptly named.
+10
+10 and a small fry to go
My previous comment was flippant, but yellow journalism uses exaggeration, scare-mongering and sensationalism; isn’t this what McNutt is doing?
The payoff:
July 6, 2015
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Marcia K. McNutt Nominated to be Next National Academy of Sciences President
http://www.nasonline.org/news-and-multimedia/news/july-6-2015-NASpresident.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
No such thing as ‘the time for debate has ended’ in science. She has made a very clear statement of “I am totally biased, in an absolute conflict of interest for my position as Chief Editor of Science and so I am handing in my resignation now.” Well except for the last part. There as none so blind as those who will not see. She just lost any credibility as a scientist she may have had.
“debate over”
If the debate were over, she wouldn’t have to say it. You could tell it was over because people would, you know, not be debating any longer.
Advocacy in its “purest” form. Move along folks and check out the Paris exhibit in December.
It should be no surprise. AAAS have made it clear that they have a view on climate-related policy since at least 2013.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
The science has already reached a point where knowledge is sufficient at least for some action on stabilizing the climate. There is some urgency, which is why she says the time for debate has ended. We know enough to start doing things now to curtail emissions. I think she feels compelled to put this out because the US politicians are laggards relative to other countries when it comes to the scientific acceptance, as they still barely acknowledge that anthropogenic effects exists, and they are even lagging behind the US public on whether emission policies are needed. She may be naive to think that the block is just the science for these politicians. They are under pressure not to accept the science, not wanting to risk their party’s support for their elections. So even if they were scientifically convinced they are, for sure, not going to say it publicly.
“There is some urgency”
vs
“Urgent action is needed”
Looks like there is still some debating to do?
Jim D, you support actions to stabilize the climate. Could you detail what that climate would look like when the emissions are “curtailed”?
US are laggards in everthing to do with climate change mitigation except for reduction of CO2 Output.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0713_Fig4.jpg
What the US is failing to do is cough up money.
It is pretty funny that the US is reducing CO2 emissions. The US is not, however, accepting the politics of the alarmists. For that reason, the US are laggards!
This is more about politics than it is about science:
“The US is reducing CO2 emissions the wrong way! Through fracking for natural gas instead of herding her citizens into collective yurts!”
TJA, if the US accepts and start to meet Obama’s targets they would not be laggards, but I sense some resistance. It may be ineffective so far, but it is there. We’ll see. As the largest per capita emitter among major countries, the US has to lead the way.
If you bothered to read the graph, you would see that the US is keeping pace with Europe and leading everybody else in cutting emissions. I don’t know what you mean by “laggard.”
Fracking for NG, which produces half the CO2 as coal, and using that for electricity generation is a real thing that is cutting real emissions. Your problem is that we aren’t doing it by limiting the freedom of Americans enough for your desires for state control of everything.
Obama’s policy only continues that trend that already has started, but I do sense resistance to continuing that trend, a trend which would also be a good example to the world. If you like the trend, and I think you do, you should be supporting the policy to continue it.
Ah, so the story has changed.
It used to be largest emitter.
Now it is largest emitter per capita.
The only way to reduce per capita emission is to reduce standard of living.
How cold and dark will be acceptable?
Of course, it depends on how “reactive” you feel politicians should be. Policy always lags behind science because science is constantly unfolding in terms of understanding. Some policy makers prefer to be more cautious — or misinterpreted as “deniers” because there isn’t an absolutely definitive link between anthropogenic action and climate change. Keep in mind that the founding principles of the US government are different from continental European governments, wherein freedom from government takes precedence (generally) over freedom of government action. In theory.
Individuals should be more frugal with their energy use. Artificially restricting supply, preventing nuclear generation and other administrative methods to “change” (coerce) behavior simply cause market dislocations — people move from restrictive to permissive environments, as evidenced by the emigration from California to Texas. Which, ultimately, doesn’t do much to solve the overall problem.
There’s no real urgency. The current process is on track to have the problem solved without any of the “urgent” actions people like her are demanding.
What’s more, “urgent” actions like the sort to be discussed in Paris have been shown (by the IPCC) to have little chance of any significant improvement over what the current process is on track for.
These people either don’t understand how technological growth curves work, or are using other people’s lack of understanding to pursue an ideological agenda.
Of course, much more research would help. But the current level of research is enough.
Progressives are progressives first and everything else, including scientists and editors, second.
All politics, all the time.
“The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed.”
Clearly Ms. McNutt believes we are doing nothing worthwhile at the moment. This impression that things are at a standstill may come from here experience as a mover an shaker. According to her bio, “before joining Science, she served as the director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from 2009 to 2013 as one of a group of accomplished scientists who populated top government posts as part of President Obama’s “dream team.”
I wonder if the thought ever entered her super-genius head that she just might living a charmed life based on extreme ideas that happen to be in fashion by those in power. Or, is she routinely handed another medal before she has the chance to reflect?
The USGS recently gave its report on the continual loss of sea ice in the Arctic and the plight and near extinction of polar bears.
President Obama parroted every word.
‘Polar Bear Science, Past and Present’, a non-political, unbiased site presented by scientists with life long studies in the specific area of polar bear science, categorically, disagrees with all the related points made by USGS.
It would appear that USGS is another manifestation of the warnings of Ike.
Ron
I was quite shocked by your comment. Are you saying these scientists were promoted to the dream team primarily because the stance they held on certain scientific issues chimed with the political thoughts of the time?
That is like appointing politically biased judges to the highest courts because they agree with the political orthodoxy prevailing in the Govt at the time.
That doesn’t happen in the States does it?
tonyb
Tony,
You are being facecious, right?
timg56
sadly yes, but I wish I wasn’t. Its not the way govts should behave unless they are of the third world kind.
tonyb
tony,
I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. No different than a new company CEO coming in and wanting to select his own people for key department heads. As Chief Executive the President is entitled to place people in charge of Executive Branch agencies who will help steer those agencies in directions the President wants to go.
What I do have a problem with is having those selectees then subvert their own agencies policy guidelines or worse, federal laws, in pursuit of following the President’s wishes.
Tim
If you want to promote the presidents policies surely it has to be done right down the chain of command otherwise it won’t work.
Tonyb
Dante placed many of his personal and political enemies/dislikes in hell. (There’s an interesting short story by Balzac, The Exiles, which illustrates Dante’s fanatical, vengeful character.) Maybe Marcia has a certain bond with the supreme poet for that reason…or maybe she just felt like hurling some higher learning in our direction.
I thought we’d moved on from the 1300s…but where climate is concerned we have even reached the 1300s. Airhead popes and ranting dogmatists rule.
McNutt cleverly (she thinks) kills several arguments with one stone. A) If you believe the proclamation “the debate is over” then you must be immoral not to respond to the clear and imminent danger. B) If you are unsure you still are in peril for not believing. C) If you believe in spiritual arguments as in “the Lord will provide,” then you should consider her argument as equally valid. D) If you are not spiritually motivated and are already a believer, you can rightly feel the opponents are only made up of religious hypocrites.
I wonder is there is an inferno for those that imperil the cause for western enlightenment based premature proclamations.
Ron, I think the debate has always been over. I recall people talking of the need for a debate, and many pronouncements about the debate being over.
Maybe there really was a debate – but I missed it when I went to the bathroom.
Maybe there really was a debate – but I missed it when I went to the bathroom.
I came late. I, like most of the public trusted the scientific community. I have been a member of it for 33 years and never dreamed such corruption was possible. But, I understand Judith was equally shocked by it. I know many here are praying for this El Nino to be the “big one.” And, if we end the year like 1998 I would have to accept that influence on my opinion. But, if the trend continues at an insignificant pace (pause or whatever) at some point Skeptical Science is going to have to live up to its name.
It’s the perfect El Nino. Very wet yet with mild temperatures in south central Texas. Not even one day over 100F yet which is very unusual. So in the words of a famous Texan and great two-term POTUS GW Bush “Bring it on!”
Until those that push this ill-defined 2C limit can discuss it in a more specific problem definition in terms of a deviation from normal limits specified by What? Where? When? and To What Extent? has this harmful deviation occurred or will soon occur, I will continue to view them as incompetent on which they speak.
Marcia is reciting dogma.
What? Where? When? and To What Extent?
are quite irrelevant.
This, coming from the editor of Science, is sad.
“The time for debate has ended.”
What, again?
Another example in the near-infinite stack that the Left does not get irony. She is citing Dante, not realizing that her world view. Is the same dysfunctional, technologically crippled and profoundly anti-human Marxism that produced the Soviet sharashka, which Solzhenitsyn described in his novel The First Circle. As in the outer circle of Soviet concentration camp hell. Given time, she or someone else just like her will send every one of us to concentration camps for “deniers.”
Professing themselves wise, they became fools indeed.
She may not even know her stance is political, and she certainly would never admit it if she knew. After all, she is not a political scientist. All she knows are the unchallenged truths in her circular bubble of mutually adoring elite wielding the public coffers. The common ground for comrades, reich’s volch and Chrishnas is that once the bubble is burst they are perfectly normal and reasonable.
Pingback: The beyond-two-degree inferno | Enjeux énergies et environnement
When I read the opening paragraph, I thought it was written by Al Gore, or John Holdren. Perhaps both of them wrote it for her under her name.
I agree, Judith. There is NO PLACE for advocacy by the editor of one of the major scientific journals in the world. She should resign and also hand in her PhD as well.
As for Dante, I fail to see the relevance any more than the Pope’s encyclical.
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
It is especially dispiriting to note that there was nothing new in what she wrote. It really could have been cribbed from two or three sources writing 10 years ago.
After 15 years of activists exhorting each other not to debate the enemy, they claim the debate is over.
The few debates available on YouTube suggest that is not the case.
Squirrel, much? Are you vying for the title of Master of the Irrelevant? You have many competitors from within your own tribe.
> I thought it was written by Al Gore
Page 182:
Science, Nature, and Scientific American, (italics or underline deliberately omitted), not to mention significant parts of Nasa, used to be scientific organizations and agencies. No longer.
The former are all tabloids now, and Nasa has become an oracle of superstition.
Don’t lump all of NASA together. The Climate People in NASA must support the alarmism or lose their jobs. Other areas in NASA are not required to support the climate alarmism. They can’t speak against it, but they don’t have to support it and as far as I can tell, they don’t.
Fair enough, and the other than climate reporting in Nature and Science still approaches its former stature. Scientific American not so much.
Science, Nature, and Scientific American have advanced ultra-liberal policies for a very long time. I quite my SA subscription in the 80’s after hearing too much about the dangers of nuclear energy and environmental catastrophes. The Board of Science should sack this person for unprofessional behavior.
All three publications are newstand rags, so that may have something to do with it, but it raises awareness of all cognitive bias in AGU, APS, et. al.
so in a sense, this is a service, if only to the discerning.
Science, Nature, and Scientific American
Crisis sells.
I looked up ‘Yellow Journalism’ and came across this Frank Luther Mott list of identifiers from 1941:
scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
dramatic sympathy with the “underdog” against the system.
At least some of them appear to be exhibited by AGW enthusiasts.
+10 Eddie
SA is a rag. I probably tarred Nature and Science with the same feather unjustifiably for their work other than climate science.
Thank you once again Judith!
The velocity of such activities are sure to increase as we move to Paris. The basic Obs tell us so.
It is unfortunate to see the corruption of such positions, but it is expected I suppose.
We see it from the POTUS to the Pope now.
Could their end game really be popolation control, once we net out the smoke screen?
I keep looking, with an opened mind, and it really seems like a bad SiFi movie now days, but doesn’t have any commercials or a “The End” to date.
Troubling really….. Mad Scientists are real!
Mad Scientists are real!
Not really. Consensus people are not really scientists. You must be skeptical to be any kind of scientist. They are mad, but they are not real scientists.
Wow, That should bring on a firestorm. JC you have a lot more nerve than most. I hope speaking to truth will prevail. Good luck!
Some might wonder what effect Ms. McNutty’s “the debate is over” doctrine has on the selection of climate science papers that are published, or not published in Science.
Monckton got his paper into the Chinese version, Science Bulletin, so there are outlets. If that is the best the skeptics have to offer, we haven’t missed much.
Stop the clocks! The debate is over! Time fer yer hemlock,
Socrates
“””Stop the clocks! The debate is over! Time fer yer hemlock,
Socrates”””
Doing it again. You can debate all you want. Climate scientists disagree, so show they are wrong. No published paper can do. this. No theory exists to show why a multi million year shift upward in earth’s basic insulation would not significantly affect climate or present a relevant range of major climatic shift risks.
Saying something and getting a lot of people to agree with it doesn’t mean there’s a debate, it means there’s a widely held claim, or myth, or in this case misconstruction of the issue facilitated by self reinforcing logic to perpetuate and reinforce it.
And even if there is a “debate” well then debate. Saying there is no debate is simply an attempt to address the enormous gap between what the overwhelming percentage of climate scientists are saying, and the public, largely through desire, then belief, then this self reinforcing pattern of that belief (including disputing what most climate scientists conclude as well, naturally), “think.”
But all climate scientists see in this “debate” are misrepresentations and misconstructions of the basic issue, and constant cherry picking, as if, just imagine it for a second, climate change “skepticism” were pre determined advocacy, and as part of that advocacy, and having or wanting to believe it, believing the same of anything that conflicts with that belief, no matter how much sense what scientists say makes (multi million year shift in earth’s insulation upward, super rapid, ongoing march of accumulating corrobaration dismissed through misrepresented cherry picking) and how little argument (none actually) as to why it would not be the case, other than illogical or irrelevant things such as “climate has changed before.”
But what’s really strange is some might not.
Professor Curry, I share your concern that the editor of Science is so close-minded as to publicly discourage debate and discussion.
I am also encouraged that public research funds have so far been unable to build an unassailable fascade of consensus science.
For goodness sake I hope there is no such thing as an ” unassailable facade of consensus science.”
The debate is over. The atom is indivisible. The Earth is 20 million years old. The Sun stays hot because meteors keep colliding with it.
Carbon dioxide heats things up during the night. The Earth is 33 K hotter than it should be. All the seas should be frozen. We should get rid of carbon dioxide and water. Poisons. Plants don’t need either carbon dioxide, or water.
Ah well, there’s one born every minute. Warmists ensure there is a never ending supply. They deserve our thanks for providing much needed amusement, to divert us from serious concerns – poverty, disease, natural disaster, and that sort of thing!
Pointing out past things that have been wrong is no more relevant as an argument to refute or lessen the chances that mankind is not altering climate, as it is relevant to refute or lessen the chances of anything and everything we think we know today.
Which is to say it is completely irrelevant to the issue of what do we think we know right now and why do we. That is the information we have to act on, always have, and always will, for everything.
It is not an argument for why “man caused climate change” is an incorrect notion.
If you want to debate it (*under comments here on this site that are like out of a bad movie – not because they are a caricature but because it seems pretty clear the commenters cling to the logic and sometimes remarkable set of mistakes offered while missing almost every single thing relevant as well , let alone why – it seems likely) then “debate” it.
But the “debate” refers to the scientific question of whether not climate scientists in general think there is doubt over whether mankind is significantly impacting the climate through net GG emissions, and they don’t.
As for exceptions, Heartland and several other similarly oriented “think tanks” and organizations have scoured the world to find all of them that they could, and, along with ideological news, made most into common names among the more (mis)”informed” skeptics. But the percentage is extremely low. Every argument under the sun except the only relevant one, showing otherwise, is made to refute this, of course.
It’s also secondary, since the overwhelming consensus of practicing climate scientists does not determine the reality of climate change (though it provides a pretty strong starting presumption to say the least).
But the fact of the consensus doesn’t change from the very act of refuting it. Nor is stating it any sort of “stifling” of debate, despite the ironic hysteria claiming otherwise.
McNutt editorialized that time for debating versus sensibly mitigating our emissions already is over. (It’s been over for over 20 years). Debate in the context she used it clearly meaning a replacement for acting to mitigate. “Debating over whether we should act” (or take steps to mitigate) versus act (take steps for mitigation).
Commenters here and an incendiary, belief self sealing Judy Curry turned it into something almost ludicrously different, some sort of pronouncement that people are not allowed to have their “views.” People are. But pointing out how error ridden and belief driven they are is not quashing debate either.
I feel like any rationale comments just makes most skeptics here dig in deeper to find ways to reinforce, “justify” their skepticism rather than simply re evaluate (course if skeptics did that most probably wouldn’t be skeptics on this issue by this point) so it’s probably a waste of time and maybe even counterproductive. Some studies have even suggested this.
Making it even more of a catch 22, and sites such as this even more like issue mangling belief self sealing echo chambers.
“””The debate is over. The atom is indivisible. The Earth is 20 million years old. The Sun stays hot because meteors keep colliding with it.”””
Cherry picking out misconceptions of the past is NOT an argument for why a multi million year shift upward in earth’s insulation layer is impacting earth.
You want to cherry pick out all the things we have been right on to prove that Therefore climate change is real? that would be absurd. It’s just as absurd to try to think it’s less real or less likely to be due to misconceptions.
In fact science has advanced, this is a huge issue, one that is naturally approached very conservatively, and the entire point is to assess and make decisions based upon what we know now. Not what we might think we might now in 1000 years. If time was multi direction, and we just went backward and forward in it, maybe. But it isn’t.
Not that it really matters, but many things that were wrong were also fundamentally different. We “had” to have a scientific opinion. It was conjecture sometimes. Climate change does not require one. It does not require us to go “woa, what is that” and require an answer. It is only through realizing a problem (radical atmospheric alteration), not seeing a phenomenon (such as a changing climate) and then scrambling to come up with our best “why” for it.
Though I notice skeptics invariably turn climate change into that too. As if it’s some sort of climatic change phenomenon we observed, and now are simply trying to come up with why, rather than the very opposite. The atmosphere change would likely, .and barring any explanation otherwise will invariably, change climate, and it’s been the same for 40 y ears. Theories as to why otherwise have all been shown to be wrong (and in fact few existed), while corroboration (not really needed but given unknowns it adds more to have) has become encompassing.
Yet skeptics misconstrue that completely, and then scramble to dismiss or cherry pick the corroboration.
John Carter,
You wrote –
“Cherry picking out misconceptions of the past is NOT an argument for why a multi million year shift upward in earth’s insulation layer is impacting earth.”
I didn’t say it was. I am unsure what your “multi million year shift . . . ” is all about. Man hasn’t been around for all that long. Also, from Scientific American – March 2015 –
“February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm.”
So who is right? CO2 rising or falling for millions of years? You or Scientific American! Or is it totally irrelevant, anyway?
Once you have chosen rising or falling CO2 levels for the past few million years, get back to me.
Science, along with Nature, has far and away the highest impact factor of any scientific journals on the planet –
Mother Nature is going to deal them a harsh hand .
They, along with the Pope in Rome, will be proven wrong and I don’t think it will take many more years.
I tried to warn people about her … but like a fool, I decided to be honest rather than osculate the fundamental orifice of Politically Correctness, and of course I paid the price. As a result, my warning went unheeded.
I wish you better luck with her than I had, and I commend you for your own honesty.
w.
I’m saddened by the agenda of abuse and dismissal of valid argument to progress a one sided discussion. The same is happening here in Australia with Same Sex Marriage where the debate being shut down by advocates who equate opposition with homophobia or misogyny.
It’s stating the obvious,
I think you will find
All you see here is politics,
Unless you’re quite blind!
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/the-integrity-of-real-science/
Reblogged this on kingbum78's Blog and commented:
Very interesting here and this is just another example of political activism poisoning real science
Well, never let it be said that McNutt has failed to master the art and artifice of “recycling” that which should have been long ago discarded.
Perhaps McNutt (and so many others of her very tired, but dutiful recycling ilk) missed Fred Pearce’s post-Climategate 1.0 “assessment” of December 2009, which – as I have previously written here and here – he had concluded by noting:
And let us not forget that the oh-so-tired recyclers of the IPCC were handed a virtually new lease on life circa August 2010, by the InterAcademy Council.
Alas, the record seems to show that – notwithstanding a few years of pseudo-debate on this advice – for all intents and purposes, the IPCC (and its “parents”, the UNFCCC & WMO) chose to fall back on the long-established “recipes” found in the 1997 edition of the Climate consensus coordinators’ cookbook.
Perhaps it is too much to expect that McNutt and/or her helpers at Science would do some honest delving into the history, prior to engaging in such an oh-so-tired recycling of the trite and oh-so-far from proven mantras, that have very little – if anything – to do with science.
The Royal Society-established in 1660-had as their motto ‘nobody’s word is final.’
Amply illustrating this is a book I own from around 1880 entitled ‘ A popular history of science- discoveries and inventions of the nineteenth century.’
it illustrates two things. Firstly how indebted we are to Greece for much of our rational thinking, secondly, how little we knew of science in 1880 and have since discarded or revised.
A book such as this, if published every decade, would show significant changes from the previous issues.
However, in 2015 it appears that we now know so much about climate science-a modern and deeply imperfect branch of science-that all debate is settled.
Does that mean that the section on climate science within the book ‘A popular history of science’ published in 2025 or 2125 would be much the same as any published now? Of course not.
I dare say that in 10 and 100 years time we shall look back on our knowledge of climate science in 2015 and be embarrassed by how much we thought we knew but how little we actually did know.
tonyb
We won’t be able to look back. We’ll be consumed by an “inferno”.
I haven’t seen anyone mention the stupidity of that word yet. A few degrees, even if bad, does not an inferno make. She can’t even write like a scientist.
Excellent post. Thank you. I seem to recall quotes of editorials in ‘Nature’ about catastrophic climate change. From memory they were around the time of the height of the Hockey Stick arguments. In fact there may be reference to them in either ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ or in ‘Taken by Storm’, by Christopher Essex and Ross McKittrick.
Peter
And none of this activism has anything to do with a certain event coming up in Paris of course…
tonyb
“Here’s a clear-cut example of advocacy by a scientist”: http://judithcurry.com/
What do you see as advocacy on the CE home page?
Her advocacy is for the purity and integrity of science. She doesn’t advocate specific policies, she sees the damage to the future of science (and Science) of those in key positions doing so and she speaks out accordingly. Her following is well earned.
+100
But apparently arguing for the purity and integrity of science, if it goes against the so called Settled Science, is worthy of another 1300s practice: Bound heretics + combustibles + ignition source.
Marcia McNutt: “The European Union (EU) is leading the way …”
That’s comforting anyway.
Go tell the Spartans.
… That the Spartans wear funny slippers.
Ooops “Persians!” Persians wear funny slippers.
Yeah, the Spartans drive funny cars.
JC doesn’t like others advocating, but JC likes advocating herself.
JC urges others to follow advocacy guidelines, but JC fails to follow these herself.
If Marcia feels the science to be as strong as the words in her editorial imply, she’s arguably morally obliged to advocate, in a world where policy is not following that science.
If JC disagrees, she’s free to use whatever platform she can to disagree. Which she seems to be doing forthrightly and frequently, with many and varied right wing allies (Daily Mail/Rose, Marshall institute, Republican witness to congress, GWPF talks, WSJ etc)
She certainly doesn’t seem to have any problem getting scientific work published (stadium wave, Nic Lewis work) which she feels is contradictory to the mainstream.
What’s the problem?
Quit whining.
You must have been out of the room when the issue of JC’s advocacy was discussed. Your side lost by a near unanimous vote. Time to move on. It wasn’t even as close as the Greek vote which turned out not to be a close vote at all.
Even a cursory review of Judith’s utterances leads to the conclusion that you are indeed the whiner.
Really? There was a vote? These discussions would be so much better if people didn’t simply make stuff up. Of course you think Judith isn’t advocating, or if she is it’s not irresponsible. That’s because you agree with what she says. It’s clear that people are only irresponsibly advocating when they say something with which you disagree.
I think VTG is exactly right. Arguing against what McNutt has said because she’s editor of Science is – IMO – a poor argument. If you disagree with what she said, then say so. If you think what she said is wrong, then illustrate why. It’s an editorial for goodness sake.
Sorry guys but Judith hasn’t done what you said she has. She acknowledges the right of Dr McNutt to have her POV but has some serious doubts that she should be using her position of editor of what is supposed to be a scientific journal to put her POV forward.
To most readers they got the obvious. You need to read the subtext in favor of the literal. Do you also have trouble with metaphors? And since there was no “real” room, then it is self evident he was not out of it. Although that does not rule out that he is out of it , period.
Speaking of self evident, the distinction of what the two principles have done should be such.
Get a grip.
ATTP
You cant find anything to distinguish what one posts on one’s website, as contrasted to an editorial written by the editor of Science magazine, and published there?
Nothing?
No difference between stating that there exists uncertainty in the field of “climate science” and stating that the time for debate is over?
So, both the substance and the forums of these two statements are comparable?
To you they are indistinguishable from each other?
Thats sad ken, really sad.
David,
As I already said, these discussions would be so much better if people didn’t make stuff up. Maybe you should try not doing so, or would that just weaken your argument too much?
Peter,
No, that is exactly what I’m disagreeing with. The editor of a science magazine should be allowed to editorialise about the significance of scientific research. If people don’t like that they can always stop publishing there.
ATTP seems to be arguing at a complete tangent to what we are discussing in this thread. Dr McNutt sure can editorialise on the “significance of scientific research” but IMO she has no right to use her position for the advocacy of the kind of normative policies currently being promulgated by the AGWers.
Wow.
As I already said, these discussions would be so much better if people didn’t make stuff up.
Do you wish McNutt didn’t make stuff up either?
“global threats so far-reaching in their impact”,
“so dire in their consequences”,
“global threat to food supplies, health, ecosystem services, and the general viability of the planet”
Good for creative writing.
Too contradicted by observation, too non-specific and too imaginary to be science.
TE,
The “I think someone else made stuff up so that justifies others making stuff up too” argument. I thought you could at least construct a more coherent argument than that. I realise that many here can’t, but I had thought you were maybe an exception.
My point (in case it wasn’t obvious) is that it would seem stronger to argue against what she actually said, not who she is or where she said it.
The “I think someone else made stuff up so that justifies others making stuff up too” argument. I thought you could at least construct a more coherent argument than that. I realise that many here can’t, but I had thought you were maybe an exception.
Well, the McNutt piece is the actual topic, so if you were offended by gross assertions, I would assume those would have offended you first.
Peter –
==> “ATTP seems to be arguing at a complete tangent to what we are discussing in this thread. Dr McNutt sure can editorialise on the “significance of scientific research” but IMO she has no right to use her position for the advocacy of the kind of normative policies currently being promulgated by the AGWers.”
This looks to me like an ad hom. (ad feminae?)..
Judith advocates for a general approach to policy implementation (funding priorities, adaptive approaches to climate change as opposed to mitigation approaches) as does Marcia. Judith advocates through explicitly political (even in her own description) methods.
Just as people should not engage with Judith’s advocacy by focusing on her as an individual, IMO, so should disagreements with Marcia’s views be focused on her views, not who she is.
kenny, kenny
“The editor of a science magazine should be allowed to editorialise about the significance of scientific research. If people don’t like that they can always stop publishing there.”
Those who don’t share the editors view that ‘the debate is over’ are not likely to get published in her journal. Those who agree with the editor have no problem. Is that how you want scientific journals to be run, prof. kenny? Are you happy as long as the journals are in the control of people with whom you agree? Are you going to pretend that ‘the debate is over’ BS is good for science and the influence of science on public policy, kenny?
Maybe people should actually read something about Journal, which is referred to as Science magazine, and which describes itself as
TE,
If I was ever having a discussion with Marcia McNutt, and she made stuff up, I would be be equally dismayed. Since I’m referring to people here making stuff up while discussing this topic, your point is rather moot. You can see the distinction, can’t you?
the world’s leading journal of original scientific research, global news, and commentary.
So is that a tacit admission that the piece in question is opinion and not science?
Perhaps they should rename the magazine.
Should the editor of a magazine claiming the mantle of ‘science’ be held to a higher account than the general public posting here?
In the history of humankind, there is a dearth of examples of global threats so far-reaching in their impact, so dire in their consequences,
The first web definition of the word dire is “(of a situation or event) extremely serious or urgent.”
What about the slow global warming can you scientifically construe as ‘dire’?
and considered so likely to occur
Even the IPCC says the high warming rate scenarios and high sea level rise rates are unlikely – why do you give McNutt pass for saying otherwise?
But now with climate change, we face a slowly escalating but long-enduring global threat to food supplies,
As I pointed out, the evidence is contrary, why would we indulge made up assertions?
health
Humans are, by objective measures, healthier and longer lived than ever. Why do you tolerate made up assertions otherwise?
the general viability of the planet
Photosynthesis of carbon dioxide provides the energy for nearly every living plant and animal on the surface of the earth and in the waters near the surface ( methane based life in the bottom ocean ooze being the only notable exception ). Given that life inhabits nearly every climate on earth, why tolerate extreme imaginary claims that somehow viability is endangered?
McNutt is obviously well educated and accomplished. And she changed her mind ( a good sign of thinking ) about the Keystone XL based on the very logical analysis that the oil was already being produced and it would be safer in pipelines rather than train cars.
Never the less, education is not an inoculation against irrationality and bias.
No doubt I have my on biases to contend with, and I am served if you point them out and hold me to account when they might emerge.
But I believe you are indulging your own biases to blithely accept any of this egregious opinion piece.
Indeed. Oddly enough, people who says this seem to only apply it to others.
“the world’s leading journal of oxymoronic settled science research”
ATTP – you’re missing a few cylinders this morning:
1) You refer to Science magazine as if its name is “Journal” — what’s up with that?
2) You say that T Eddie seems unwilling to apply his bias quote to himself, when the *very next paragraph* of his post was “No doubt I have my on biases to contend with, and I am served if you point them out and hold me to account when they might emerge.”
Perhaps you’re trying to make some deeper point by just making stuff up yourself?
Peter,
“ATTP seems to be arguing at a complete tangent to what we are discussing in this thread. ”
Of course he is. That is one of Ken’s favorite tactics. And watch, when he gets called on it, he pulls a little shimmy shake and says that isn’t what he did at all. You see we are just making things up.
This is very apt. Marcia K. McNutt Nominated to be Next National Academy of Sciences President. Very soon every possible science organisation will be lead by people who think climate change presents a risk worth addressing, and are willing to actually say so publically. How can they all be so wrong and behave in such an unscientific way? Or, ……
ATTP writes— “How can they all be so wrong and behave in such an unscientific way?”
My response- Many intelligent people believe in a variety of religions. How can they be so wrong?
The impact of more CO2 may have net negative impacts, or may not. The impact of CO2 mitigation activities….seem unlikely to have a measureable positive impact worth the cost of many proposals.
How can they all be so wrong and behave in such an unscientific way?
People are irrational.
And other people have learned how to manipulate irrational people.
Good grief, TE and Rob appear to actually think that it is indeed possible that all these socieities and their leaders are simply wrong and behaving irrationally. I guess anything is possible, but some things are just incredibly unlikely. I guess it is possible that a bunch of online blog commenters can see the truth that is eluding the leaders of all these scientific organisations. On the other hand…..
Ken,
“How can they all be so wrong and behave in such an unscientific way”
I know very little of your background, but I would think that you know the difference between a scientist engaged in research or teaching and one who has become an Administrator. Dr McNutt has been the latter for some time now. A major responsibility for an Administrator is the “budget”. In fact few things rank even close in importance. Then there is personal advancement. As a researcher it is the success of that research which brings advancement. For an Administrator is is often successfully carrying out the objectives of your boss. When the boss says that climate change is the gravest threat the nation faces and your know where the money is earmarked towards, only a fool stands up and says the boss is clueless and is talking nonsense.
Good grief, TE and Rob appear to actually think that it is indeed possible that all these socieities and their leaders are simply wrong and behaving irrationally. I guess anything is possible, but some things are just incredibly unlikely. I guess it is possible that a bunch of online blog commenters can see the truth that is eluding the leaders of all these scientific organisations. On the other hand…..
What???
It is the base state of all humans to behave irrationally – that’s why advertising exists.
ATTP writes–“appear to actually think that it is indeed possible that all these socieities and their leaders are simply wrong and behaving irrationally. I guess anything is possible, but some things are just incredibly unlikely.”
My response- Ken, you have previously acknowledged that you only believe there is a risk of more CO2 leading to a change in conditions that are a net negative for humans. You (and nobody else) knows this will be true.
The example of comparing your belief to those who have religious views seems appropriate imo. Maybe God really is a being with a long white beard. I can’t state that is not true. I would be more likely to accept your belief if I saw objectively verifiable data (say a good miracle or two) to verify the supernatural aspect of God. The verification has been lacking.
The same is true in regard to climate science. If there was a good understanding of the system there would be much more accurate models that reasonably closely matched observed conditions. The verification has been lacking here also
No, I have not. Come on, are you really this incapable of constructing an argument that doesn’t involve making things up? It’s pathetic. Do better. Read better. Think!
ATTP
I believe that was a prior comment of yours but will not take the time to try to dig it up. Are you now claiming that you are sure that more CO2 will lead to net negative conditions for the USA or for the world overall? Really?
Joshua, no ad hom intended or implied. The relevant quote from Judith that I was writing about is: “Activism and advocacy by editors of scientific journals reduces the credibility of the journals, introduces biases into the science, and interferes with the policy process that is informed by science.” The content of Dr McNutt’s editorial is a side issue.
So, you’re going to claim that I said something that I have not, but you can’t be bothered to either back it up, or take it back?
“If Marcia feels the science to be as strong as the words in her editorial imply, she’s arguably morally obliged to advocate, in a world where policy is not following that science.”
So whatever one feels should be the guide to world changing policies? The science is not there. If it were, then this blog would not exist.
I think you nailed the logical flaw, Jan. If there is no need for debate there is no need for an editorial. As it stands if Marcia pointed to any science she would instantly invite debate, undermining her totalitarian ideal.
Ron
If there is no need for a debate or an editorial there is no need for funding either.
tonyb
If there is no need for debate, there is no need to keep funding the science beyond a low level for esoteric research. If the science is settled, most climate scientists are redundant. They can catch on with Uber.
How did I not see my friend tony steal my line?
Don
Sorry about that but my senses are keenly honed on financial matters having seen the Greek euro crisis coming over a decade ago
. Perhaps we could give climate scientists what used to be called a ‘stipend’ in order to keep them in coffees and doughnuts? .
tonyb
Tony, I have a Greek friend who was happy about dumping the Drachma for real money. I told him the Euro wouldn’t work, unless fiscal union was instituted along with monetary union. But I am glad the Greeks got their dignity back by strongly asserting by popular vote that they are not going to tolerate people endlessly giving them vast sums of money with the unrealistic expectation that the Greeks will try to be fiscally responsible and maybe return some of the money, some day.
People are still debating evolution although the vast majority of the scientific community has moved on. I don’t think I see your point.
What Marcia is advocating is not a climate policy. It is a political policy. ‘The debate is over.’
Did she advocate for a carbon tax, Cap and Trade, subsidies for renewables, increased take up of nuclear and hydroelectric power?
Not a word.
But she has time to class as ‘unfortunate’ the determination of India to bring affordable energy to a country that has great need of it.
Does she advocate the rich world building an equivalent amount of clean energy in India to obviate the necessity of coal?
She does not.
She advocates nothing and manages to remind me of Rajendra Pachauri while doing it.
If she were an honest advocate for a specific policy or set of policies I would not object to her using her bully pulpit to launch it. But to waste the space with tired old tropes and an assertion about debate that almost disproves itself by its utterance is just silly.
+1
They’re so angry with India. I think it’s the sheer honesty of its leaders that infuriates them. This multinational engine can’t keep running without continuous fuel injection of hypocrisy at every level. Without it the real well-being of the poor is in grave danger of taking centre stage.
thomaswfuller2,
“If she were an honest advocate for a specific policy or set of policies I would not object to her using her bully pulpit to launch it.”
Maybe. But others certainly would – they’d decry a *scientist* putting on the hat of a **policymaker**, stepping outside their expertise and engaging in bald-faced advocacy or even politics.
But Dr. McNutt adopts what should be a commendable role – she is merely pointing the growing inconsistency between society’s actions and those that would be necessary to limit warming (should that be an imperative; it’s clearly one for her), and urging a change. It’s amazing to see the degree of rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth protest such a statement still generates.
Daniel,
“Dr. McNutt adopts what should be a commendable role – she is merely pointing the growing inconsistency between society’s actions and those that would be necessary to limit warming ”
She is doing much more than that. Dr McNutt wants to silence critics. And uses scare tactics – telling us about all of the horrible things which will happen – if we don’t do as she and other “worriers” want.
There is a reason climate change doesn’t rank as a vital and immediate issue for most Americans. And it isn’t due to a commuhication problem or to Kahan’s tribalism theory. It is the natural reaction of normal people to little boys crying wolf and chicken littles running around telling us the end is nigh.
Tell me, if a man tells you that the seas are rising at an alarming rate and then goes out and buys beach front property, what conclusion would you reach?
I think the difference is that whether JC is talking to these groups or in articles or here is that her main thrust is that there is uncertainty in the science. As far as recommending action, not recommending action or saying what action she has remained nuetral. She provides links to both sides of the science and she provides links to all types of energy including alternative energy. As far as I know she has not said well it’s gotta be nuclear or it’s gotta be solar or even we need to keep that coal and oil going. The only thing I know that she is looking into solar for her new house and learned a few things from some posters.
I would agree she advocates hef scientifjc beliefs but that is different from policy advocation. If you think she has suggested we take no action, I believe you’d have a hard time finding that quote.
She used to get invited to left wing press but they stopped inviting her so now she gets right wing press even though she voted for Obama and probably has plenty of liberal views. Now if you say she is a tool for those groups knowing where they stand that argument could be made. As far as I know she has never let anyone on about what they should do with her scientific analysis. Can anyone tell me exactly what she thinks we should do about all this? Drastic Action, Action, No Action, What type of action?
Other than linking to articles (articles which she explicitly said she doesn’t endorse) have you seen a post on this site that doesn’t paint renewables in an unfavorable light)?
My company makes money be forecasting wind energy (and soon solar energy). I like the idea of renewable energy; however in its current incarnations it is not feasible in most locations to produce a large fraction of the needed/desired energy
I, for one, learned about methane based electricity generation in feedlots and garbage dumps, from this site. Think Joseph suffers from selective memory.
A few JC snippets: “I am a big fan of the so-called climate fast attack plan;”
“This proposal to reduce super pollutants is a good example of a robust policy option – something that makes sense regardless of how climate change plays out. ”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/07/super-pollutants-act-of-2014/
“have you seen a post on this site that doesn’t paint renewables in an unfavorable light?”
No.
What is a bit surprising is so many of the people who criticize the solar and battery technology miss the argument that PV is also a statement of independence and freedom, issues they value above stuff like voting rights, and affordable healthcare. What is the price of liberty? No this is bad. We must be assimilated in to the Borg (GRID) – resistance is futile.
Dr. Curry, you aren’t an expert on renewable technologies. Why do you even focus on them on your blog if not to discourage their adoption?
I read a lot about renewable technologies because I want to learn about them, and my company predicts renewable power generation from hydro, wind and solar.
Your logic escapes me. Why would my inclusion of posts on renewable energy discourage their adoption?
Well there are two sides to the renewable energy debate and you present only one side on your blog. Unless you, like Dr. McNutt, think the debate is over.
How come every time I read a comment by Joseph my automatic rsponse seems to be “Now Joseph …” as one might speak to a rather slow child.
So … Now Joseph, all you need do is click forward to the next posting on the week in review – energy and you will find links to articles that are pro-renewables. Off the top of my head I can’t recall a week in review that didn’t link to at least one. Just as there are links to non-supportive articles on renewables.
Joseph,
Just go back to last weekend you’ll find these favorable links supporting solar:
1. WORLDS BIGGEST SOLAR ENERGY PLANT WENT ON LINE LAST WEEK
2. Price of energy storage is falling rapidly
3. Solar power needs to get cheaper, are periskites the answer
4. Solar Power underestimated
Read this again, Ordvic:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/30/consumer-options-for-choosing-renewable-energy/#more-4710
JC COMMENT: This post raises the practical economic issues of using renewable energy in the US. I would be interested in any personal experiences related to using alternative energy sources
Sorry for not answering your first question. I was away and a whole thread developed so I did’nt pay attention to what you wanted. Going over the energy posts (not links) there is a decided bias as you indicate. However if you think about the people sending stuff to her Rud, Planning Engineer, Peter Lang it would naturally be overloaded in that direction. Peter Lang is always miffed and thinks she’s niave or downright anti-nuclear. Can’t please everyone. If no one sends her pro-alternative stuff it won’t get posted.
I am personally making a request for her to post blogs related to alternatives as I’m as interested as you are. I don’t know how she’d do that as far a copyright or whatever? Folks send in your alternatives :-)
JackSmith4tx,
I agree wholeheartedly. The ultimate freedom would be getting off the grid.
There is great uncertainty about how the climate will change in the future. Spatial and temporal chaos, dissipative system and all that……
There is very little uncertainty about what will happen to electricity prices given the current rush to unreliable expansive renewables. It is economics and the physics of AC electricity, and it will fall of its own weight IMO.
ordvic,
Thanks for having an open mind and seeing that “value” does not have to be only an economic argument.
And let me add one other observation. My solar array is one of the most amazing piece of technology I have ever owned. It sits outside exposed to a full spectrum of weather from sub-freezing cold, scorching heat, hail, rain, humidity and 60 Mph winds and just keep pumping out the electrons Of all the electronic things I have owned in 50+ years nothing has matched the utility, elegance and simplicity of a well made solar panel.
Jack
Some of us are interested in renewables. I often comment on them in a favourable manner ( albeit many have serious shortcoming) but in the knowledge that we need renewable horses for courses and not a one size fits all policy.
For instance here in the UK many solar farms are being erected here. With average sun hours in the sunniest places of only around 1700 hours a year and most crucially low sun and light levels for mich of the year, they are not a sensible choice here, but elsewhere they may work fine.
Nowhere in Britain is further than 70 miles from the sea, so tidal/wave energy would be a natural power source for us, but has been sadly neglected.
I favour a CERN type project that is well funded for a decade to exploit and improve existing technologies, find new ones and most importantly find some better form of storage.
This tends to get howled down by our American friends who somehow see it as a socialist measure.
Tonyb
Tonyb,
As Kermit the frog once said “It isn’t easy being green”.
It was a royal battle for me to install my system back in the fall of 2011. First they denied my building permit by claiming I need a 10′ set back from my property line so I had to sacrifice a nice row of ornamental shrubs. Next they had me install a completely redundant cut off switch between the PV fuse box and my main service panel, Still not satisfied they then required me to bury my feeder lines (70′ @ 24″ deep). After all that they then hit me with a $430 permit fee and required my system to have both a building inspection and a electrical inspection. Believe it or not three months later the local planning commission revised the zoning rules so that now fewer than 10% of the homes in my city could put up a system like mine. Now in addition to all the above requirements you have to have at least a 10 acre lot and full screening from any street to build a ground mount system. What is that terrifies city officials about PV? I think I could have built a legal meth lab with less hassle. :)
Joseph, I am a big fan of renewables and believe that around or about 2075 solar in particular will be providing a solution to many of the issues we discuss here.
I disagree with Judith and Planning Engineer and many others on the current relevance of renewables to discussions on climate change (although I don’t dismiss many of the problems associated with them as discussed in great detail here.)
Although I disagree with JC, PE and others here I am welcome here, not censored as I would be at alarmist websites and am engaged with politely (usually…) and on the actual facts of the matter.
Renewables are currently an asterisk in energy production totals. There is no denying that. Many of the disagreements I encounter here are based on different assumptions of how the future will play out, from investments in the grid to the pace of innovation.
In other words, the discussion on renewable energy (and many other issues) here, fits my definition of exactly how discussion should proceed. I learn stuff here every day. I don’t agree with some of what’s written here. But it’s an open environment for discussion and hugely valuable.
verytallguy: “JC doesn’t like others advocating, but JC likes advocating herself.”
If this were an advocacy blog many of your posts would have been stricken and you would likely have been banned. Skeptical Science comes to mind as an example among many; or as an example for publication the door for review at “Science” is never opened, much less having a sliver of a chance for publication regardless of consideration to ones high credentials. Think about that when considering the question of advocacy.
The whine is yours VTG. Very thin stuff served in a paper cup.
Your bribery, suspicion, mutated data, unreal science, these are very small beer compared to a global conspiracy to hide the composition of the sun.
Huh?
I’m a little suspicious of claims that the sun composition is wildly different from conventional theory.
We know the volume and we know the mass (roughly).
The sun is about 2% metal (98% hydrogen or helium) and about 0.14% iron. There is an established theory for determining composition from Fraunhofer lines and at millions of Kelvin the sun does not have a solid core.
There are about 20,000 Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum but only about 1/4 are elemental.
If Marcia feels the science to be as strong as the words in her editorial imply, she’s arguably morally obliged to advocate, in a world where policy is not following that science.
1. It is a commentary piece. But one would hope for better than naked advocacy from the editor of “Science” magazine.
2. She isn’t really a scientist (she is a magazine editor) and it really isn’t her field. Anyone in the bleachers can comment on the game. You don’t have to have been a player or familiar with the sport.
However your experience and background does guide how seriously your views are considered. Her opinion on issues of Indian political and economic policy doesn’t have any more value than mine. Perhaps even less.
3. We need to reinstate the Hatch act in full with a vengeance and include recipients of government grants. People on the government payroll should not engage in political advocacy. If you want to engage in political advocacy you can quit being a bureaucrat or quit holding your hand out.
People who receive money from the government inevitably argue for policies that will give them more money from the government. This is unethical and should be stopped by legal action.
PA,
re 3 – Yeah, you want to silence people who don’t agree with you by threatening withdrawal of their livelihood. Yet you also claim to want a debate. Quelle surprise.
Others have suggested action should be taken against Judith by Georgia tech because of what they perceive to be her disinformation peddling.
You’re as wrong as they are.
Well, that isn’t exactly true.
I favor term limits on government employment. It was supposed to be a temporary service to the country and never a career. They were originally called civil servants and underpaid.
I also favor stripping down the government to its basic functions. If we shrink government enough a Hatch act is unnecessary.
But fine – if you want all these scientists to advocate, the climate change budget is about $2.5 Billion and about $1.5 billion is for satellites and support. The “climate research” is about $1 billion.
The green advocates have billions on their hands. The government didn’t have a climate change program until 1988. We should terminate the $1 billion/year government climate change research program. The greens have more than enough money to fund it.
At least then with the greens funding climate change research and not the government the advocate scientists can say what they want. And since the research is funded by the greens it will be recognized as the naked advocacy that it is.
It is naked advocacy now (as proven by climategate), the Federal funding simply gives them a fig leaf to hide behind.
Yeah. Those damn scientists with their inconvenient facts. Sack the goddamn m*therf*ckers.
Good luck with your own private reality.
VTG, the underlying problem is there is no motivation for the science to unbiased, ergo there is little real science. This explains the no progress on ECS/TCR uncertainty for 35 years. The late Michael Crichton saw the lack of adversarial science as the key problem with climate science and thus proposed that every study should have a two competing teams that forecast their predicted findings ahead of time, schedule their research concurrently and publish concurrently.
The socialist would whine about the duplication of effort. The free marketeer would however anticipate the 4X productivity and 4X quality.
verytallguy | July 6, 2015 at 4:46 pm |
We should terminate the $1 billion/year government climate change research program.
Yeah. Those damn scientists with their inconvenient facts. Sack the goddamn m*therf*ckers.
Good luck with your own private reality.
Ha. An enlightened response.
Well… The problem that global warmers have is that once you strip away their lies there isn’t much of a problem.
The forcing issue is emblematic of the problem. The only measurement of forcing to date (in two locations) is 0.2 W/m2 for 22 PPM.
This is 1/3 the central IPCC forcing estimate and 1/2 the “unlikely to be below” minimum value in their range.
CO2 emission have been in the near 10 range since 2013 and aren’t expected to change much in the foreseeable future. Given the current situation it is hard to construct a scenario that sends global emissions above 12 GT/Y. An emissions level of 12 GT/Y can be supported indefinitely because the atmospheric CO2 increases will level off around 500 PPM when absorption balances emission.
If you overestimate forcing by a factor of three, and overestimate the increase in CO2 levels by about 5.4 times to create a 12+ times worse worst case you can create some really awesome disaster scenarios. The SyFy channel does it all the time.
If you take the IPCC worst case and divide it by 10 you have a realistic worst case.
PA, VTG once asked me my ECS # and said 1.5. He then asked how I came to it and I replied it would be complicated to reproduce in a sentence. But reading your above comment encapsolates what I also recognized early: the tendency of every minute supporting detail to be exaggerated by government grant research. I was shocked ECS by CO2 radiative transfer is a measly 1.0 +/- 0.1. So water vapor amplification is added. Temperature records from history are being “adjusted” every year. “Oops, we forgot this. Pardon me, we forgot to add that.” Last month it was, “Ooops, we forgot that we were taking the sea water buckets the wrong way all through history. And the sea samples were always cooler than the air when pulled up so ARGO numbers need adjusting.” Thomas Karl finally found Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat. Kevin is predicting “a big jump is imminent.” If he’s correct I’ll adjust my ECS to move up with Harold’s at the square root of pi.
I forgot to ask VTG what his ECS # is. What about predictions for the “big one?”
Ron Graf | July 6, 2015 at 7:08 pm |
But reading your above comment encapsolates what I also recognized early: the tendency of every minute supporting detail to be exaggerated by government grant research.
I’ve never seen a situation like global warming where the advocate’s position is not only dominant but virtually free of any factual support.
Debating an issue with people claiming made-up facts are true is pointless.
The global warmers should be forced to prove all the claims in their chain-of-disaster before they should be given any credence or even the time of day.
They start out in the hole – their forcing is 1/3 what they claimed it was. That means more than 2/3rds of the 20th century warming was “something else”.
Since they haven’t even measured “something else” and to this point deny it exists, let alone attempting to measure if it is increasing or decreasing we are kind of at a standstill.
The global warmers flat out ignore reality and then claim to have a superior understanding and the factual high ground.
I don’t know how you debate people that are completely delusional.
PA,
ah, the laissez-faire conception of free-market economics leading to rejection of science. You are Stefan Lewandowsky and I claim my $10
Let’s examine the weird, bizarre conspiracy theory you’re putting forward here.
You claim, first of all, that scientists are all lying.
Then you claim that a scientific paper proves this, because the radiative heat transfer numbers therein contradicts all the other scientists. Even though the authors of the paper don’t say that their numbers contradict the other scientists – they’re liars after all.
Think about it, PA, why would they publish this paper if those numbers backed you up when they’re part of the conspiracy of liars? Why wouldn’t they just make up a set of numbers that matched the lies?
So… all scientists are lying about climate change, because of big guvmint. Except those that aren’t. And the only way to find out which ones are lying is to ask PA. Because you’re the only person who can elucidate the troof. Right?
Still, there is one thing we can agree on, which is nice:
Ron,
Ron, it’s a shame you’re reinforcing PA’s bizarre conspiracy theories. If this was being done deliberately to increase alarmism, it’s being done really, really incompetently. Remember that overall, adjustments *decrease* the warming in the surface record.
On sensitivity, as everything else, I’m no expert, so I’d go with the experts’ judgement, 1.5-4.5. If I had to pick a single number I’d take the midpoint.
Why amateurs like yourself think you know better is beyond me. When you publish a review paper of sensitivity work concluding a different range then I’ll listen.
I don’t have a conspiracy theory
I just observe that people will do just about anything for money, this is why bribes are illegal.
We are bribing climate scientists with $2.54 Billion a year to find evidence of GHG warming and to find harm from it. We are then told this is objective science.
Gee, $2.54 billion/year is a pretty significant bribe. Before 1988 there wasn’t any bribe money and not much talk of global warming.
VTG, “Remember that overall, adjustments *decrease* the warming in the surface record.”
I would like to see an authority quoted as saying that besides Steven Mosher. My own eyes see the adjustments cooling the past, which creates more warming. They are also warming the unknown arctic (see Cowtan and Way 2013), and cooling the past sea temp (Karl et al 2015).
If you would like to see with your own eyes there is a good tool here at Nick Stokes’ site. You just check the adjustment box and reload.
“On sensitivity, as everything else, I’m no expert, so I’d go with the experts’ judgement, 1.5-4.5. If I had to pick a single number I’d take the midpoint.”
I think this is known as an appeal to authority. Most people do not even make it as far as you and I to take a look under the hood. That said are you choosing the midpoint of the range or the midpoint of the probability distribution. Most people looking at the range assume the distribution is even. These anticipated false assumptions are known as lying with statistics. It’s not a conspiracy. Its practiced every day from Madison avenue to the courtroom.
If you are such a believer that people don’t exaggerate or advocate in the interest of where they are financially rewarded then you would have no problem oil funded research. You would also have no problem in a court case where your opposition is a huge client of the law firm representing you.
For you to call people crazy for being uneasy with such conflicts makes you look crazy, which I know you are not.
Ron,
Victor Venema is chair of the Task Team on Homogenization of the WMO Commission for Climatology
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opy7LoBO__w/VNoo9u5ynhI/AAAAAAAAAg4/_DCE5Rzm9Fw/s700/land%2Bocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html
You suggest that financial rewards follow failing to make interesting discoveries in science. Hmm.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISS%20MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISS%20Jan1910%20and%20Jan2000.gif
A claim that the post 2008 (and indeed the post 2000) adjustments have temporally negative slope is simply incorrect no matter who is making them.
The post 2008 changes appear to be designed to mutate the data to more closely resemble the GCM model data. Altering the data to match invalid models makes the data less valid.
For GISS for example the trend is 0.23°C for 90 years over 7 years. There are 85 years left in the century, by 2100 there will be 2;8°C difference between 1910 and 2000.
So if the current adjustment trend continues 2100 will be more than 2°C warmer than the early 1900s from CGAGW (computer generated anthropomorphic global warming – also known as virtual warming) alone.
PA,
Paranoid much?
When? Looking at the chart you posted, all the “*decrease* the warming in the surface record” took place before the increase in pCO2 was enough to matter.
Thus, the adjustments make it look more like CO2 causes more warming (1975-2000) than natural variation (1910-1945). Very good reason for suspicion.
Paranoid much?
Paranoid? Yes I certainly was when I finally realized how bad the situation was after Clinategate emails surfaced in 2009. I spent some time in quite contemplation before deciding to follow Lord Krishna’s advice to Arjuna and entered the battlefield.
Just pointing out your lack of honesty in dismissing people’s suspicions.
Straw man much?
AK,
I don’t mind you calling me dishonest, but I would appreciate you letting me know what I wrote you feel was dishonest.
As to dismissing claims, your “suspicions” of adjustments, given that there are multiple different analyses with different methodologies reaching the same conclusion- labelling that as paranoia seems very reasonable. Others might use stronger words.
Ooh, OManuel, uberconspiracist extraordinaire joins in. Excellent.
Welcome to Judy’s Conspiracy Central!
PA, AK, Ron, you’re going to have to up your game I’m afraid.
Your bribery, suspicion, mutated data, unreal science, these are very small beer compared to a global conspiracy to hide the composition of the sun.
Let’s see if you can do it.
@VTG…
My response is in moderation…
Should be out shortly (I hope).
Precise experimental data and observations cited in this link show the Sun’s core is the pulsar remnant of the supernova that:
1. Made our chemical elements
2. Birthed the solar system 5 Ga ago
3. Sustained the origin and evolution of life after 3.8 Ga ago, and
4. Still controls every atom, life and planet in the solar system today:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Introduction.pdf
To avoid distractions from this site, please send your comments directly to me at omatumr2@gmail.com
What I quoted: “Remember that overall, adjustments *decrease* the warming in the surface record.” It may be literally true, but it’s dishonest, since the “*decrease*” is all prior to the onset of significant GH change from CO2.
I never claimed or expressed “suspicions”, I was responding to your dismissal:
Not true. “If this was being done deliberately to increase alarmism,” it’s actually being done quite cleverly, by reducing the extent and slope of the warming from 1910-1945 while leaving that from 1975-2000 essentially untouched. Thus giving the appearance that “warming from CO2” was much greater than “warming from natural variation”. The original in your graph shows them very similar.
While I’m skeptical of the motives of the people doing adjustments, I’m equally skeptical of notions of “conspiracy”. I’m also skeptical of the motives of people who offer such fallacious arguments.
AK,
OK, well that kinda makes sense – but of course it’s entirely wrong – no such idea was in my head, I assure you I’m really not that Machiavellian.
Your insistence on imputing malicious motivation then continues, as you deny being a conspiracy theorist, whilst simultaneously implying conspiracies:
Cmon, be serious. Who are these “people”? What are their mysterious motives? How do they get their adjustments to match up with the other groups using different methodologies? Tell all!
OK, well you come across as though you understand the science, or think you do. For me, giving people the benefit of the doubt means assuming they know what they’re talking about and are saying things wrong for other reasons than ign0rance.
As for being skeptical of motives, I’m always skeptical of scientists, because they always have an incentive to confirm their pet theories. Many rise over that incentive, others sub-consciously engage in confirmation bias, etc. A few (usually very few) cheat.
Skeptical doesn’t mean certain, just staying on guard in case. Just as I’m skeptical of all my own conclusions. (Some more than others.) I’m close to certain there’s a “conspiracy” of sorts of socialists wanting to use the “global warming” thing as a stalking horse for their own agenda. But I retain some skepticism regarding that opinion, and a whole lot regarding any details of it. I certainly don’t think everybody involved in CAGW alarmism is part of a conspiracy. But it’s not a binary either/or.
verytallguy | July 7, 2015 at 2:02 pm |
Ooh, OManuel, uberconspiracist extraordinaire joins in. Excellent.
Welcome to Judy’s Conspiracy Central!
PA, AK, Ron, you’re going to have to up your game I’m afraid.
Your bribery, suspicion, mutated data, unreal science, these are very small beer compared to a global conspiracy to hide the composition of the sun.
Let’s see if you can do it.
1. The CO2 level isn’t going over 500 PPM.
2. The CO2 forcing is about 1°C ECS based on the only two good measurements we have.
3. We can’t get CAGW based on those two facts.
4. CO2 is beneficial
5. The RFPs from EPA and NSF would indicate the government is buying studies to push its viewpoint.
6. Anyone who lives near the beltway,is familiar with beltway bandits, knows you get what you pay for, and is not surprised studies support global warming.
It kind of is what it is.
Climategate email proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the skeptic claims of data manipulation, data suppression, manipulation of publishing/peer review, and attacks on skeptics were correct. This isn’t a theory and the periodic vicious attacks on skeptics just confirm the obvious.
The non-scientists have plenty of misinformation to fuel CAGW beliefs if they are so politically inclined. Most of these true believers are not maliciously motivated, I chalk up their belief to misinformation, self-delusion, or mental illness/mental defect.
JC SNIP
Discussing conspiracy ideation is ok, but not accusing an individual commenter here
We don’t really believe all that conspiracy stuff, verytediousguy. Have you forgotten that we are all in the pay of Big Energy? And before that Big Tobacco. You must have read Merchants of Doom. Or maybe you are one of the 47 people who waited for the movie.
Judith, it does seem rather odd that it’s OK to post all sorts of weird conspiracies, but not OK to point out that they are such.
It also makes engaging with the rather common conspiracy theorists here somewhat difficult to do honestly.
But fair enough, its your blog, so your rules Judith.
You can say whatever you want on kenny’s blog, veryJC SNIPguy.
Hey Don,
A wise rule of war – Know your enemy.
Since it’s a safe bet you wouldn’t pay to watch Merchants of Doubt here is a usenet code you can use to download a copy for free: 150517.par2
Elliot* told me it was cool to share it with you.
*Mr. Robot
verytallguy | July 9, 2015 at 12:18 pm |
Judith, it does seem rather odd that it’s OK to post all sorts of weird conspiracies, but not OK to point out that they are such.
http://occupythebronx.org/2015/07/internal-documents-show-fossil-fuel-industry-has-been-aware-of-climate-change-for-decades/
Claiming that the fossil fuel industry suppressed global warming evidence is one of those crazy conspiracy theories that just won’t go away.
Today, the warmers can’t prove the ECS is over 1°C or that the CO2 level will go over 500 PPM. But they claim the oil companies had this knowledge decades ago.
Until the warmers who have spent billions on research can prove that there is even the slightest chance of CAGW, claiming that the oil company “conspirators” knew about it is not reasonable.
PA, indeed, the denizens are not the only conspiracy theorists.
Where in the scientific literature can I find the support for either of these claims? Be specific..
verytallguy | July 9, 2015 at 4:06 pm |
PA, indeed, the denizens are not the only conspiracy theorists.
Yeah, there are conspiracists who see conspirators behind every bush and tree.
Conspiracists are generally insecure people who desperately want to know that someone – even bad people – are in control.
Generally things play out because people are acting in their perceived self-interest. There are a few people who keep trying to put their thumb on the scales. And government involvement brings a 600 pound gorilla into the room. But control is pretty much an illusion.
Joseph | July 9, 2015 at 4:07 pm |
Today, the warmers can’t prove the ECS is over 1°C or that the CO2 level will go over 500 PPM.
Where in the scientific literature can I find the support for either of these claims? Be specific..
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
0.2 W/m2 for 22 PPM. That is 0.65 W/m2 for TCR and around 1 W/m2 for ECS.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/images_article/nature11299-f1.2.jpg
The absorption is tied to the CO2 level not emissions so it is going to keep going up even if emissions don’t – and China’s building boom is over.
There really isn’t anything to drive emissions over 10 GT and the environmental absorption is going to relentlessly increase. Environmental absorption was 6.7 GT in 2011 according to CDIAC. And the fossil fuel emissions have been flat the last couple of years.
There is 76 years of fossil fuel remaining (2796 CO2/760 GT carbon with 10 GT annual consumption).The Chinese have less than a 30 year supply of coal.
Construct whatever scenario you want – China isn’t going to be consuming coal at the current rate when indigenous supplies run out.
And the percentage of carbon emissions going into the environment will steadily increase.
30 * 2 is 60 PPM. 60-80 PPM more is as bad as it can get.
When the public gives such credence to eminently qualified spokesmen for the environment like Robert Redford with his celebrity cache, they will go absolutely GaGa over the words of McNutt given her credentials. Very few will do the critical analysis to ask what do these two high profile individuals really know and why should anyone defer to them.
Not to worry Jane Fonda will get us on the right path:
http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news/gta/2015/07/04/jane-fonda-sounds-climate-change-alarm-in-toronto.html
I didn’t think worshippers of Gaia believed in heaven or hell.
McNutt… anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-common sense, anti-reason, anti-journalism.
Auntie Slanty
(aka pokerguy)
Auntie Ranty
Auntie Canty
Auntie Keep the Poor in Shanties
I’ll see your Shanties and raise you twisted panties.
Dr. McNutt actually has impressive credentials and a distiguished career in science. Nevertheless, I agree with Dr. Curry on the inappropriateness of this editorial.
“Dr. McNutt actually has impressive credentials and a distiguished career in science.”
Yes, she certainly has, which, after reading the editorial a few times, leaves me wondering: Why, for heavens sake, would she spout such mindless drivel? Unfathomable.
“JC message to Marcia McNutt: You have an important and influential position as Chief Editor of Science. You also have the power to damage Science and science through your activism and advocacy of climate change policy, particularly your declaration in a Science editorial that ‘the time for debate has ended‘.”
When someone says the debate is over you know the debate is raging, and that the side insisting the debate is over is losing. (paraphrasing George Will)
The editorial position of Science shows that the AAAS leadership has a serious misunderstanding of what science (lower case) can and can’t properly do. Sensible members of the AAAS will send in a letter of resignation with a clear explanation of why they are resigning. Sensible scientists will stop submitting papers to Science. A scientific journal ought not be a political rag; Science has become one.
First it was political rags that were political rags. Then it was the main stream universities that became political rags, then the main stream news and now prestigious science journals. The result is one has to be careful in public or at their work saying anything political. At the rate we are going the debate on all issues will be over. I’m not sure if the old Soviets are laughing or dismayed.
Now Science is no different from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or Salon.com.
If the science is settled then Science has no reason to publish papers about a warming climate and should move on to other questions. I doubt this will happen.
Someone has to explain to me what is motivating global warmers. This poor McNutt person just threw her integrity onto the burning embers.
Dante labeled the outer circle of hell as #9.
McNutt and her ilk are contending that we will be condemned to the 1st circle of hell and they can’t prove we are even guaranteed to get as far as the ninth circle.
There is no point to paying any further attention to McNutt at this point since it is clear she is delivering political opinions not objective scientific ones.
“The time for debate is over. The Pope has spoken. Hell awaits.”
I am certainly impressed.
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/var/storage/images/cbcew2/cbcew-media-library/cbcew-images/pope-benedict-xvi/vatican-flag/191611-1-eng-GB/Vatican-Flag_large.jpg
Onward Catholic Soldiers
So, should scientific journals have opinion pieces, which by definition are unscientific, at all?
In this case, it’s a good reminder of the biases in ‘Science’.
I think opinion pieces about scientific ethics or the scientific method, i.e. process questions, would be fine. But about the topics under scientific investigation, and especially advocating stifling debate about particular topics, no.
TE, the problem with science journals having editorial pieces is despite the small type at the bottom of the editorial- “The views expressed are not endorsed by or necessarily represent…” that is, de facto, what they are meant to do, esp. in publications like Chemical and Engineering News. The same is true in the “official” policy statements of AMS, ACS and others. Those in control claim to speak for all the members and instill a false sense of legitimacy on a the expressed viewpoint which my be undeserved and/or still subject to debate, In the end it is just the exercise of power.
When a politician, speaking on a subject involving science or technology, declares the debate is over, you can be sure of two things: The debate is raging and he is losing it. George Will
+100. And sadly not limited to just politicians, hence the fact we can even have a “settled science” meme.
I find that when someone invokes the ‘debate is over’, they do so because they can’t actually identify aspects of the position they wish to defend. Such arguments are typically marked by adjectives and subjective statements and not specific measures, numbers or equations. So it is with McNutt – lot’s of adjectives and assertion but no specific identification of harm and by no means any consideration of benefit.
Using the word dire doesn’t actually mean anything is dire.
Asserting that there is a threat to the food supply doesn’t mean there is a threat to the food supply, but by only asserting this and not providing an falsifiable operating theory of causation, I’m going to assume she doesn’t have one and is writing this out of emotion, not science. This point is particularly egregious because we have observations on which to base science: during the recent decades warming, the food supply has steadily increased! So much so that we can see why obesity is a global problem!
Asserting that there is a threat to health doesn’t make is true and as a matter of perspective, I would invite anyone to examine exactly where climate or even weather appears among causes of death. It is not rational to worry about global warming more than real causes of death.
I’m not sure what ecosystem services are, but as to those services and “and the general viability of the planet” , anyone with interest in climate should surely know about orbitally induced insolation variation and the Holocene Climatic Optimum and know that nearly all species present today evolved over a wide range of climate variation. So too did most species evolve in a range of atmospheric CO2 which as even high school students know is the basis of most surface life on the planet.
Informed opinion is still opinion but sadly, this piece does not exhibit much information and is certainly not the stuff of “Science”.
In the history of humankind, there is a dearth of examples of global threats so far-reaching in their impact, so dire in their consequences, and considered so likely to occur that they have engaged all nations in risk mitigation. But now with climate change, we face a slowly escalating but long-enduring global threat to food supplies, health, ecosystem services, and the general viability of the planet to support a population of more than 7 billion people. The projected costs of addressing the problem grow with every year that we delay confronting it.
There are thousands of papers in the scientific literature which focus on the risks from climate change. She isn’t making it up.
Joseph,
“There are thousands of papers in the scientific literature which focus on the risks from climate change. She isn’t making it up.”
Does this support her statement that “the time for debate is over”?
You just had a nice long conversation on a different thread that “anecdotal evidence” was inappropriate in a scientific discussion. This person is in a position of leadership writing for a leading scientific publication and while within an editorial she’s made a blanket assertion that there is no need for further debate. You railed against a skeptical viewpoint yesterday w/r/t volume of GCM’s, yet today you’re here to support since it’s on “your side”? WUWT?
There is enough evidence in the scientific literature as summarized by the IPCC to act. Of course the science will continue.
Was the point that unclear? When anecdotal evidence is used by a moderate skeptic to make a point a certain someone declares the assertion invalid. Then a certain someone declares an editorial commentary including “the debate is over” (even when it’s clearly not) is correct. Why might that be?
It’s an editorial (her opinion)l, Danny, and among the scientific community (not among policy makers) there is very few who doubt that climate change poses significant risks.
So, Joseph, stating once again. If one “editorializes” using “anecdotal evidence” in support of AGW, you’re all for it. If one does the same in questioning a segment of AGW “meme” (GCM’s specifically) then you insist that the anecdotal evidence is insufficient for the purpose. (This is exactly what you derided AK for yesterday, but you’re a cheerleader today?)
Read that again, and let me know if you’d allow a so called “skeptic” to get away with that
What anecdotal evidence is McNutt basing her opinion on?
Joseph,
Great question.
A) Does it matter if it’s anecdotal?
B) Is there a list provided?
Still missing the point? Why is anecdotal which supports agw acceptable to you yet you argued that anecdotal provided by a skeptic was not?
Joseph, if you’ve not noticed, I’ve made no argument at all about content of either argument.
I am trying to figure out what anecdotal evidence you think is acceptable to me.
Joseph,
From where we started: http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/05/the-beyond-two-degree-inferno/#comment-715687
implying support for her “anecdotal” editorial.
Here are just 3 which indicate a substantial need for “further debate” :http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/06/new-research-on-atmospheric-radiative-transfer/
Just look at how you’re responding to the two topics (blog post with anecdotal evidence w/r/t gcm’s which you railed against vs. your support of the editorial) with a critical eye.
Again, I’m not even discussing content. Just an AGW’er being an AGW’er vs. skeptics being skeptics. Think about it?
Can you be specific?
Certainly climate is less extreme now than during the Holocene Climatic Optimum when summers were hotter AND winters were colder.
Certainly the food supply has grown as temperatures have risen, not shrunk.
Certainly climate/weather are statistically insignificant causes of death compare to actual causes of death. That doesn’t mean you should play ball in a lightning storm or drive into a flash flood, but you should be rational about the insignificant role compare to real threats.
Certainly increased carbon dioxide increases the viability of plants and animals depend on plants.
What real and observable aspect of global warming produces harm?
You can go to the IPCC WGII to get specifics.
There should be thousands of papers on the benefits of climate change.
Why is the research so unbalanced? And by looking at the government RFP (requests for proposals) it is pretty obvious why there are so many government funded papers on the risks of climate change.
We need a research effect to tally the funding for research on the risks of climate change. Then spend an equal amount researching the benefits – funded from the current climate change budget.
You can go to the IPCC WGII to get specifics.
So you can’t get specific. That’s ok, most can’t.
I’ll help.
As with most things, there is measurement error, but sea level appears to be rising at a few inches per century. Some, though not all of that may be from warming oceans because a growing portion is from ground water use and an untold portion is from increased run-off from roofs, concrete and asphalt. This is not a crisis.
Global temperature appear to be rising, but lifeform ‘viability’ and health tend to peak in the hot season and trough in the cold season – this is not a crisis.
One of the elders of climate modeling wrt CO2 is Manabe, who in 1980 observed that regarding increasing CO2: “The reduction of the meridional temperature gradient appears to reduce not only the eddy kinetic energy, but also the variance of temperature in the lower model troposphere”. Is this correct? It was based on a simple model and simple assessment of lower temperature gradients not mid/upper. Never the less, this paper indicates milder, not more intense storminess. Climate is not in crisis.
Eddie, why should trust anything you have to say about the science related to impacts? What are your qualifications? How much research have you done?
Joseph,
Link to one – just one – that isn’t based on models. As in one that provides real world numbers, observed data, showing harm.
You can’t find one for sea level rise.
Nor for species extinction.
Climate refugees – nada.
Same for destruction of coral reefs.
How about disasterous impacts to agriculture? Nope, another big whiff there.
Tim, this link has information to current and future impacts.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/
Eddie, why should trust anything you have to say about the science related to impacts?
You shouldn’t!
I’m sloppy, irrational, quick with opinion and somewhat of an a-whole.
But I do observe and I believe I do stumble into some truths.
You should take a look at the links i’ve added ( most are from uncontroversial sources ) and decide for yourself.
The subject of ‘climate change’ does involve some understanding of the atmosphere but it’s the ultimate generalists topic because of all the realms of influence, feedbacks and impacts.
There’s a physicist locally who opines on climate change a lot and he very well understands the radiative physics but his understanding of radiance clouds his judgement as to effects and impacts that he can convince himself of terrifying calamity.
Eddie, your post didn’t inspire in confidence in what you have been saying. I remain unconvinced. I think I will stick the expert assessments.
Joseph,
Did you bother to read that EPA link? Even the quickest browsing reveals the fact that all of the references go back to a single document.
USGCRP (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States .
That report is not scientific research. And if you follow the references from that publication (which I haven’t yet), how much do you want to bet that the majority (if not all) are to papers based on modelled outcomes?
I have degrees in 3 different disciplines and if I were to submit a paper in any of them that used a single reference source I’d be lucky to get a C. Seeing that from a government agency should by itself set off alarm bells. But I guess some folks are too busy sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “I say la la, ,,, la, la, la la, la la la”
I don’t know how many are based on models, but the research on current impacts I imagine would not be based on models.
That’s you and not me, Tim. I am dismissing any research based on models.
Eddie, your post didn’t inspire in confidence in what you have been saying. I remain unconvinced. I think I will stick the expert assessments.
Don’t let anyonedo your thinking for you – prove it to yourself.
Some things ( like temperature measurements made by countless unknowns around the world or complex governing equations ) may have some uncertainty for you so just put an asterisk by these things and move on.
But you can certainly find enough data to contradict the categorical assertions made by McNutt’s editorial opinion, even without getting a PhD.
Here is the most telling response from Joseph:
“I don’t know how many are based on models, but the research on current impacts I imagine .. ”
Forming opinion based on lack of knowledge combined with one’s imagining things. Inspiring, ain’t it.
And you imagine you have a good grasp of the science behind climate change impacts, Tim. I base my opinion on the IPCC and other papers I read about in the news. Where do you get your information?
Joseph
If the authority that you are relying upon (in your case the IPCC) has used models that have been shown to be inaccurate to reach their conclusions, then the conclusions are unreliable. That is science
“I base my opinion on the IPCC and other papers I read about in the news. Where do you get your information?”
Joseph, as you well know there is a world of difference between the IPCC body reports and the highly politically motivated summaries. You also know there is a wide variation in what constitutes new, Jon Stewart, Vox or Salon.com quoting Skeptical Science is news. Reading the news I would say everyone commenting here, including you, is going to hear anything that you don’t already know from being here a month. (It’s actually frustrating reading all the errors and intentional omissions.)
I agree the debate when science is inconclusive science comes down to who you trust. And, who you trust is the folks you hang with politically.
Marcia McNutt actually had it right here:
“We’re all in high school. We’ve never left high school. People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always trumping science. And they will continue to trump science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science.”
Joseph,
“And you imagine you have a good grasp of the science behind climate change impacts,” – I guess that comes done to one’s definition of good.
My grasp of the science of climate change is basic at best. When I started getting interested in the debate I had to dig out my grad school text books in Atmos Physics and Chemistry just to refresh what little I remembered. But even that little puts me ahead of someone who gets their information from news outlets. (Note to Joseph: check out the course requirements for a Journalism Major. )
As for my grasp of the issue of impacts, I read some of the papers I find interesting. Read the abstracts of far more. And being fairly good at pattern recognition, it became obvious that the overwhelming percentage of these studies had a common factor – they relied on model output.
You don’t need an advanced degree to see this. All you need is the ability to read. Just like you don’t need physics to evaluate the effectiveness of policy proposals based on emissions controls. Arithmatic is sufficient.
The Dante’s Inferno is an emotional projection, and it makes no mention of the pride and hubris that is the root of all following err, let alone the idolatry.
More appropriate is Paradise Lost by Milton, the UN main conference hall even bears an uncanny resemblance to the Infernal Council in Pandæmonium, the capital of city Hell:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Martin%2C_John_-_Satan_presiding_at_the_Infernal_Council_-_1824.JPG
“The time for debate has ended. – Marcia McNutt, editor of Science.”
“There was a debate and you missed it.” – Mosher
“Where does the dessert buffet line start?” -Al Gore
Andrew
‘with the debate settled we don’t need any more funding’ The IPCC on behalf of Climate science
(Naw, I made that one up)
tonyb
Actually that is a good point.
In 20 years the IPCC has gone from 1.5 – 4.5 °C for ECS to 2.0 -4.5 °C for ECS. A recent downward RF study would indicate the ECS is around 1°C.
If that is all they can accomplish – a slight movement in the wrong direction – more money for the IPCC is a waste of time (just like all the money spent to date was).
There was a debate and their side lost or we would have cap and trade right now.
Reblogged this on JunkScience.com and commented:
An excellent post. I believe the activism is more prevalent than just one journal editor. Also, the mythical 2°C limit seems to be drifting down to 1.5°C.
Just building on the meme.
Global warming —–> Climate change.
Climate Science——> Mainstream Science.
Settled Science——> “the debate is over”.
And so on.
Simplez.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I must say geoengineering sure looks like a top priority for intensive research.
“I hate to sound like a broken record…”
Reminds me to ask, is the Global Warming Hoax over yet?
Andrew
Bad, I like to focus on issues such as the sheer amount of baloney used to prepare RCP8.5, and the rather inefficient prescriptions being suggested by Christiana Figueres and her supporting cast. When we consider the way rcp8.5 has been designated as “business as usual”, we can say any papers, presentations, conclusions or extrapolations based on that case can be considered unscientific garbage. I guess we could say what follows up becomes useless alarmism and faulty prescriptions based on a hoax: the 8.5 watts per m2 is bulldinky.
My question: why now? Why would Marcia McNutt editorialize now? What would be her motivation to speak now? I guess, what occurs to me, who nudged her to write now? What circumstances? phone call? conversation? what gaggle of politicized climatologists induced her to act now?
She, as Will Eschenbach has already pointed out, was already pre-disposed to this bias. Why speak now?
Let me speculate. The fight is being lost. The editorial, saying what has been on Marcia McNutt’s mind all along, is a call to join a faltering cause. “Come on boys, man those ramparts.”
There are those, predisposed as they are, like Rhett Butler at the tail end of the movie Gone With The Wind, pivots from the burning City to march with the retreating Confederates out of Atlanta, wistfully reflecting on his own failure at love, joins the retreating soldiers and says: “I’m a sucker for lost causes.”
Since Global Warming/Climate Change can’t be perceived by anyone’s senses, there has to be a steady stream of “The sky is falling” or people will forget it’s supposed to be a problem.
Andrew
The answer to Why now? is probably the UNFCCC meeting in Paris in December.
It’s very easy to spot the pseudo-scientific political lobbyists – they tell you to “sit down and shut up.”
Every time you here “the science is settled” or “the time for debate is over,” what they are really saying is “sit down and shut up.”
At the American Chemical Society we have heard this for years, from former Chemical and Engineering News Editor Rudy Baum, former ACS CEO Madeline Jacobs, and esp. during the 2012 (member elected) ACS Presidential term of Professor Bassam Z. Shakhashiri (a fellow UW guy, Judith). Mr Baum’s editorials have been was a source of annoyance to many and from the letters in C&EN that would follow I am sure Mr. Baum was responsible for a few ACS member resignations. Mr Baum wrote rather condescending (and to me, ignorantly) about the August 2011 webinar/symposium that Prof, Curry participated in for me.
I think the number of ACS members actively working on climate is pretty small. But ACS members have been hearing the equivalent of “The Science is Settled”; dissenting voices have been tightly limited.
I’m not of the opinion that the science is completely settled, but at some point, policy makers and politicians are going to have to decide, based on what we know so far, whether it is time to start hedging our bets against potential changes to which 7 to 10 billion humans will find it hard to adapt. A conservative approach, which is apparently not favored by the present Indian government, is not an entirely bad idea.
Meanwhile, I certainly concur that Dr. McNutt should not use her editor’s hat to stifle publication of good science that may turn out to be iconoclastic. Science is, after all, about being an iconoclast. Perhaps if scientists are advocates, it should be to advocate the scientific method. But editors are allowed to editorialize, right?
I went to that McNutt piece and saw that no one had yet commented. So I gave it a try with this:
‘What an astonishing commentary. It can only be compared to that Iraqi Minister of Information at the end of the Sadam-era claiming to be on top of everything and in total control. Anyone who has been following this debate knows that you are ignoring things like an 18-years long no show of warming in spite of a steady increase of CO2. Ignoring a wealth of science proving that more CO2 is very important plant food. Ignoring the fact that renewable energy policies are extremely expensive failures everywhere. As a science journalist I am always pressed to hear more sides, and rightly so. Everybody has his political preferences, but your piece is so extremely onesided and partizan, no wonder that the public turns away from your alarmist encyclycals. Well let’s me not end negative: clearly we are winning the debate.
I’ve just heard that later today, it will be announced that Marcia McNutt has been nominated to be the next President of the National Academy of Sciences (official announcement coming later today).
Although the NAS bylaws permit additional nominations from the membership, this mechanism has never been used. In the absence of another nomination, Marcia’s name will be presented to the NAS membership in December for their ratification.
Well, if she wants to advocate for public policy, president of NAS is a less ethically compromising position for her than Editor of Science
Damaging the integrity of Sciencemag.org is an interesting way to leave. I can hardly wait to see what she does to the NAS. My vague understanding is that the NAS is funded by the US Congress, which could get interesting.
They have some small funding from endowment, but bulk of the funding is from govt agencies to fund studies
http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/leadership/report-of-the-treasurer.pdf
Fascinating! Page 5 listing very impressive. So they basically work for Obama, not the Congress. Who knew?
If so, McNutt knew very well tat she would very likely be leaving Science when writing her editorial
The reference to Hell seems to me more a singular double entendre than a place in hell for one’s level of non-concurrence:
“Earth-beyond-two-degrees will be hot as hell”.
So simple that the uneducated and those unversed in the subject will get the message clearly.
Powerful imagery, whether correct or not is another matter
Ye shall roast I tell you!
http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
Should have put McNutt’s message in color and global hype
McNutt’s message: Our ‘cool’ earthhttp://pages.swcp.com/~jmw-mcw/cool_earth.jpg beyond 2-deg will be hotter than hell http://pages.swcp.com/~jmw-mcw/devil_hot_world.jpg So vivid, it true!
“Everybody should be questioning,” says McNutt. “That’s a hallmark of a scientist.”
“We’re all in high school. We’ve never left high school,” says Marcia McNutt. “People still have a need to fit in…”
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
thx much for that link
I wrote McNutt requesting either a clarification or retraction of Marcott, based on guest post Playing Hockey-blowing the whistle. Receipt of complaint and evidence was acknowledged by her staff in writing. There was no further communication. The episode is proof positive that she enabled/facilitated/endorsed an utter lack of scientific integrity in the journal Science. Fitting that her reputation will eventually reside at the lowest level of Dante’s Inferno.
For good reasons. They are typically a means to achieve power and have invariably proven false.
Judith, when Rush D. Holt was named (late 2014) as the new CEO and Executive Publisher of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes Science, Science Express, etc.) I had some reservations that AAAS has been coopted… (although previous head Alan Leisher AAAS / Science magazine was generally supportive of the consensus views of climate change interpretation). Rush Holt retired from congress to take the position. He has a history in science policy and with the AAAS. The AAAS announcement (http://www.aaas.org/news/AAASCEO) said, “Holt, 66, represented Central New Jersey (12th District) in Congress since 1999. He earned his B.A. in physics from Carleton College, MN and (was awarded) Master’s and PhD degrees at New York University. In 1982-83, while teaching physics and public policy at Swarthmore College, Holt was selected by the American Physical Society to receive a highly competitive AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowship … (t)he Fellowships program places outstanding scientists and engineers in executive, legislative, and Congressional branch assignments for one or two years and now has 3,000+ alumni working worldwide in policy, academic, industry, and nonprofit realms.” This was a springboard for his role in Congress…”
The piece said “Holt (has been) an effective advocate for the importance of science to society… a champion of a broad spectrum of scientific research areas … On Capitol Hill, Holt established a long track record of advocacy for federal investment in research and development, science education, and innovation. Holt (strongly) promoted the value of science communication, particularly for conveying information about climate change, and he has said that ‘thinking like a scientist’ can benefit the policymaking process.” Elsewhere he was quoted as saying: “This whole controversy about global warming … politicians just don’t want to take the time to educate themselves.”
In my opinion AAAS has a conflict of interest that they are not telling you about. If they are now trying to “sell” science (science policy) to the general public and politicians, they put themselves in a position to exaggerate the benefits of science and downplay uncertainties and downsides (e.g., costs) – e.g., in overselling the consensus line on the risks of climate change rather than focusing on what we truly know (the knowledge part) but along with the equally importantly – unbiased accounting of what we don’t know (the uncertainties part) … what one would wish to do if you are truly committed to “openness and integrity” in communicating to the general public on science / policy issues.
I am reminded of a Tom Wolfe book in which he skillfully dissected the descent of rationality and objectivity at the hands of modern academia. And I began to see the connection to climate change hysteria. The ruling force is “political correctness”, which translates into going along to get along in your tribe. And in the extreme, it means subordinating science and rationality to instincts of the herd, their fears, disappointments and desires to rule the day.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/warmists-and-rococo-marxists/
Yep.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/179755/how-communist-left-killed-free-speech-west-paul-gottfried
Or For the more serious reader. If you have any interest in understanding the American Left.
http://www.amazon.com/Multiculturalism-Politics-Guilt-Secular-Theocracy/dp/0826215203/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_y
It is wiser to generalize less and to point out the specific objections to proposals
Huh?
“…Another trait, examined in depth in After Liberalism, is the bureaucratic and media efforts to ‘pathologize’ attitudes and view by placing them outside of public discussion. [A] Only the mentally unhealthy, we are told, would be disposed to present these views, the range and variety of which continue to grow…. There are those who admit to this problem and, according to Walser, have turned displays of conscience into public ceremonies…..Such behavior fits the liberal Christian paradigm that now towers over Western culture. [B] The righteous few make a show of good conscience by apologizing for collective sins—and by exhorting the state to enact compulsory penance.”
A. The science is settled. Deniers.
B. James Hason. We are destroying the planet, we must scale back civilization.
“This [Clean Power Plan] is about environmental justice, because lower income families and communities of color are the hardest hit.” –Administrator Gina McCarthy
etc etc…
Actually the Gina quote plays to A as well, in that (if she succeeds, its quite a hail-mary) then climate denial is also now racists which brings in the seriously heavy machinery of political correctness against it.
+100
Judith wrote:
“Some seem to think that I advocate for public policies (but they can’t really say which policies), although I do not regard myself to be a policy advocate.”
You just spent half the weekend on Twitter advocating for adaptation. That too is a policy.
Please cite the specific tweets of mine that you regard as advocacy for adaptation
https://twitter.com/curryja/status/617008283845459968
David that’s better than what you spent your weekend doing – looking foolish while trying to show up Cliff Maass.
If your goal is to gain a reputation similar to that of Greg Laden (ankle biteing those more accomplished than you), your exchange with Cliff is a good start.
P.S. The White House just changed their ” social cost of carbon” Friday, from $38 to $37 a ton. The updated exactitude is heart warming?
Stephen Heins “Re: P.S. The White House just ….” in 2013 the White House revised the SCC upward by around 60% across the board. There was no independent review of this like you have for budget projections and no comment from conservatives. It included many new categories of accounting such as the threat to humankind based on the administration’s assumed revised values of human life. This is another example of how to “nudge” (as in Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler book) to get your policy across, i.e., make up the grading system as you go along.
With the nuclear deal in the offing the Iranian export of oil will ramp up, resulting in a continuing fall in the cost of a barrel of oil and lower gas prices. which of course means Western governments will increase gasoline taxes to pay for the continued expansion of gas-hating/Tesla-loving Leftist-liberal government.
The science isnt settled. But the debate is over.
Skeptics might want to have another debate, cause they lost the first one.
But, all debate is limited. Not limited by surrender. Not limited because there is some “method” or “mechanism” or algorithm that says the debate is over.. But debates end because of social conventions. We agree to debate for an hour.. that is arbitary but when the hour is up…. the debate is over. Then the audience decides… EVEN THOUGH the underlying issue MAY NEVER be settled. Science aint a debate. So when you say ‘we want to debate the science” you are tactically and tacitly demanding a social process to decide the science. You are demanding something that isnt the scientific method. weirdly funny.
So the science isnt settled. YAWN… no science is ever settled. People continue to talk.
Debate? debate has a finishing time. There is an audience and a social protocal for ending debate. Its over. the pen and the phone decided.
We had a debate. Skeptics didnt show up to the science debate.
They attacked science in general. They attacked observational science.
They attacked motives. They were all over the map in the debate. like a herd of cats.. That look cool on the internet… But looks disorganized to policy makers.
Only recently have a couple skeptics learned to publish on the Key question. On the question actually being debated.
The audience for this debate is not the public. The audience is policy makers. They are deciding the rules of the debate. who speaks and for how long.. was it unfair? boo fricking hoo. cry me a river.
That debate is over.. and the pen and the phone will rule.
“Skeptics didnt show up to the science debate.”
Where and when were they supposed to show up?
Andrew
Simple: do your own damn science.
show up at conferences.
show up at symposia
show up in journals
BUT in a science “debate” you cant merely show up with criticisms.
you have to show up with a better idea.
“show up at conferences.
show up at symposia
show up in journals”
Please provide some specific examples (dates, times and descriptions of formats) of debates being held in any of these venues.
Do I think Mosher has any examples? Of course not.
But he thinks he looks cool on the internet? Not sure.
Andrew
the issue is the white space in the italian flag – uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance. The weakness of the green box (consensus) doesn’t depend on the quality of the red space.
“We had a debate and its over…” (scientific debate)
Except for the “question actually being debated”. (climate sensitivity…. another science debate)
Policymakers are deciding the rules of the debate. Who speaks and for how long. (Policy debate, but not a scientific one)
I would argue the POLICY debate is… what level of response (mitigation/adaption) to climate change is appropriate today and for the future? I would think that the ongoing and unfinished SCIENTIFIC debate of climate sensitivity to rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations is still quite relevant to the aforementioned policy debate.
There is still a scientific debate going around CS…. it is part of the policy debate…
It appears the debate is not over quite yet.
“Only recently have a couple skeptics learned to publish on the Key question. On the question actually being debated.”
read harder
“That debate is over.. and the pen and the phone will rule.”
write better
Steven, so you are saying if you as a citizen want to get to the truth you have to do your own science with your own savings and get it through the likes of Frau McNutt. And, if it does not happen tough, “cry me a river.”
And I am told you used to be a skeptic. What changed you?
Steve Mosher wrongly writes that the debate is over! Steve does not seem to understand what the “debate” is about, but declares that it is over.
The debate is about what actions should be taken in response to concerns about humans increasing the level of atmospheric CO2. This debate continues and little action has been taken by the US government.
1. Do we have a good understanding of how much temperatures will change as a function of CO2? Over the next 10 years, 25 years, 100 years?
2. Do we have reasonably reliable data to demonstrate that there is an understanding of what other conditions will change (positively and negatively) as a result of any warming that does occur and when and where these changes will happen?
Predictions of #1 cover rates of temperature change that are too wide to have much meaning. There is very little anyone can point to that reliably addresses point #2.
“The debate is about what actions should be taken in response to concerns about humans increasing the level of atmospheric CO2. This debate continues and little action has been taken by the US government.”
Nope. that’s not a science debate.
But there too you all continue to lose issue by issue
Steve
So now you are trying to re-frame your point as “the science debate”.
You making a declaration does not make it true.
The scientific debate is not over regarding the rate of warming tied to increased CO2 or what other conditions will change where and when as a result of any warming that does occur.
Nope. that’s not a science debate.
But there too you all continue to lose issue by issue
Regardless of who all ‘you all’ is, would you care to be specific?
Or continue to hide in the vagaries of ‘the monster under the bed’.
No matter how many times the lights get turned on, you’ll be crying again about the monster when the lights go off.
“1. Do we have a good understanding of how much temperatures will change as a function of CO2? Over the next 10 years, 25 years, 100 years?
Yes.
2. Do we have reasonably reliable data to demonstrate that there is an understanding of what other conditions will change (positively and negatively) as a result of any warming that does occur and when and where these changes will happen?
Yes
Predictions of #1 cover rates of temperature change that are too wide to have much meaning. There is very little anyone can point to that reliably addresses point #2
of course the rates have meaning. If I said the next 10 years may see
plus or minus 5C of warming… that has a real meaning.
it means -6 and +6 is ruled out.
How much meaning? 2.7 ounces of meaning.
Your argument is that there is not “much” meaning. To make this argument you’ll want to quantify meaning.
Go ahead.. tell me how you propose to measure meaning.
I love metaphors. Your metaphor is that meaning is a thing that can be quantified and measured.. ( there are ways— lets see if you know any )
Oh.. I wanna play:
“1. Do we have a good understanding of how much temperatures will change as a function of CO2? Over the next 10 years, 25 years, 100 years?
Yes.
We have a pretty good idea that if CO2 is what has dominated observed temperature changes that temperatures will rise less than 1.6K between 2000 and 2100, based on observations.
2. Do we have reasonably reliable data to demonstrate that there is an understanding of what other conditions will change (positively and negatively) as a result of any warming that does occur and when and where these changes will happen?
Yes
Yes, we have the seasonal analogs.
And we have examples.
The 1997/1998 El Nino warmed the planet significantly and rapidly ( at around a rate of 150K per century ).
Was 1998 a disaster?
The music kinda sucked, I think most people did OK.
Steve
You enjoy playing word games, but I prefer more meaningful exchanges.
If a scientist really had a robust understanding of the earth’s climate system and CO2’s impact on it, they would not have to provide forecasts with such large margins of error.
What is the acceptable rate of temperature rise?
Steve You enjoy playing word games, but I prefer more meaningful exchanges.
Well, you have to admit, he jacks up the post count at Judy’s place.
Maybe more heat than light, but everyone wants to pile on.
Steven Mosher: That debate is over.
The audience for this debate is not the public. The audience is policy makers.
If anything is to be financed, the “public” are the people who will finance it. A lot of them are still paying attention to the debate. Also, in the US, a bunch of “policy makers” are up for re-election in 2016, and they have active audiences following aspects of the debate. The “public” might elect a Congress willing to declare CO2 “not a pollutant to be addressed by EPA.”
“If anything is to be financed, the “public” are the people who will finance it. A lot of them are still paying attention to the debate. Also, in the US, a bunch of “policy makers” are up for re-election in 2016, and they have active audiences following aspects of the debate. The “public” might elect a Congress willing to declare CO2 “not a pollutant to be addressed by EPA.”
last time I looked a republican majority in both house and senate couldn’t muster the troups to use the power of the purse..
Oh ya.. magically the republicans will grow a spine in 2016 and reign in the EPA.
not happening.
You might as well wish that ECS is 1.3C
ECS may not be important to humans. TCR is likely much more important.
What will TCR be over the next 10 years? 25 years 100 years.. Is there any debate?
Steven Mosher: last time I looked a republican majority in both house and senate couldn’t muster the troups to use the power of the purse..
What large Federal expenditures have been authorized for the purpose of combating global warming? California, which is investing heavily in wind farms and solar farms, is not changing its energy mix sufficiently to have a measurable effect on climate.
Even the totality of all measures proposed to Congress by Pres Obama, a true believer, would not have a measurable effect on global climate.
“What large Federal expenditures have been authorized for the purpose of combating global warming? California, which is investing heavily in wind farms and solar farms, is not changing its energy mix sufficiently to have a measurable effect on climate.
Even the totality of all measures proposed to Congress by Pres Obama, a true believer, would not have a measurable effect on global climate.”
Thanks for making my point
Not only did you lose the debate, BUT you allowed actions that have no effect.
Like I said, there is no reason think any 2016 result will change the path going forward.
Your argument is that the winners are doing stoopid things.. well duh.
Steven Mosher: You might as well wish that ECS is 1.3C
I calculated a surface climate sensitivity value less than 1C. The higher calculated values apply to the Effective Radiation Layer, the tropopause, or the Top of the Atmosphere, or some unspecified region of the climate system. Dr McNutt has alerted us to why she will not permit the calculation to be published in Science Magazine.
Oh ya.. magically the republicans will grow a spine in 2016 and reign in the EPA.
Actually, Democrats and Republicans are in tacit collusion on chopping the EPA budget because the automatic entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and more ) are squeezing out more and more of what we think of as the functional government and no one wants to cut entitlements.
That squeeze will continue for decades:
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/07/CBO-2011-LTBO-ex-interest1.jpg
“ECS may not be important to humans. TCR is likely much more important.
What will TCR be over the next 10 years? 25 years 100 years.. Is there any debate?
###################
Bingo..
As I alluded to in my post Recently some skeptics have showed up for the debate. nic Lewis.
Notice that he didnt waste any brain power on dragon slayer stuff
or salby stuff
or GCR stuff
or temperature series stuff
Notice that he did his own damn science
Notice that he did TWO THINGS.
1. correct mistakes in existing accounts
2. Propose his own account
THAT is how you show up for a science debate.
Steven Mosher: Thanks for making my point
Not only did you lose the debate, BUT you allowed actions that have no effect.
That makes no sense.
What I said was that the people who will have to pay are following the debate, and that the debate is still continuing among policy makers. The outcome of the debates and elections may be some other policy motivating the phone and the pen.
Neither the scientific debate nor the policy debate is over. There is one interpretation of “the policy debate is over” that may be true: at least 90% of the people of the earth have decided not to reduce their use of fossil fuel — that includes Germany which is (approximately) going for solar and wind to replace nuclear, and increasing their consumption of coal. California is not reducing their CO2 imprint: they buy stuff made in Kentucky and China, and are responsible for some of the generally increasing CO2 concentrations. That is not the interpretation that you are pushing, is it?
Steven Mosher: 1. correct mistakes in existing accounts
2. Propose his own account
Surely you are not saying he is the only one?
“Steven Mosher: 1. correct mistakes in existing accounts
2. Propose his own account
Surely you are not saying he is the only one?”
###################################################
Yes he is the only one.. or only one that actually counts and has made an impact.. like testifying before parliment.
But lets take a look.
lets look at some of the KEY issues
1. C02 is a green house gas.
To have a science debate about this it is not enough to point out weaknesses or uncertainties in existing radiative physics. You will get NOWHERE unless you have an ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT. and that account has to be able to REPLACE existing radiative physics which is used in every day engineering. Skeptics didnt show up. They lost by default. oh ya, they sent sky dragons to the debate… go team nutjob.
2. Emissions by Man are the primary, principle, source of the increase in C02. The only skeptic who came close to showing up was Salby. and he lost his own work.
3. The existing temperature records show a warming since the LIA.
Two people showed up to challenge this. JeffId did his own record:
warmer than HADCRUT and Muller. also warmer. The interesting analog here is the history of the speed of light. before the 17th century the standard view was that light could travel any distance in no time.
The alternative view was a long series of improved attempts to measure.
each of these improvements had FLAWS, but no one concluded from that that ‘no speed’ people were correct. No one stopped trying to improve it.
to DO this science is wasnt enough to find problems one had to solve them.
4. Attribution: The standard view is that more than 50% (say 50-100%)of the warming since 1950 can be attributed to man. skeptics havent shown up to dispute this. Some showed up to argue for the lower bound.. and none have a compelling argument explaining “natural cycles” They could still show up for this debate, but they need to do a lot more work
5. Sensitivity: yup Nic showed up.
It must be very frustrating Mosher to have won all the science debates, unilateral declarations of victory notwithstanding, yet nothing concrete is happening on the policy side despite all the wins.
I feel your pain. It feels good. LOL
Repeat after me: CO2 is plant food. It won’t hurt me.
http://climatechangenationalforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Global-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-IPCC-AR5-SYR.png
Steven Mosher: You will get NOWHERE unless you have an ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT. and that account has to be able to REPLACE existing radiative physics which is used in every day engineering.
You are wrong on both counts, as has been pointed out. But in fact, I proposed an alternative account that supplemented the known radiative physics at the surface with the physics of non-radiative heat transfers from the surface. I am hardly unique in that, as I cited other published work on the non-radiative heat transport, work that is ignored by the unscientific focus only on radiative physics.
My account was submitted to Science Magazine, and now we have a good reason to believe that their bias contributed to its not getting any consideration. You’ll recall that McIntyre et al had some trouble getting their correction to a Science Magazine paper by Steig et al published in Science Magazine, clearly on account of that bias. Science is being kept out of Science Magazine. With McNutt’s statement now published in Science Magazine, it is now clear why.
I must say, Mosher, that you are making less sense than ever. Neither scientific debates nor policy debates have endtimes. The scientific debate over particle versus wave theories of light lasted over a hundred years. Likewise for the policy debate over gun control, which is ongoing. But perhaps you have a special, private meaning in mind for the word “debate.” It would not be the first time that you invoked a private language. What puzzles me is that I thought you had some philosophical training, which means you should know better.
No David
‘Neither scientific debates nor policy debates have endtimes. ”
Really?
you are a fan of logic.
simple counterexample will do: the great debate in 1920
https://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/great-debate.htm
45 minutes I believe.
as for debates on policy. last time I looked the norm is giving people limitedd time. Even when there is unlimited time there are mechanisms for limiting debate.
Debate is a social construct.
Stevan, apparently you are using the term debate in a way that differs from the discussion here. You seem to be using it to refer to an event, which is incorrect. This is the private language fallacy.
“Stevan, apparently you are using the term debate in a way that differs from the discussion here. You seem to be using it to refer to an event, which is incorrect. This is the private language fallacy.”
No, look through the years of discussion on the debate
Over many years skeptics have asked for just this kind of debate.
They have tried to organize this kind of debate.
Is the controversy over? no. folks like you will continue to talk after the debate is over.
Steven Mosher wrote:
Even when there is unlimited time there are mechanisms for limiting debate.
Of course here there is not unlimited time for debate [in the larger sense]. Time is an important factor influencing outcomes of different policy alternatives. For the policy-makers the issue is making the best decision in the face of unresolved uncertainties.
I like this thread from the top. It lays bares the unavoidable biases of commenters quite quite neatly…straining at gnats and swallowing camels is unfortunate.
“Of course here there is not unlimited time for debate [in the larger sense]. Time is an important factor influencing outcomes of different policy alternatives. For the policy-makers the issue is making the best decision in the face of unresolved uncertainties.”
It will be interesting to see how many people would object if I said that “up was up”
David,
I think Steven is making sense. And he is taking the time (and patience) to explain himself, rather than be concisely obtuse.
And I wouldn’t argue against his specific points. Instead I would point out that I don’t think he has completely covered the issue. As others have pointed out here, simply pointing to the failures in prediction (or projection) or to errors in the research that invalidate conclusions is a valid strategy.
As for the never showing up part, well I do sense there is an argument to be made that some who tried had the door barred in their face.
What I’ve found interesting in the debate Steve says is over, is that even though I accept we are warming and until more research is performed am also willing to accept that “more than half” – as imprecise as that is – is due to human activities, I’m still a denier. I don’t have to “do the science” to know the people paid to do it still can’t tell us much about clouds. I don’t have to “do the science” to think that the tendency to equate “human activities” with CO2 and the policy focus almost entirely on emissions reduction might have more to do with a political agenda than what science can actually tell us. Nor do I have to “do the science” to recognize the multitude of crys of the wolf at the door for what they are.
As someone with a history in nuclear power I should welcome the golbal warming / climate change meme, as it logically advance a postion I believe strongly in. I can’t because I do not believe in pushing any agenda on the backs of scare stories. It is unethical. (Note: I don’t mean to imply Steven does that. No implication is needed with regard to Dr McNutt. She is blatantly doing so.)
Steve Mosher writes–“For the policy-makers the issue is making the best decision in the face of unresolved uncertainties.”
My perspective- Policy makers are frequently more concerned with satisfying their “key constituents” than with the theoretical best policy based on available information. “Key constituents” can vary over time. Sometime key constituents actually support the best decision, sometimes not.
Steve asked– It will be interesting to see how many people would object if I said that “up was up”
My answer- It would depend upon the context of the point you were trying to make. When you ask two people to point “up”, are they pointing the same direction?
In regards to CO2 a quick summary:
Yes it warms, just not as much as some fear
No we do not know that resulting warming will be net harmful overall. That depends on the rate of warming and changes in circulation patterns that we can’t accurately predict.
Humanity will react in small ways and as a result emit less CO2 than they would have otherwise, but lacking any clear evidence of net harms CO2 concentrations will continue to rise for many decades.
Rob Starkey
Steve Mosher writes–“For the policy-makers the issue is making the best decision in the face of unresolved uncertainties.”
For the record, I wrote that and Steven quoted it. The problem for your perspective is just that—it is your perspective, your bias. Why show up if you subscribe to the ‘key constituency’ model? Why argue about anything? Why linger on these pages? Live is too short.
Steven Mosher: Skeptics didnt show up to the science debate.
There has been a consistent drumbeat of opposition to the consensus from scientists who specialize in studying the sun. They have published their works (data, ideas, models) in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is not that they didn’t show up, but that the consensus ignored them because there is not a convincing account of a complete mechanism by which small variations in solar output could produce the large effects in global mean temperature. Some of these ignored scientists have been so bold as to forecast non-warming for decades into the future. The “public” will be getting frequent reminders of the relative success, e.g. accuracy, of those predictions and the consensus predictions. No one has a consistently good prediction record so far, and as long as that continues the scientific debate will continue.
you cant have a debate in science without a compelling and competent alternative.
” by which small variations in solar output could produce the large effects in global mean temperature.”
There might be unicorns is not a compelling or competent alternative.
so, the “best science” however flawed, wins by default
let me explain it this way.
Take temperature records. If skeptics showed up to debate with an
alternative account, their won record.. we could have a debate between
the standard model and the skeptical account. Account A and Account B
Instead, skeptics have treated the issue as a legal case… prove your account.
Take Paleo: here skeptics did a tiny bit better ( think Lohle) by doing
thier own account.
Take the GHG effect. Oh ya,, sky dragons showed up with an alternative account.. EPIC fail.
In almost all cases ( Lewis being the exception) skeptics didnt show up with an alternative account. merely attacking is not enough. maybe in the court room that works.. but generally you have to show up with an alternative approach that does a better job.
Lewis showed up to the debate. Ya’ll should learn from his example..
or not
Wrong again Mosher. Data that contradicts a hypothesis is all you need to have a debate in science. An alternative explanation is always preferable of course but not strictly needed. Plus there are explanations on the table for solar activity. Surely you’ve here of CLOUD and how solar magnetic field throttles formation of Cirrus cloud nuclei by deflecting more or fewer high energy cosmic rays. You’re either ignorant or dishonest. I’m going with both.
Mosher writes dribble–“you cant have a debate in science without a compelling and competent alternative.”
WRONG.
You making a claim repeatedly does not make it true.
David and Rob are correct. A single hypothesis can easily be debatable. A scientific debate need not be between competing hypotheses. However, in this case we actually have competing hypotheses, namely AGW versus natural variability (of an as yet poorly understood nature).
It is an important characteristic of scientific revolutions that the new paradigm is always poorly understood, because little research has gone into it yet, precisely because it is new.
“You making a claim repeatedly does not make it true.”
Have a look at great historical “debate” in science
Oh wait
Here is an example:
https://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/great-debate.htm
Now, When something earns the name THE GREAT DEBATE
I think it is a good candidate for being an EXEMPLAR of what a science debate is all about:
two accounts: which is better?
Oh wait.. here is another
‘This conference was also the culmination of the struggle between Einstein and the scientific realists, who wanted strict rules of scientific method as laid out by Charles Peirce and Karl Popper, versus Bohr and the instrumentalists, who wanted looser rules based on outcomes. Starting at this point, the instrumentalists won, instrumentalism having been seen as the norm ever since,[3] although the debate has been actively continued by the likes of Alan Musgrave.”
Side A, Side B
Notice one thing
In a court of law you have two sides. one says A, the other says
not A, or maybe not A.
In your great science debates…. Its side A versus side B
Hmm.. I’m sure there may be a few counter examples.. But the prime examples are A versus B.
You really need to take a look at 3 valued logic
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/28/waving-the-italian-flag-part-i-uncertainty-and-pedigree/
Steven Mosher: you cant have a debate in science without a compelling and competent alternative.
That post is a reposting of false claims that you have frequently made before.
The claim that the solar science is analogous to unicorns is new, and it is false. There is a lot known about how changes in the diverse bands of the solar output change different parts of the atmosphere. And there is a lot of correlational data relating solar change to climate change. What is lacking, as with the CO2 theory, is a complete and accurate account of how they all work together.
“A scientific debate need not be between competing hypotheses. However, in this case we actually have competing hypotheses, namely AGW versus natural variability (of an as yet poorly understood nature).”
natural variability is not a hypothesis.
it is the absence of a hypothesis.
A legitimate way to debate is to assess how convincing the consensus argument is, i.e. quality of evidence and logic of reasoning. Does not rely on strength of alternative hypothesis.
To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.
Charles Darwin
Steven Mosher: I’m sure there may be a few counter examples
There are lots, but I’ll go with the Wegener Hypothesis: there was never an attempt to formulate an alternative explanation for the biota similarities between the Eastern Americas and the Western Old World.
While Einstein and Schrodinger criticized the stochastic modeling, they never proposed an alternative, simply sticking with the apparent lack of completeness and common sense of the quantum mechanics.
Mosh, “natural variability is not a hypothesis.
it is the absence of a hypothesis.”
It is a reality. reality covers hypothesis.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1394729/cars-or-coal-scientists-split-over-main-culprit-beijings-air-pollution
Vehicle emissions are a reality. Spending 50 billion to keep all the coal in the ground with enough left over to handsomely reward coal workers with severance packages, “solving” the PM2.5 problem is a hypothesis. I don’t need an alternate to eviscerate your hypothesis and there really should not be any need to consider any other “hypothesis” or your making seriously.
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/Opinion+global+pollution/10950478/story.html
There is something known as the Peter’s Principle. Even certified geniuses can reach their own level of incompetence. I believe some call it going emeritus.
Stephen Mosher: natural variability is not a hypothesis.
It is a statement that there are more mechanisms to be discovered and investigated than what you are focused on. In the CO2 debate, it refers to the collective effects of everything besides CO2, and hypotheses about those are considered all the time. Most conveniently for us at this time are all of the hypothetical explanations for the unexpected pause, of (as yet) unpredictable duration.
I consider it “not yet known” what has produced the 950 year period in temp estimates. If it has persisted since CO2 became such an interesting topic of research, then it is part of “natural variability”. If it persisted, then some of the estimates of climate sensitivity are way too high.
Hypothesis A: it persisted
Hypothesis B: it did not persist
What is “it”? “It” is not a “unicorn”. It is an unknown mechanism generating natural variability. Think of all the other things not known when Arrhenius started this off: ENSO, PDO, Stadium Wave, AMO, thermohaline circulation, jetstreams, … . It is perfectly legitimate to think that more remain to be discovered or better quantified. My reading of the evidence is that “it” is there and persistent.
Natural variability is the null hypothesis e.g.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/03/climate-null-hypothesis/
see esp Michael Ghil’s definition in my null hypothesis paper.
Arguments rejecting the null hypothesis are not convincing. So its an issue of who bears the burden of proof.
Mosher the english major deciding what is and isn’t science.
Precious.
Mosher is right that natural variability isn’t a hypothesis. It’s a law. Climate varies. The law of entropy makes natural climate change inevitable. The only question is when and how much.
matthewrmarler:
I would say “natural variability” is a phrase often used as shorthand for the idea:
“You have failed to predict the situation adequately enough so we could foresee it to the extent we would need to appropriately decide what to expect and how to respond.”
The reality, however, is the “pause” does not disprove global warming. What it should do is cause policymakers great concern as far as anyone’s ability to predict what will happen in the future. My impression is it has done exactly that. While Mosher says the debate is over, I don’t think that has much to do with any success as far as science goes. Policymakers are good at spinning things for their own purposes, and this is an issue that is ripe for it.
Matthew
There are many ‘battlegrounds’. Mosh tends to confine himself to one, believing it is the only one that matters.Fortunately, he does not set the agenda which is evolving all the time.
I think natural variability is more important and one that is more easily relatable to by ordinary people, such as politicians and other decision makers who invariably have no science background.
The Met office used to believe that the climate was static. That reference has now been removed from their website and natural variability is moving to the fore. That change in approach didn’t just happen, It helps that we are an old country with good records, but I think that historic natural variability is not something that can be airily dismissed as just a pile of unreliable anecdotes.
Tonyb
Mosher says: Take Paleo: here skeptics did a tiny bit better ( think Lohle) by doing thier own account.”
There are now well over one thousand non-hockey-sticks documented and collated by skeptics in the peer-reviewed literature. Of the few dozen or so Mannian et al “hockey sticks,” McIntyre has demolished every single one including PAGES2K. According to Mosher, this just means skeptics “did a tiny bit better”
“Take the GHG effect. Oh ya,, sky dragons showed up with an alternative account.. EPIC fail.”
First of all, I am not a member of the so-called “Skydragons” or “slayers.” On the contrary, I fully acknowledge a 68K tropospheric temperature gradient from 220K to 288K due to the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, including a 33K “greenhouse effect” from the 255K [equilibrium temp with the Sun] at the ERL/center of mass (COM) of the atmosphere @ ~5.1km geopotential altitude to the 288K surface, as well as an even larger negative 35C anti-greenhouse effect from the ERL/COM @5.1km to the top of the troposphere.
Mosher, a few questions if I may:
1. According to the alternative Arrhenius radiative ghe, radiative forcing from GHGs warm the whole troposphere, and especially the mid to upper troposphere where the missing “hot spot” is (not) located. Therefore, what accounts for the negative 35C anti-greenhouse effect from the mid-troposphere ERL at 255K to the top of the troposphere at 220K?
2. The temperature at the base of the troposphere on Uranus is +35C warmer than the base of the troposphere on Earth. Please explain why.
3. If I point a solar cooker/parabolic mirror at the clear sky during day or night, does the temperature at the focal point:
a) increase
b) decrease
c) no change in temperature
“. Surely you’ve here of CLOUD and how solar magnetic field throttles formation of Cirrus cloud nuclei by deflecting more or fewer high energy cosmic rays. You’re either ignorant or dishonest. I’m going with both.”
Go look at AIRS cloud data at every pressure level.
GCRs?
no effect.
The atmosphere is not a cloud chamber.
In short, the effect is NOT seen in the field. period.
“There are now well over one thousand non-hockey-sticks documented and collated by skeptics in the peer-reviewed literature. Of the few dozen or so Mannian et al “hockey sticks,” McIntyre has demolished every single one including PAGES2K. According to Mosher, this just means skeptics “did a tiny bit better”
It is not enough to criticize Mann.
you have to do your own global record.
You didnt show up. Craig Lohle started to show up…..
Judith
‘Natural variability is the null hypothesis e.g.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/03/climate-null-hypothesis/
see esp Michael Ghil’s definition in my null hypothesis paper.
Arguments rejecting the null hypothesis are not convincing. So its an issue of who bears the burden of proof.”
#####################
I read that.
I saw no testable natural variability Null.
The atmosphere is not a cloud chamber.
Folks, better let him go until this runs its course.
Mosher, a few questions if I may:
>>> address me as Steven
1. According to the alternative Arrhenius radiative ghe, radiative forcing from GHGs warm the whole troposphere, and especially the mid to upper troposphere where the missing “hot spot” is (not) located. Therefore, what accounts for the negative 35C anti-greenhouse effect from the mid-troposphere ERL at 255K to the top of the troposphere at 220K?
You are wrong about the hot spot.
start over.
If you want to debate radiative physics you have to show up with
and approach that will work everywhere that the standard theory
works to begin with. Otherwise you didnt show up.
2. The temperature at the base of the troposphere on Uranus is +35C warmer than the base of the troposphere on Earth. Please explain why.
please explain why that is relevant to the discussion of skeptics missing the debate on earths climate.
3. If I point a solar cooker/parabolic mirror at the clear sky during day or night, does the temperature at the focal point:
a) increase
b) decrease
c) no change in temperature
I’ll assume that you think this has ANYTHING to do with skeptics losing the debate. Downwelling IR is not the cause of global warming. IT IS THE EFFECT. Downwelling IR doesnt warm the planet. The presence of H20 which causes this downwelling IR and the presence of other GHGs,
slows the cooling to space. the same way the silver lining on a thermos slows the cooling of coffee. It makes the coffee warmer than it would be Otherwise.
When you decide to show up for the debate, its important to stay on topic
“The atmosphere is not a cloud chamber.
Folks, better let him go until this runs its course.
##################3
yes its pretty simple TE.
if you find an effect in the chamber, you STILL have to explain why it isnt found in the real atmosphere.
Go look for it in the best field data we have. use AIRS.
report your failure.
“The atmosphere is not a cloud chamber.”
My drift is not about particles or CCN, but rather to one thinking about the atmosphere, the atmosphere is the quintessential cloud chamber.
http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/g13.2015187.2245_US_vis.jpg
Feeling better now?
Apologies to Steven Mosher, your “response” to my questions crossed in the mail and my reply to you is below:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/05/the-beyond-two-degree-inferno/#comment-715903
Steven Mosher says “You are wrong about the hot spot.
start over.”
Typical low-information, evasive reply. What specifically do you claim I am “wrong” about the hot spot?
“If you want to debate radiative physics you have to show up with
and approach that will work everywhere that the standard theory
works to begin with. Otherwise you didnt show up.”
Uhhh I have “shown up” and perfectly replicated the gold standard 1976 US Standard Atmosphere using a single equation derived from basic atmospheric physics, 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Newtons 2nd Law of Motion, ratio of heat capacities [as first proposed by Maxwell 20 years before the alternate Arrhenius GHE arrived] and Solar RF. Just like the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document, radiative forcing from GHGs is completely unnecessary to describe the temperature profile all the way from the surface to the edge of space as a LINEAR function of kinematic viscosity, which has aboslutely nothing to do with GHG radiative forcing.
2. The temperature at the base of the troposphere on Uranus is +35C warmer than the base of the troposphere on Earth. Please explain why.
Steven says “please explain why that is relevant to the discussion of skeptics missing the debate on earths climate.”
Well, for one thing it demonstrates that the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal GHE is correct. The GHGs on Uranus cannot possibly amplify the only energy source, the Sun, by a factor of up to 158X. So, I ask you to kindly stop evading questions and tell me what does.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-can-uranus-have-storms-hot-enough.html
3. If I point a solar cooker/parabolic mirror at the clear sky during day or night, does the temperature at the focal point:
a) increase
b) decrease
c) no change in temperature
Steven says “I’ll assume that you think this has ANYTHING to do with skeptics losing the debate. Downwelling IR is not the cause of global warming. IT IS THE EFFECT. Downwelling IR doesnt warm the planet. The presence of H20 which causes this downwelling IR and the presence of other GHGs slows the cooling to space. the same way the silver lining on a thermos slows the cooling of coffee. It makes the coffee warmer than it would be Otherwise. When you decide to show up for the debate, its important to stay on topic”
Really now, this is a very easy multiple-choice basic physics question about downwelling IR you mentioned in your reply, so it absolutely IS on topic. You could have answered with a single letter instead of a lot of evasion. ATTP got the answer wrong, but please humor me and please give me a one letter answer at the very least so I have a starting point to explain in greater detail why this fundamental question of radiative physics IS in fact very much “on topic.”
Steven Mosher | July 6, 2015 at 6:49 pm |
3. If I point a solar cooker/parabolic mirror at the clear sky during day or night, does the temperature at the focal point:
a) increase
b) decrease
c) no change in temperature
Well, a solar cooker is normally pointed at a 5500K heat source so it tends to heat an object. If you point it at the sky (which is cold) it will tend to cold an object. Since there is diffuse radiation during the day the solar cooler is less efficient during the day.
If you point it at a cloud which is neither hot nor cold it doesn’t do much of anything.
Thank you PA for your reply to the solar cooker/downwelling IR question that Steven (so far) hasn’t answered. Do you agree with PA, Steven?
But wait a minute, according to Trenberth’s energy budget, there is 324 W/m2 of downwelling IR from GHGs, compared to a measly 161 W/m2 from the 5778K ball in the sky. So, lets say my solar cooker is big enough to concentrate the 324 W/m2 GHG IR by a factor of 100X, thereby concentrating 324*100 = 32,400 W/m2 at the focal point. Are you saying PA that 32,400 W/m2 at the focal point compared to the usual 324 W/m2 causes COOLING of the focal point?
“The atmosphere is not a cloud chamber.”
It is kind interesting, though.
The discovery of cosmic radiation came from a cloud chamber not to capture the yet unknown radiation trails but to simulate clouds!
So it would be a stretch to imagine that CCN that act as they do in clouds in a box don’t also act in free range clouds.
I have no idea how significant the effect is.
But we may all live to find out.
I showed this to colleagues nine years ago.
Charles Thomson Rees Wilson (1869–1959), a Scottish physicist, is credited with inventing the cloud chamber. Inspired by sightings of the Brocken spectre while working on the summit of Ben Nevis in 1894, he began to develop expansion chambers for studying cloud formation and optical phenomena in moist air. Very rapidly he discovered that ions could act as centers for water droplet formation in such chambers. He pursued the application of this discovery and perfected the first cloud chamber in 1911. In Wilson’s original chamber the air inside the sealed device was saturated with water vapor, then a diaphragm was used to expand the air inside the chamber (adiabatic expansion), cooling the air and starting to condense water vapor. When an ionizing particle passes through the chamber, water vapor condenses on the resulting ions and the trail of the particle is visible in the vapor cloud. Wilson, along with Arthur Compton, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1927 for his work on the cloud chamber.
HS, does a solar cooker work with sunlight under clouds? No, the light is diffuse, not parallel and direct. A solar cooker needs parallel light. Same with the 324 W/m2 of IR. It is diffuse, not parallel. It won’t do much of anything. Is that your answer too? What does it prove? Why even ask?
hockeyschtick | July 6, 2015 at 8:26 pm |
Are you saying PA that 32,400 W/m2 at the focal point compared to the usual 324 W/m2 causes COOLING of the focal point?
The actual downwelling radiation is about 60 W/m2 less than would be expected from the ambient temperature. So yeah it is going to cool. Not familiar enough with the characteristics of downwelling radiation to go further than that.
The focus is shielded from most of the radiation it is normally exposed to and it is emitting at its characteristic temperature.
What you are really doing is sinking the IR from the object at the focus into deep space.
If your theory was correct I could point a solar cooker at the side of a 30°C building (477 W/m2) and have baked potato in about 30 minutes. Never going to happen. There is a thermodynamic law about that.
The sun is 5800 K and no matter how good your reflector is, how much area, how efficient, etc. you can’t heat an object with solar energy to higher than 5800 K.
Steven Mosher | July 6, 2015 at 5:43 pm |
“The atmosphere is not a cloud chamber. In short, the effect is NOT seen in the field. period.”
Neither is CO2 warming seen in the field. Over the past 18 years the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 has accelerated and there is no significant warming to show for it.
Field data is a double edged sword that cuts both ways and you sir have taken a page from The Black Knight: “Pause? What are you talking about?” “There’s been no warming man!” “Oh that. ‘Tis merely a flesh wound.”:
ROFLMAO
PA, I defer to your knowledge on many issues here but I have to disagree with your assertion that the Second Law limits the temperature of the cooked object to be lower than the temperature of the source, or is in any way limited by the source electromagnetic concentration.
What you say is true for convection, just not for radiation. I will leave there for Steven to finish for HockeyS.
Ron Graf,
PA is correct. Merely by concentrating the rays of the Sun, you cannot achieve a higher temperature than the source.
If you have any references to experimental evidence showing this to be untrue, I would be grateful if you could provide them. Using solar power to operate a device that in turn can achieve a temperature higher than that of the Sun’s surface does not qualify, of course.
> It is perfectly legitimate to think that more remain to be discovered or better quantified.
It is !ore than perfectly legitimate: it is trivial. It follows from empiricism.
Since it’s trivial, it can’t be an explanation, let alone an alternative explanation.
Appealing to our infinite ignorance is cheap.
One everyday example of a way to concentrate radiation to a higher energy wave than its source is a microwave oven. It uses low energy radiation to excite molecular bonds to accumulate the energy. You can set a glazed muffin ablaze in three minutes. My neighbor’s wife did it once.
Steven Mosher
“Science aint a debate. So when you say ‘we want to debate the science” you are tactically and tacitly demanding a social process to decide the science.”
True, science isn’t a debate, science IS a process. Part of that process is confrontation of the reining paradigm; hence, the scientific process does involve a debate of the known facts and their relevance. Tactically or tacitly you have reframed the argument. Your objection seems to be the WHO in the debate and this is where the muddy waters get stirred even further. This seems to me to be an appeal to authority. Only the chosen ones are allowed to “discuss” the facts and their interpretation. Now is that right? Your requirement of the debaters is that they have sufficient (your judging this) level of knowledge of the subject that you would want to listen to the debate. Surprising, there are others with other interest and knowledge that bare on the matter. A geologist in Toronto, a hydrologist on the other side of the world, a charter boat captain, an economist, plus advisors to kings and parliamentarians all play some role in the “debate.” The facts are permeable soaking up more nuances until some clever person pulls it all together and everyone breaths a sign of relief.
Climate science ain’t there, a long way from it. The only objection I have to Judith’s Italian flag per se is that the initial impression is that green, white and red are all similar in size. If I were in China making flags and given the task to make one to the proportions of what is known, what is uncertain, and what is unknown there would be one thread for the green, and the rest would be mostly white and red with a border of blue, the unknown unknowns.
It appears there is lots of room for debate. The more the merrier.
“Only the chosen ones are allowed to “discuss” the facts and their interpretation. Now is that right?”
No. But having an “opinion” on climate science that differs from most climate scientists doesn’t suddenly make one entitled to major billing in news media outlets, but yet that’s exactly what skeptics want, and whine when they don’t get it (though sometimes they do.) I think they should, to compare their “claims” with the RELEVANT facts and WHY the relevant facts are relevant. That would be informative news.
Also, critiquing climate change denouncers, or using rhetoric even milder than denouncers commonly use, or pointing out that and why denouncers have the issue flagrantly wrong, and are misinforming, is not “quashing” discussion; it is part of discussion.
John Carter
You say: “Also, critiquing climate change denouncers, or using rhetoric even milder than denouncers commonly use, or pointing out that and why denouncers have the issue flagrantly wrong, and are misinforming, is not “quashing” discussion; it is part of discussion.”
One of the main problems with the climate change story has been the lack of a “fingerprint” reflective of the historically known physics of CO2’s absorption/emission in particular wave lengths. Missing such a signature, there has been the resort to the “impact” of an accumulation of atmospheric CO2. And here, such impact statements reach Biblical proportions: the sun will scorch, the skies will darken, the seas will rise, and there will be famine and pestilence visited upon earth.
Then there is the person from Missouri, the “Show Me State”, and, in spite of a trumpeted high confidence, there is uncertainty, high uncertainty which makes those who speak to policy makers, the press, and small gatherings of believers, uncertainty makes everyone uneasy, and, rightly so.
I see the flagrantly wrong and the misinforming as a collective of impacted people who are frankly pushing back against a stated level of certainty that
is not there. That the push-back is not well articulated at times, or carries a vehemence reflecting the scorn heaped upon them in their struggle to comprehend a world of woe, a hundred years hence, all constructed by computer models is not surprising to me. An inner sanctum has been breached by the great unwashed. Telling these people they don’t belong in this sacred place does nothing to assuage the very people who will have to make the sacrifices and pay the bills for what might be.
And then, there are the skeptics, many, wizen with experience in these and related matters who say: “Hold! Enough!” And, as their views are cast aside, shamed and derided, others who view such conduct begin to see an underdog who is being squelched, suppressed, and the alarm bells go off.
My recommendation is for the climate science community to find this holy grail of a “fingerprint”, and, if not found, or at least in the mean time, listen carefully to others. Allow contrary views to percolate and, debate them.
“But there too you all continue to lose issue by issue”.
Sadly Mosher, I believe you to be correct. The issue has never been about “hard science”. The moment Wirth turned off the AC in DC and let in the warm, humid air the cards were laid out. Every sane person knows the “debate” has nothing to do with CO2 in reality. When you list all the GHG’s, it is the only one that fit the left’s needs to demonize the West. Sure CO2 is a GHG, but I truly suspect that even you, Mosher, must know it is but a bit player. Yeah, Yeah, yeah, we lost the policy debate. But you and the McNutt’s of the world also lost. You lost the respect of tens of thousands of mainstream, but quaint scientists, who do not believe that data should be water-boarded.
We have not lost yet, because the ‘debate’ is not over. In the US, the UK, Australia, and India the. ‘debate’ serrled by voting. Modi in India means skeptics havw won there. Abbot in Australia means the tide is turning, ditto Tories in UK. And Obama cannot get a binding climate treaty ratified in the Senate as required by the constitution. And SCOTUS is finally coming down on EPA over reach, with even better cases to come on the CO2 regs. Plus, the 2016 election offers the potential subsequently to drastically rewrite the Clean Air and Water Acts, clipping EPA’s wings permanently. The debate is neither over nor lost.
“We have not lost yet, because the ‘debate’ is not over.”
In fact I can find at least a dozen elected officials who will swear the Civil War was mainly about states rights and the ‘debate’ is certainty not over. Keep your hands off my flag!
jacksmith– maybe the debate is over in your system of beliefs, but it certainly does not appear that government policies match your beliefs do they?
Jack’s just here to shout “Squirrel!” And then to move the goal posts when you look at the squirrel. Save your pixels.
The last time I can recall when any of the Team engaged in debate was a long time ago:
http://www.npr.org/2007/03/22/9082151/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis
They got their little hind ends kicked:
“In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.”
Thus was born “the debate is over” meme.
“”You lost the respect of tens of thousands of mainstream, but quaint scientists, who do not believe that data should be water-boarded.””
Funny how almost none of them are actual climate scientists. It’s zealotry delusion reinforced by mob skepticism mentality that thinks data has been “water boarded.”
Creating this issue of “waterboarding” has been a far bigger fraud than anything ever alleged of climate scientists. (Worse, zealotry keeps it from being seen.)
Here’s an example. “NASA data tampering,” which some famous skeptics called the biggest science scandal of the year, decade, ever, etc.
It had 3 components. Two were a fraud themselves (alleging fraud by way of bigger fraud) and the third, while irrelevant, was also ironically completely backward as well.
Those components were –
NASA NOAA etc falsely changed weather station data
They only did this upward
In so doing they “exaggerated” ambient global surface temperatures. (Putting aside that despite it’s popularity by a simplistic media, that’s not climate change, it’s a component, and a highly variable, certainly non linear, and unpredictable one.)
All three flagrantly wrong
The first two though are the ones that matter.
NASA etc didn’t falsely change station data. They did routine calibration. Not doing so is bad science. This is not controversial. Got an issue with how they did it? Correct it, critique it, that’s part of science as well. But of course that’s not what was done. Zealot skeptics turned it into a big fake fraud, which, worse, they believed, because it helped reinforce the belief driven notion that climate change isn’t really real, and so attack anything that seems to support it anyway possible, even the basic fact of the long upward if volatile march in ambient surface global air temperatures themselves.
The next part was even worse, if possible. This was presented to the world as if only upward recalibrations were done. This was not true They were done in both directions. That key little fact was of course omitted.
Big awful NASA cherry picked weather stations and falsely upped the temperatures to falsely create the appearance of the hoax global warming, some of these same “quaint” (but non climate) scientists largely believed, and millions and millions of others, led astray by this wild pattern of misinformation.
The biggest irony of all, though its pretty irrelevant to the basic science and issue involved, is had NASA engaged in sub par science, not done routine recalibrations, the overall measured “warming” would have been a littlle more, not less. So even the result was a fraud.
But from reading these comments, and the one being responded to, it seems clear almost nobody on this site wants to hear or consider things like this, because it breaks the nice little incredibly lopsided and often issue mangling (and scientist impugning) memes that climate etc engages in, that reinforce the skepticism that runs rampant here.
How silent was Curry on what is a massive fraud or blind zealotry delusion in the perpetuation of a belief under the guise of “reason” o this site? Probably never mentioned it. But she excoriates poor McNutt, and ultimately Science, and science, in general, for writing an editorial as editor that references a false debate in the first place, as over.
John Carter, you make a reasonable defense of the alarmist position. Care to expound on Mann and Josh Willis?
Good for you ristvan.
The debate is not over and nature bats last. If we have a little ice age 2 the climate system research will be vastly improved as the empirical observations overwhelm the political meme in the public. Nothing can hide the snow and all the yelling “it is caused by global warming” just makes the Mann et al look silly.
Scott
If true Stephen then the people “worried” by climate change appear to be the losers. They control the money and much of the messaging and they do not seem to be making any significant progress.
Did I miss that they cancelled the Paris convention since there’s nothing to discuss?
Oh, and AR6 is also cancelled?
Danny
Yes, it’s been cancelled so there will lots of normally very high priced rooms available at a discount and the five star restaurants will be touting for business so it’s a good time to visit…
Tonyb
Steven,
I have one observation relative to your point relative to the skeptics not showing up at the debate. Money – advocates have it and skeptics don’t. Consequently, for example, there are not alternative GCM parameterizations that could show less of an impact and there isn’t enough to develop a more convincing argument that natural variation is a bigger player. Of course, even if somebody did that research then they would have to get by the gate keepers of the current funding stream.
Sadly, if the policy makers end up developing plans based on the advocacy science and it turns out differently, all science-based policy recommendations will suffer.
Roger, you forget the infamous Koch brothers,who have apparently endless pots of $$ to spend and fund any global warming skeptic with a pulse. Sarc/off.
I must concede that Mosher is correct. I cannot disagree with such flawless logic.
Anyway, with respect to the editorial piece by McNutt, I guess if it is just an editorial piece then it is okay, regardless of how much nonsense it contains.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
Chief Editor of Science magazine, Marcia McNutt, calls for the end of debate on climate science = censorship.
“Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
Chief Editor of Science magazine, Marcia McNutt, calls for the end of debate on climate science = censorship.”
You can debate it all you want. She said there is no debate. There are a bunch of claims that misconstrue the issue that try to forestall action on an issue that’s been clear for a long time, and corroborating data just continues to accumulate as the overall challenge (and likely ultimate overall long term effect), due to non response, greatly amplifies.
But anything that makes a point you don’t like, if there is any way through rhetoric and semantics to convince yourself it’s “censorship,” why, then, that’s what’s done, with a little assist from Curry’s unfair and, if unintentionally, manipulative post above.
So, Science editor editorializing, that there’s no real debate, a point of view (and from a science perspective one that almost all climate scientists agree with; you can disagree, though I haven’t seen one single cohesive theory as to why, that didn’t misrepresent, misconstrue, or badly cherry pick the issue) is in the “objective, fair, open minded skeptic” mind, somehow, censorship: Anything to feel outrage, impugn science, feel that it’s all part of the hoax designed to move us from wonderful clean non polluting healthy “hundreds of millions of years to build up underground and slowly change the atmosphere in so doing fossil fuels,” to horrible, corrupting, non clean, non infinite, anti GDP (solar costs are magic, unlike all other costs they subtract from GDP apparently) solar etc, and better more sensible agricultural practices.
Was there supposed to be a sarcasm off label at the end of your post?
You really don’t think there is any uncertainty relative to just how much climate will be changed by CO2 mitigation policies that use today’s renewable technology to replace fossil fuel, much less any unintended consequences of using them to cut CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
H.L. Mencken
““The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
H.L. Mencken”
Right, let’s cherry pick maxims, leaving out the inconvenient ones, that give us more rhetoric and semantic fuel to cling to our beliefs, and that have nothing to do with the issue.
John Carter,
You wrote –
“Right, let’s cherry pick maxims, leaving out the inconvenient ones, that give us more rhetoric and semantic fuel to cling to our beliefs, and that have nothing to do with the issue.”
I assume you copied this from the minutes of a Warmist tactics meeting?
Says it all, really.
Not a fact in sight – too inconvenient, I suppose.
Mike Flynn wrote “”””Not a fact in sight – too inconvenient, I suppose.”””
He actually wrote the above in response to a brief comment that itself was nothing other than a maxim. A broad generalized statement that has no specific applicability to climate change. But apparently overlooked that the “maxim” I was exclusively responding to did “not have a fact in sight,” AND also had nothing to do with the specifics of climate change or the issue, AND that my response was germane to the issue and the general pattern (as this maxim fits) used to sidestep what are the germane issues, instead.
That is, something about a warmist playbook, in response to my writing “Right, let’s cherry pick maxims, leaving out the inconvenient ones, that give us more rhetoric and semantic fuel to cling to our beliefs, and that have nothing to do with the issue.”
Flynn’s warmist playbook response was more of the same pattern of clinging to beliefs, a way to simply dismiss the point that the maxim has nothing to with the only relevant issue here: which is, not exactly what is going to happen (since there is no way to predict that) but the relevant risk range presented by a geologically sudden multi million year shift upward in earth’s basic insulation layer – the same one that keeps earth from being a largely lifeless large ball of ice.
And then of course his complaint of “no facts in sight” made NOT to the out of context but manipulative maxim I was responding to, but to a very relevant response to it – where “facts” weren’t the issue, logic and patterns were – as a way for Flynn to again cling to his beliefs.
What is that belief again that Flynn knows so well? And that Curry here, with her mixed up construction of the basic issue — and even bigger confusion on what the real uncertainties are, the ranges they represent, and how to factor those into analysis — feeds?
That’s right: It’s that a geologically sudden multi million year shift upward in earth’s basic insulation layer – the same one that keeps earth from being a largely lifeless large ball of ice – for some strange odd reason (and despite the march of increasing signs of corroboration, which skeptics also zealously cherry pick and misrepresent slivers out of to similarly reinforce their notions) won’t significantly impact climate.
And it’s based upon what?
Nothing.
Flynn, if he responds again, will follow the same pattern, or follow the second of the two strategies, misconstrue the issue of mangle something badly to show how thousands of the world’s leading climate scientists have it wrong but here on all these skeptic blogs where “real science” is correct, the physics actually don’t support a risk of major change. (Yet for some reason nothing vetted and published manages to. More conspiracy even to perpetrate this “huge hoax,” or maybe the climate scientists don’t have the basic science wrong, and skeptics, who WANT TO believe that climate change is not a big deal – do.)
It’s all he can do, it’s what he HAS to do to cling to his belief that he has managed to self convince (along with millions of others) is actually “logic,” and “reason”; and it is climate scientists who but for the extremely rare exception like the pseudo climatologist Curry and a few rare other ideologues who are being the “belief” driven ones.
The belief in reason, physics, the geophysical record. the large picture corroboration, and an understanding of risk ranges and probabilities. Not the near fairly tale belief that despite a massive atmospheric shift, earth will just trot along under the same nice climate “for us,” despite the fact that as skeptics also ironically and illogically argue, “climate changes easily.” And that enormous signs of rapid and accelerating change, including a long term slow if volatile upward movement in temperatures, is all some sort of bizarre “coincidence” to exactly what would produce it (far more long term molecular atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation) and with zero theories ideas or evidence, but constant misrepresentative cherry picking, and basic issue misconstruing, as to why it would not, bizarre “coincidences” aside.
But on skeptic corridors there is so much misinformation and cherry picking of data and use of rhetoric and self reinforcing logic as science it is unlikely any relevant picture of the geologic context, let alone a clear one, emerges.
tl:dr
John Carter,
You wrote –
“That’s right: It’s that a geologically sudden multi million year shift upward in earth’s basic insulation layer – the same one that keeps earth from being a largely lifeless large ball of ice – for some strange odd . . . ”
And this is related to “man-made” precisely how?
Are you silly, or are you really convinced that everyone else is so dumb they don’t realise that the recent rise in CO2 levels due to man, has only been around for a couple of hundred years?
Is that like Al Gore’s “millions of degrees”, or Gavin Schmidt’s “CO2 control knob”? Possibly Michael Mann’s limp and saggy “hockey stick” appeals to you. Facts have no effect on you, by the look of things.
Have fun – I look forward to the boiling seas! It might be interesting!
I am sure that this is why Science did not publish my letter calculating a low surface climate sensitivity.
Dr McNutt has probably announced here that, in Science Magazine, no more debate on the topic will be permitted.
Judith is advocating. What you ask? No regrets policies. Adaptation. Futility of CO2 mitigation that will make a difference. Decision making tailored for high uncertainty. Insufficient understanding upon which to base large policy decisions. Inaction in mitigation. Frankness and accountability. Disgust over Climategate.
Still no comments on McNuts piece on the Science-site. Apparently my comment didnt make it, but have the more eloquent here similar experiences?
Yes. And previously also, more directly. Since she thinks the debate is over, apparently she is not allowing any comments that might debate or indicate she is wrong.
‘…create roadmaps for developing nations to leapfrog technologies by installing low-CO2–emitting energy infrastructure …’
Democratic developing nations take care of their own first. Elections see to this. Maybe she can travel around India and do town hall meetings (cue Inferno Powerpoint presentation) letting the people know that their slowly increasing living standards will have to be slowed down even further.
Interesting.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/07/science-editor-chief-marcia-mcnutt-set-become-first-woman-lead-u-s
Indeed interesting…..
“Under Academy’s bylaws, other candidates could be nominated by NAS members, but that has never happened. McNutt’s name will be presented to the full membership for formal ratification on 15 December, the council said.”
I am as sure as Marcia that the opposite will be happening with the climate going forward.
We will see, in the meantime all of the AGW predictions are not coming true.
Since McNutt seems to be interested in ethics, perhaps one of her first acts as incoming NAS president could be to clean her own house in respect to well documented allegations of fraud and forgery against NAS member Peter Gleick.
Et tu, Marcia?
Don’t hold your breath.
The left shuts down the debate because that is what they do on everything.
Like climate change and the whole whirlwind around it has EVER had ANYTHING to do with science, I present (took 5 minutes to compile, this is not even a fleck of dust on the tip of the iceberg):
The wacky Marxist socialist angle:
“The Surgeon General says, “Climate change leads to more intense heat waves, more particulates from wildfires clouding the atmosphere, longer allergy seasons and, in turn, more asthma attacks.” Limiting exposure to environmental asthma triggers is important in asthma management, 19 million African American families and 28 million Latinos currently live in areas vulnerable to more asthma triggers”.
Gina M.
“Climate change threatens human health through increased extreme weather events, intense heat waves, decreased air quality, and other impacts. Children, the elderly, and the poor are more vulnerable to these impacts”
Gina M.
“Climate change is expected to cause changes in temperature, precipitation and extreme weather events such as floods. All of these changes could increase asthma triggers such as mold, pollen and ozone, and disproportionately impact lower income families”
Gina M.
“This [Clean Power Plan] is about environmental justice, because lower income families and communities of color are the hardest hit.”
Gina M.
“Climate change reduces air quality. Latino and African American kids are already more likely to be hospitalized for asthma.”
Gina M.
“49% of Latinos – versus 39% of all Americans – live on the coasts, where they’re more vulnerable to sea level rise.”
Gina M.
Feminist angle:
“In many of these contexts, women are more
vulnerable to the effects of climate change
than men—primarily as they constitute the
majority of the world’s poor and are more
dependent for their livelihood on natural resources
that are threatened by climate change.”
UN WomenWatch
The Corporate leech angle:
“Whole Foods CEO Welcomes Climate Change, Warns of Fascism”
MotherJones
The Christian guilt angle:
“The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth,” Francis said. “In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.”
Pope
“Climate change is, to Hayhoe, just another wrong, another problem, brought on by flawed humans exercising their wills in a way that is less than fully advisable. “That’s really what climate change is,” she says. “It’s a casualty of the decisions that we have made.””
Hayhoe, evangelical christian
The paranoid Marxist/Anti Capitalist angle:
“If we don’t speak out, then we leave a vacuum in the discussion. And that vacuum will be filled by industry-funded disinformation.”
Michael Mann
etc, etc….
Actually, I think the evangelicals were quoting Hayhoe. But search evangelicals, climate….
Protestant have become great hippies.
Odd take:
“American evangelicals are less likely than non-evangelicals to believe that global warming is happening, caused mostly by human activities, and causing serious harm, yet a majority of evangelicals are concerned about climate change and support a range of climate change and energy related policies.”
Kind of like the 1 in 5 campus survey where responders also say that campus assault is not that big of a problem.
“In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.” Pope
With all due respect, I will fix this for the Pope:
“In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with unsightly and noisy windmills”
As opposed to 200-300 years ago:
“In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with unsightly and noisy
windmillschurch steeples”Marcia McNutt has the longest Wikipedia article I have ever seen about an individual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_McNutt
She is obviously well credentialed and experienced in a lot of what climate science is about. Based on her bio, I would guess that she is about 65 yrs. old so the fact that her recent career has been primarily in administrative and executive positions is not surprising. She was director of the USGS from 2009-2013, appointed by Obumbles.
She presented a paper, at the Pope’s conference, on the risks of rising sea levels.
Other than the fact that she is totally out of line declaring the debate is over, she seems to be a first rate modern day scientist.
Go figure!
She is a clueless fool.
Salvatore
She is neither clueless nor a fool and undestimating your scientific opponent is a sure fire way to lose the debate
Tonyb
Salvatore,
Tonyb is absolutely correct.
Don Corleone never underestimated his enemies.
Hope the godfather/italian joke is not offensive.
She was director of the USGS from 2009-2013, appointed by [sic]Obama.
She presented a paper, at the Pope’s conference
I wonder if they told her the same joke.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/AP_Vatican_Pope5_Obama_ml_140327_16x9_992.jpg
Franky and Barry were sweethearts……………..
An old C&W song.
The reason the debate is not over is because AGW theory has predicted everything wrong.
The problem is they are not being taken to task over it. There seems to be a fear by many to take them on.
AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this. In addition water vapor concentrations decreasing.
WATER VAPOR IN ATMOSPHERE INCREASING- WRONG- all of the latest data shows water vapor to be on the decrease.
AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
Greenhouse score card showing more blunders
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Past historical data showing no correlation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
Current data not agreeing with what AGW calls for.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34748
Perhaps it would be easier to list the things the global warmers have proven or correct predictions that they have made.
Nothing immediately comes to mind. But even a stopped watch is right twice a day so there may be some correct predictions.
I can not think of any can you?
Well,..
I can add a miss. The GHG forcing (all forcing – not just CO2) is 1/3 the level predicted for CO2 alone. Per recent study an 11 year change of 0.2 W/m2 resulted from a 22 PPM change in CO2. Plugging into the IPCC log function: the forcing constant is 3.46 instead of 5.35 or: Fco2 = 3.46 ln (C/C0).
That’s about 1/3 the IPCC TCR which would imply the ECS is around 1°C, 1/2 the “unlikely to be below” IPCC level.
“” Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.”””
Yes, this “theory” continues, as the long term volatile variable non linear global surface air temp rise continues.
Interesting how the two greatest months of deviation above the norm ever recorded since recording began in the 1800s, were not 19th century, not 20th century, but this century, and in fact this year (Feb and March); and the 4th highest was this century and this year (May). https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201505
2015 is on track to statistically at least likely be the warmest year ever (and right now by an unusually high margin), while 2014 was statistically most likely to have been the warmest year ever recorded up to that point; 2010 before that, and the fourteen warmest years ever recorded have all been in the seventeen years since 1998.
And more importantly despite a major acceleration in air temps in the late 1980s and 90s overall ambient air temps STILL continued to rise above the trailing norm. Though let’s get confused because, by God, our models weren’t perfect, their rate is super accurate relative to randomness, but doesn’t match perfectly and because everyone knows there is no earth, only air, so climate change is just air temps, and inherent variability must be gone (rather than in fact increased) if our actions are impacting the climate, and ludicrously decide AGW or ACC (which is the phenomenon of increasing net earth energy, not short term ambient surface air temperature trends) has “stopped.” Here’s a little more this and why air temps barely scratch the surface, as well as why sites like this one have the basic issue wrong
And this is as ocean heat accumulation continues, at a geologically massive rate in many areas. (Which should have pulled net heat out of the atmosphere and the 2000s should have been far cooler, yet they not only stayed very high relative the modern era, they went even higher.)
And as the north and south polar ice caps, relatively stable as they generally are (and in theory would be), BOTH start experiencing net melt.
As both the north and south polar ice caps both start experiencing accelerating net melt, AND appreciable acceleration. BOTH caps.
……… As the long term arctic sea ice decline continues.
But let’s focus on the one sliver, the large vast open ocean around and stemming north from antarctic, though further from the pole (where a land covers the coldest region) and hence the ice all melts in the summer, unlike the arctic (although that is changing as more and more summer ice is being lost there as well), where SAM wind increases push ice northward, and melt from ice shelves puts a cold insulating layer of fresh water on the surface for insulation from below…and as it increases at about 1/10th the % rate arctic sea ice is decreasing – forget about both polar caps melting AND accelerating, or that climate change means “change” and different responses and patterns over time in different regions, with a total net effect of likely increased heat, but CHANGING PATTERNS and accumulating heat energy, all of which is incontrovertible.
And let’s pretend that long term climate forecasting — hard enough without a huge atmospheric energy dump, if not impossible, even harder with a huge atmospheric energy dump — is a game of darts rather than what’s relevant: So if it goes in the right direction sufficiently to be statistically relevant, which is relevant for corroborating the basic phenomenon (since climate is otherwise “unpredictable”), instead of bolstering the basic fact and knowledge of that fact, we can say (and conveniently believe) it missed the bulls-eye or dart board, so it’s not real!
And forget that climate change is not based upon projections; they only further hone understanding, and overall have been far more accurate than would be remotely plausible based on sheer randomness alone. That’s also wildly misrepresented (or misunderstood) by misconstruing model limitations and what they do, and unrealistically (and scientifically irrationally) putting exact crystal ball prediction requirements onto them for the basic underlying phenomenon of long term accumulating climate impact due to a sudden multi million year alteration in long term atmospheric molecular energy recapture (which models only further hone), to even be real in the first place.
But let’s turn the idea of a massive global wide energy dump into an already impossible to predict system into the scientifically irrational notion that if the exact long term amount, even by region no less, of change, and the exact time path, is not or can not be precisely predicted, that therefore the energy dump “can’t be real” or is “irrelevant.” And not only pretend, but convince ourselves (and others) that this is rational, impugn climate scientists, cry censorship and “quashing debate’ when views are expressed that shun, or show error with, our own, or make pronouncements (there is no real science debate about the basic idea of anthropogenic impact upon climate) that we don’t like or don’t want to believe.
John Carter,
You wrote –
“. . . with a total net effect of likely increased heat, but CHANGING PATTERNS and accumulating heat energy, all of which is incontrovertible.”
After four and a half billion years, with far greater concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, how much “heat energy” has been accumulated as the Earth cooled?
Actually, you might be able to point to just one instance of the Earth accumulating heat over one orbital period or more. Unfortunately, if you heat something, then withdraw the heat source, the object cools towards the temperature of the existing environment, following Newton’s Law of Cooling. The Earth has been doing this for four and a half billion years, in spite of heat provided by the Sun, radioactive decay, meteorite impacts, human generated heat, and all the rest. The environment surrounding the Earth is around 4 K.
So your statement about accumulating heat energy is not only controvertible, but palpably incorrect.
Have you any facts to support your position?
Mike Flynn “”After four and a half billion years, with far greater concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, how much “heat energy” has been accumulated as the Earth cooled?”””
Is this a serious question? It’s barely any more relevant to what you are responding to http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/05/the-beyond-two-degree-inferno/#comment-717712 as, well, I don’t know, who wins the next world series.
That you don’t see that suggests that maybe you should defer to climate scientists on this issue? but you choose to defer to the huge hoarde of misinformers on it who self reinforce and self convince it’s all “logical.”
Seriously, because the earth is now absorbing and re radiating far more energy through long term greenhouse gases (and will be for some time) and so the earth has been accumulating more energy and the total net energy content of the globe (most of it) plus lower atmosphere (very little of it) has been rising, this means that over earth’s history of cooling, energy had to be ‘accumulated’??
Energy is always in balance, in that it doesn’t just disappear.. It is transferred, or leaves the global system. Climate change has (radically, in a geologic sense,, both in terms of amount relative to the trailing record, as well as the suddenness of it) increased the amount that stays, increasing earth’s net energy.
You’re oversimplifying earth’s history, as well as comparing apples to oranges, so it doesn’t really have anything to do with what was suggested and you responded to, but the slow loss of CO2, which traps energy,and so with less of it on average, less will be trapped wouldn’t increase earth’s total net energy, it would decrease it.
tl:dr
But, for the record, “Mike Flynn” is either a nut or a warmist sailing under false colors. IMO.
Reblogged this on 24janvier.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/agw_theory_has_failed_all_tests_so_alarmists_return_to_the_consensus_hoax/
PA here are more.
I wonder what excuses Marcia would come up with to negate all of the wrong predictions AGW theory has made.
I wonder what kind of BS spin she would present?
Tony b let us put it this way she is wrong and the data going forward should finally seal her fate.
Mosher says more than 1000 non-hockey-sticks are “not enough to criticize Mann. you have to do your own global record. You didnt show up. Craig Lohle started to show up…..”
Seriously? Is this a joke? If not, that says it all.
Are both the Wegman and NAS Reports enough to criticize Mann?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/12/there-he-goes-again-version-50-mann.html
Is the continuing use of “invalid” and upside-down data enough to criticize Mann?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-hockey-stick-and.html
Is Mann’s Random Number to Hockey Stick software enough to criticize Mann?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/make-your-own-mannian-hockey-stick-at-home/
Really now, what does it take to criticize the Great Mann?
Mosher says “The atmosphere is not a cloud chamber”
Do you realize that all it takes to make a cloud chamber is air from the atmosphere and than saturate it with water vapor? LOL
Mosher didn’t answer any of my 3 very very basic physics/climate questions above. Do any of the other Denziens want to take a crack?:
1. According to the alternative Arrhenius radiative ghe, radiative forcing from GHGs warm the whole troposphere, and especially the mid to upper troposphere where the missing “hot spot” is (not) located. Therefore, what accounts for the negative 35C anti-greenhouse effect from the mid-troposphere ERL at 255K to the top of the troposphere at 220K?
2. The temperature at the base of the troposphere on Uranus is +35C warmer than the base of the troposphere on Earth. Please explain why.
3. If I point a solar cooker/parabolic mirror at the clear sky during day or night to concentrate the 342 W/m2 backradiation, does the temperature at the focal point:
a) increase
b) decrease
c) no change in temperature
I think the bottom line here is that the “debate”, if it has been won, has been won in the political arena. Unfortunately, the political arena has extended into the scientific community.
“The debate” as it stands right now is really a battle for public opinion, to support certain policies favoured by the various sides. So – in a democracy – if you are asking for votes or tax dollars, the citizens get to ask questions. They do not have to be published in Science or Nature to warrant an answer.
The public, thankfully, these days has its own forum for these questions and debates. It’s called the internet. The great democratizer.
lokenbr: I think the bottom line here is that the “debate”, if it has been won, has been won in the political arena. Unfortunately, the political arena has extended into the scientific community.
If the debate has been won in the political arena, it has been decided by 90% or more of humans not to invest their money in CO2 control. The upcoming Paris meeting is designed to persuade more people to contribute precisely because there is so little interest.
“Mosher says more than 1000 non-hockey-sticks are “not enough to criticize Mann. you have to do your own global record. You didnt show up. Craig Lohle started to show up…..”
Seriously? Is this a joke? If not, that says it all.
Are both the Wegman and NAS Reports enough to criticize Mann?”
################################################
the hockey stick is broken.
BUT, AGW doesnt care.
We knew that c02 would warm the planet before the stick
We know this EVEN IF the HS is broken
The HS is a wheel that doesnt TURN in the science.
You bozos went to the wrong debate
Mosher, “the hockey stick is broken.
BUT, AGW doesnt care.
We knew that c02 would warm the planet before the stick
We know this EVEN IF the HS is broken
The HS is a wheel that doesnt TURN in the science.”
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/2014-bas-hockey-stick.png
The hockey stick will be broken when “mainstream” climate scientists say it is broken. Since the “union of concerned scientists” placed their seal of approval on that version of the hockey stick, it is still alive and well. You could say it impacts the credibility of climate science more than AGW.
It also has an impact on the determination of “natural variability” on climate relevant time scales and even determining what those time scales might be. It seems the more you have someone polish your shaft the more erect your blade. Now I agree the “physics” indicate that a doubling of CO2 should produce about 1 C of warming, but reliable paleo is going to be required to find the initial range of expectations for that 1 C to impact. If water vapor is going to triple that one C, it should have the same amplification on warming prior to the magical 1950 CO2 takeover or “pre-industrial” warming, the weak but measurable solar variation, volcanic forcing reduction, land use modification etc. etc.
With the current trend in “sensitivity” estimates appearing to approach the 1 C which has the real physics behind it instead of the 4.5 C upper SWAG, “mainstream” climate science might be more credible making note of that instead of making excuses and invoking the Pope and Hades.
“3. If I point a solar cooker/parabolic mirror at the clear sky during day or night to concentrate the 342 W/m2 backradiation, does the temperature at the focal point:
a) increase
b) decrease
c) no change in temperatur”
The question isnt even ABOUT climate science.
Backradiation doesnt CAUSE global warming.. it is the result of GHGs in the atmosphere
Steven says “Backradiation doesnt CAUSE global warming.. it is the result of GHGs in the atmosphere”
Agreed. Now would you kindly please just answer this very simple basic radiative (and quantum) physics question, whether or not you think it has to do with climate, instead of giving me another evasive non-answer, please? Please just answer the question so you can prove as you say I’m indeed an “EPIC FAIL” physics/climate “denier.”
Say the solar cooker concentrates 324 W/m2 backradiation by 100X at the focal point to 32,4000 W/m2 IR at the focal point. Does this make the focal point warmer, cooler, or no change compared to the usual 324 W/m2 backradiation? PA gave his/her answer above. Do you agree with PA?
Steven says “In the real earths atmosphere Changing GCR doesn’t change cloud cover. Why not? Answer that simple question”
Sure. There are many papers showing that it does, just a few of many:
http://www.icr.org/i/articles/af/figure_2.jpg
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/cosmic-ray/svensen-cosmic-rays-tropospheric-temperature-crop.gif
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-paper-corroborates-solar-cosmic-ray.html
But, there is also contradictory evidence as well, jury is still out. CERN is still working on the issue. However, this is only 1 of over 100 potential solar amplification mechanisms described in the literature
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+amplification+mechanism
Do you claim there is no evidence supporting these peer-reviewed papers?
Steven says, “Only a skeptic would think that you show up for a debate about AGW with questions about uranus and solar cookers. That is called a fail”
Another ad hom, low-information, totally evasive and untrue reply. These are thought experiments that ARE indeed related to radiative & atmospheric physics. So you don’t care to explain why GHGs in the Uranus atmosphere somehow amplify 2 W/m2 solar insolation to temperatures sometimes hot enough to melt steel at the top of the Uranus atmosphere? Atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure doesn’t heat atmospheres so couldn’t possibly do that according to you, right?
What specifically do you claim I said was “wrong” about the “hot spot.”?
If you once again don’t answer & evade these basic climate or radiative physics questions, you are clearly the “fail.”
The last debate:
http://www.npr.org/2007/03/22/9082151/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis
“In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.”
I don’t think Lindzen, Crichton et al. mentioned uranus, or anybody else’s.
Back-radiation is diffuse! Don’t you know anything?
AK says “Back-radiation is diffuse! Don’t you know anything?”
Sure, but when I point my IR thermometer (which has a shield blocking rays other than line-of-sight) at the clear night sky it typically says the temperature is 2-3C, which by SB equates to the ~324 W/m2 backradiation shown in Trenberth’s budget. This is yet another straw man to evade answering a simple thought experiment question. Do you seriously believe that NONE of the 324 W/m2 backradiation can be concentrated by a parabolic mirror? I can prove to you that it is from experimental data, but let me know your opinion.
So AK, assuming at least a portion of the 324 W/m2 backradiation can be concentrated by a parabolic mirror, does the focal point warm, cool, or no change?
HS, how well does a solar cooker work under cloud cover. There can still be 100 W/m2 but it is diffuse. Are you going to cook anything? Think next time.
Answer the question, Mosher. With 342W/m2 of back radiation raining down from the sky you should be able cook hotdogs on a cloudy night with it. Don’t look now the but bozo is you. Wake me up when you get invited to speak before congress. What a tool.
“Mosher says “The atmosphere is not a cloud chamber”
Do you realize that all it takes to make a cloud chamber is air from the atmosphere and than saturate it with water vapor? LOL”
You still dont get it.
The chamber is idealized
It is controlled.
Even IF you could replicate the entire atompshere in a chamber, you
would be left with this question..
In the real earths atmosphere Changing GCR doesnt change cloud cover.
Why not?
Answer that simple question
Only a skeptic would think that you show up for a debate about AGW with questions about uranus and solar cookers
That is called a fail
hey mosh:
Ive read your posts where you emphasize actually publishing one’s work in peer reviewed publications…you have written extensively and repeatedly, with due cause, about the importance of doing the hard work in the field and the lab…so i finally google scholar searched you….
I could find no articles whatsoever related to climate science….did I search the wrong mosher?
Steven Mosher,
Are you sure the debate is about AGW (I assume that you mean Anthrogenic Global Warming)?
I agree there is no point debating whether AGW is real or not. If you rub your hands together, you create warmth. If you operate a nuclear power station, you create warmth. If you are on the Earth, you have obviously contributed to global warming. If seven billion or so people do similar things, you should be able to measure the heat generated. Anthropogenic warming exists. Wouldn’t you agree?
However, if, in the finest Warmist tradition, you have redefined AGW to mean the miraculous additional heat emanating from CO2, then there is no need for debate, either. The Warmist “greenhouse effect”, (strangely enough having nothing to do with greenhouses, once again in the finest Warmist tradition), doesn’t exist, any more than n rays or the luminiferous ether.
You might perform the Warmist Wiggle, and say “But I really meant Climate Change . . .” No better, of course. Climate is merely the average of weather. Unless you believe, and can show, that you can change weather, you would be rather silly to claim you could change the average of weather.
Incessantly and stridently demanding that people provide another explanation for something that doesn’t exist, is both stupid, and pointless. I guess it really doesn’t make any difference. Nature will proceed, regardless of what you or I think.
So far, you appear to have nothing. You can’t even define your wondrous Warmist AGW in any way that enables it to be examined scientifically.
The history of the Earth demonstrates cooling, even though there has always been CO2 in the atmosphere. In four and a half billion years, the amount of heat trapped, stored, or accumulated by CO2, is less than zero. The Earth has cooled, not warmed. Do you agree with this statement?
For all the expenditure of time, effort, and money, pursuing this nonsense, nobody has managed to produce one measurable benefit to humanity. Of course, I don’t expect you to be able to present something which doesn’t exist either. Give it a try. There might be something of value to be found.
Otherwise, I would have to mark your efforts to prove the existence of the impossible – FAIL.
Jim D says “HS, how well does a solar cooker work under cloud cover. There can still be 100 W/m2 but it is diffuse. Are you going to cook anything? Think next time.”
Even with cloud cover, a solar cooker DOES concentrate some percentage diffuse far-IR GHG radiation from the sky. Regardless of the % that it concentrates, it is indeed >0%, proven by observations, and it does not matter whatsoever for the purposes of this thought experiment.
Why is this soooo difficult to answer and none of the denziens (except PA) dare answer such a simple qualitative, non-quantitative, basic radiative physics question other than with irrelevant straw man arguments and ad homs?
So, Jim D, I’ll rephrase the question for you again. Assuming a solar cooker pointed at a clear night sky can concentrate ANY % above zero of the usual 324 W/m2 GHG backradiation, does the focal point warm, cool, or no change?
This is not science, it is full-on belief. Hand in hand with the older belief systems too, and essentially a classic list of potent meme families all millennia old. In order there is presented:
Our times are special (aren’t they always! opens emotional portal)
We face imminent danger (now invoke fear)
Discussion is delay (i.e. “don’t think”)
This project is urgent (initiate panic reflex, suppresses reason)
There is hope (now offer emotional bait, a way out)
The others are with us (run with the pack. Well, mostly in this case)
Spiritual leaders urge this (invoke magical authority)
Political consideration is not needed (bypass potential disagreement)
We must all act our part (create ownership, identity with ‘the problem’)
Hell awaits the [environmental] sinners (invoke magical punishment)
Save the children and grandchildren (strongest emotional appeal in the book)
Catastrophe looms [‘2 degree inferno’] (repeat fear with suggestion of non-recoverable situation)
I may have missed a couple. But this could hardly be more distilled if she tried, though undoubtedly through belief it would spill out quite naturally. Whatever is happening with the physical climate and whether it is good bad or indifferent, the social phenomenon of CAGW is driven by emotive memes like these.
Andy, how does someone with the credentials of Marcia McNutt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_McNutt
get into this mode?
She sold out.
IMO.
AK,
If Judith’s info is correct and she is the next President of NAS, her strategy seems to be paying off.
@Mark Silbert…
The thing about power structures is that they face their players/members with a choice: self-aggrandizement vs. what they know is right. Sooner or later, almost everybody who’s prepared to choose what they know is right gets pushed out of the power structure.
She sold out to gain power in her realm. This is what people who crave power do.
And if they don’t crave power more than what they know is right, they tend to get pushed out of the power structure.
Which means the upper levels of any power structure will probably be populated by ruthless power-seekers.
Although there’s a range of responses, and power or money can certainly be an added attraction, it usually goes much deeper than this.
Belief systems are geared to engage our deep emotions, and the above meme set is a classic belief system pitch. Likely, for someone so heavily influenced as this, i.e. to be retransmitting such a pitch in conflict with her professional position, she was well along the emotional road a long time ago, before any high powered positions came into her range. Of course she may always have been ambitious, which is also an emotive state, and this can prime folks for belief systems that will benefit their status, but that still wouldn’t make it the primary mover.
We are social thinkers; if many trusted folks in her social and professional sphere were, over years, batting these memes her way, they can be extremely difficult to resist. In domains already hi-jacked by such memes, like the environmental space, moral pressure can be enormous, and succumbing is an unconscious process. It would certainly do no harm to her career either.
There are many excellent scientists who are ardent adherents of various arbitrary belief systems. It doesn’t usually matter, as these systems are not generally in conflict with their work. But clearly for a creationist believer to involved in biological work involving evolutionary principles, or Marcia to be a big cheese in an area the belief system has subverted, *is* a problem. But the lesson here is not about power and ambition. It is that we are *all* vulnerable to the predation of belief systems that, when looked at in the abstract, seem simplistic in the extreme, but in truth are highly infectious. This is in part because in our evolutionary past, they have conferred great advantages as well as imposed some significant disadvantages; they have been a net benefit.
There’s evidence to show that due to a process of bias assimilation, those who start off mildly leaning to or from such a belief system, will get more attracted or opposed as they learn more. This means that most of the scientists who might have had just mild emotional sympathy with the CAGW belief system long ago, will become passionate supporters *by virtue* of their acquired knowledge. And many will be skilled opponents of skepticism. This is a pretty scary thought, and underlines our vulnerabilities still more.
My suggestion wasn’t about the current editorial, but “a long time ago, before any high powered positions came into her range.” The “selling out” would, IMO, have typically occurred when the first decisions to sacrifice scientific integrity for access to status/power were made. Those decisions, unlike the editorial under scrutiny, would probably not have been noticeable to any but a few close associates. Who may, themselves, have been the source of the infection.
I won’t dispute the importance of memes, and belief systems they communicate. But IMO memes, which depend on language, are overlaid on a much older system of competition for status/power (different but interconnected) that clearly goes back to our common ancestor with New World monkeys, if not rodents. Primates are social animals, as are rodents, and it’s plausible (IMO likely) that the core lineages involved in mammalian evolution were continuously social from very far back.
But “selling out” could also work as an explanation for that increasing “attraction”: as the divergence between the emotional demands of such a belief system diverge from the rational demands of the science it’s perverting, increasing denial is needed to hide it (from themselves), which will logically go with increasing stridency and suppression of rational thought.
+1 Andy, you are too funny and very right! :) I too noticed the parallels to religion : guilt, sin, hell, the apocalypse,…It is just too funny! She even points to the broken state of California as a model!
Judith,
It would appear that you and Marcia McNutt have inhabited much the same space for the past 30-40 yrs. You’ve ended up on different ends of the spectrum. Care to comment?
One is establishment, the other a rebel.
Judith,
You’ve been uncharacteristically quiet here. Are you too busy, or does McNutt’s political connectivity and pending presidency of NAS put the fear of g-d into even you. A “no comment” will suffice.
I actually responded to this somewhere upthread. I said better at NAS than as editor of science. NAS has long been playing politics with science. I’m more concerned about keeping the journals objective.
In the noughties, i was quite active in the NRC (branch of NAS that writes reports), serving on the Space Studies Board and the Climate Research Committee. Interesting experience, there is some attempt to include minority perspectives on some of the committees. Some of the reports are good, others seem highly politicized. At this point (well for 5+ years) I have no interest in any future interactions with NRC/NAS
Mark,
I cannot speak for Professor Curry, but I know from personal experience that bullies like Stalin and NAS Presidents are usually cowards hiding in positions of authority. I personally confronted the current NAS President, climatologist Dr. Ralph Ciscerone, in the National Academy of Sciences Building in Washington, DC in 2008 and he had no reply.
> Some seem to think that I advocate for public policies (but they can’t really say which policies), […]
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ipcc-climate-global-warming
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/11/charlie-challenging-free-speech/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/
The very opposite of shrill advocacy.
Yes: science vs. pseudo-science. And a bastion of government-mandated pseudo-science such as the IPCC needs to be put down as soon as possible.
> a bastion of government-mandated pseudo-science such as the IPCC needs to be put down as soon as possible.
Indeed, and we should secure “the common interest on local and regional scales (referred to by Brunner and Lynch as “adaptive governance”) provides the rationale for effective climate adaptation strategies,” without advocating for such securitization, of course.
Non sequitur?
> Non sequitur?
The more accurate latinism is op. cit., since it’s taken from the paragraph that precedesthe one where Judy suggests we put down the patient she diagnoses with an incurable and infectious disease.
A whole lotta memes Andy will analyze in 3, 2, 1.
The IPCC isn’t exactly OUR public. It’s an opaque quasi-governmental organization that doesn’t deserve one red US cent.
Exactly. More generally:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/11/hearing-a-factual-look-at-the-relationship-between-climate-and-weather/
Since it’s the opposite of what Marcia suggests, it can’t be advocacy.
Your pettiness knows no bounds, Willard.
Speaking of which, jim2:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/
Let Denizens insert their favorite question about WHO and WHERE.
Go team!
Well, the basic problem is in the decade when emissions increased over 45% the GHG forcing increased 0.2 W/m2 from 22 PPM more CO2.
Projecting that backward GHG is responsible for about 1.05 W/m2 to date.since 1900 (115 years).
The IPCC talks “limiting” the forcing to 6 W/m2 by 2100 and contends it could exceed 12 W/m2 by 2100 without drastic action.
Even if (a big if) we project the 0.2 W/m2 forward and assume the effect is linear not logrithmic that is only about 1.7 W/m2 more forcing.
Someone is crazy. The IPCC and their adherents need to generate some defensible projections. We can achieve the IPCC goal by doing nothing.
I guess Dr. Curry is right – we should shutter the IPCC, their work is done. We don’t need to discuss emissions in the post 2100 period – we will be out of fuel.
> I guess Dr. Curry is right
Well, about something she advocates, PA?
Society is extremely sick worldwide after being purposely isolated from contact with REALITY/TRUTH/GOD for seventy years, since nations and national academies were united into a giant, worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Scientific (UN)Truths“ on 24 OCT 1945:
https://suyts.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/did-you-all-see-this-amazing-grace/
Climate change is not the only problem without any specifics needed.
Apparently the U.S. Government doesn’t need an actual reason to keep the populace in a state of fear about their safety on July 4 –
“Authorities told NBC News that they are unaware of any specific or credible threat inside the country. But the dangers are more complex and unpredictable than ever.”
More danger than ever, just trust me!
Acid oceans, climate Armageddon, nothing left in the oceans but microbes, I just wasted an hour listening to some far out on the fringe opinions by McNutt
davideisenstadt | July 6, 2015 at 10:00 pm |
hey mosh:
Ive read your posts where you emphasize actually publishing one’s work in peer reviewed publications…you have written extensively and repeatedly, with due cause, about the importance of doing the hard work in the field and the lab…so i finally google scholar searched you….
I could find no articles whatsoever related to climate science….did I search the wrong mosher?
————————————————————————-
Nope. All hat no cattle.
The problem is that there are several genuinely important and even transformational papers published in Science. As a biomedical researcher for more than 30 years, I can tell you that almost all scientists in that field view publishing in Science as a major career accomplishment. So it is particularly disappointing to learn that the Editor-in-Chief would boldly proclaim a patently anti-scientific view (the debate is over). This didn’t even occur when HIV as the cause of AIDS was questioned by Peter Deusberg, a distinguished virologist and member of the National Academy of Science. His opinions were criticized soundly, but his opinions were not suppressed. The feeling was, as I recall it at the time, that the evidence was so strong for HIV as the cause of AIDS that it would prevail and that there was really no need to attack Deusberg or the few who agreed with him. We expected the data would end the debate, which is exactly what happened. One of my reasons for becoming a skeptic on CAGW was the bizarre, antiscientific response of many climate scientists when questioned in any way about the consensus narrative. If they are so sure they are right, why don’t they act like normal scientists and discuss the science and reiterate the evidence and refute the many observations that do not support their narrative? Instead, they appeal to authority and declare the debate closed and personally attack those who disagree with them. That is not science. For one of the most prestigious science journals to be in the hands of such a person does not bode well for the future of science.
The AAAS don’t mess about. They have always been very direct not only on science but also on policy. Read this recent publication from them.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
Well said. “…act like normal scientists…”
Exactly.
Doesn’t look to me like the EPA is getting a raise to fund enforcement of GHG regulations. Maybe people will volunteer to work at the EPA without pay?
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/epa_funding_large.jpg
Judy Curry
You make a remarkable number of presumptions in your piece, and in so doing engage in far more manipulation and game playing than McNutt ever did.
I don’t like her language personally, but the debate to which she specifically refers (calling it “over”), is a false one.
That you don’t see that, and write any type of argument possible to perpetuate the notions that through anthropogenic impact long term climate isn’t being significantly altered – or that it’s not being altered with a relevant risk range of major climatic shifting – and that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists don’t believe otherwise, is part of what perpetuates the circular catch-22 of closed loop “logic” that goes on here.
It’s silly to borderline inane to think a multi million year increase to earth’s long term chemical atmospheric energy recapture wouldn’t ultimately significantly impact earth, and the overall trailing data and signs of effect (not just air temperature but the total picture) corroborates almost inescapable common sense on the issue even further. (Though even that is misrepresented and cherry picked apart by “skeptics” and this site, and such sense escapes.)
There is also no evidence to support such a notion: Aside from basic issue miscontruction, unrecognized broad brush and irrelevant philosophical semantics, or scientific tautology there isn’t a single cohesive or rational theory why such a multi million year and ongoing long term atmospheric energy recapture shift wouldn’t ultimately significantly impact earth or, to hone it down further, present a relevant risk range of moderate (if highly unlikely), to severe alteration.
Let alone of course one that would simultaneously and RATIONALLY explain the highly “coincidental” pattern of just such signs of long term change as would be expected, though it’s obvious (or perhaps not) exactly what would happen can not be precisely predicted in advance. (Yet another concept falsely conflated with the idea that climate scientists are therefore “wrong” on the basic issue.) And let alone how those signs could be explained as bizarre “coincidence” at the very same time a thus multi million year shift in earth’s long term molecular energy capture would nevertheless not be affecting earth itself.
You falsely turn almost everything into something it is not. Sure there are issues with the editorial, but editors have the right to write editorials. Your conclusion that therefore papers that show climate change to be less or not real won’t be published (if one that doesn’t badly mangle the issue even exists), is specious. “Debate over” or not – although it’s still not clear what debate ever existed, as the issue is the same as it has been for 30 years, just a lot more corroboration has rolled in, and emissions added – science thrives on challenge and contrary theories and illustration of basic mistake.
Such a paper, since they are rare on climate change (in fact, apart from making basic mistake themselves they practically don’t exist for the same reasons expressed above – i.e., there is nothing to support the ‘skeptic” position expressed here but misconstrued and cherry picked attacks upon climate science), could even get preferential treatment or a wider “berth” in the name of what science is. Even more so because if something suggested climate change to be less significant overall, that would be GOOD news.
You can guess otherwise, but you are basically saying that because she wrote a bad editorial Science is likely now jaded against actual relevant science in its papers. That’s a big leap, and a little spurious.
But what you do is far more, and it’s something you’re extremely good at. You twist all of this into something that it’s not; and in the process demolish any decent points to temper the way the challenge of climate change is communicated (indeed your hostility toward it and support of such hostility prompts such editorials, born of frustration, as McNutt’s), in the process.
You give credit to a highly hyperbolic, borderline libel, “Digging into Clay” and highly manipulative graphic – the irony of this being stated by a skeptic in reference to climate scientists rather than numerous leading skeptics is somewhat remarkable, but par for the course – and then come up with one that is even more misleading yourself: For it uses semantics again to twist what is really happening, and fit it into your own extreme formulation (for which your minions here and in our half anti science Congress are so grateful and look to you for guidance that you might never realize that despite some good work you’re egregiously, fundamentally wrong on this issue, and thus “let them down”), to continue to cling to heavily one sided beliefs and perceptions on this issue.
To wit, you suggest of Science and science that it is, can or will follow an:
Appeal to authority
Absence of doubt
Intolerance of debate
Desire to convince others of the ideological ‘truth’
Willingness to punish those that don’t concur
You undermine any legitimate such concerns by exaggerating and largely (and ironically) misapplying it. “They don’t like my point of view [let alone your pattern of fundamental construction errors] so science is bad and wants to quash views and punish people for views and here’s a frustrated editorial by the editor of Science ineloquently expressing the basic consensus that keeps getting misrepresented by skeptics so I’ll use it as an excuse to bad mouth science, Science, and climate scientists again and re support the common meme that there’s real scientific debate among climate scientists as to whether our actions have altered (and will keep altering) the earth in a way that is and likely will increasingly impact climate and it’s being unfairly and anti scientifically quashed…
…Because that’s what we need to believe to continue being skeptics rather than just focusing on the merits of our arguments relative to the real science, and maybe getting some papers published in the (now of course, conveniently ideological) science magazines that show how the earth’s fairy Godmothers will micromanage basic physics so our Goldilocks climate under which we evolved – and despite a massive multi million year dump to earth’s basic insulation layer – stays “just right” for us humans and the things upon which we rely.”
You are using the “authority is not always right” canard to get around the relevant facts in instances where leading experts (in an overwhelming consensus despite your rhetoric and misrepresentation on that as well) are essentially right, when you don’t want to accept or understand why, or are clinging to things to render yourself incapable of seeing it.
There is plenty of doubt. The doubt is different from the mistakes, misrepresentations, and circular logic raised and used by skeptics, however, and involves the ongoing process of learning more and more fine detail about this issue and its accumulating effects and correcting, adjusting, learning process of science. You conflate the two because you don’t see these mistakes, misrepresentations and circular logic, as they support your “view.” (One which, to boot, “just happens” to be right in this instance and most climate scientists “wrong,” at least according to your logic. Which would be fine if your reasons why they were wrong didn’t themselves represent a cherry picking, semantic rhetoric, and basic issue misconstruing approach.)
And this leads to the third: “Intolerance of debate.” Skeptics can say anything they want, even (as leading magazine NRO did) call Michael Mann the science equivalent of child molestor (remarkable zealotry to even fathom by the way.) Yet pointing out the errors of skeptics, and or disagreeing, or even using rhetoric back, is suddenly being “intolerant of debate.”
It reminds one of Fox news – ironic since I understand you are not a big fan? – which alleges nearly anything it wants, then when anything is shown that disagrees or shows mistakes or takes a different perspective that is unflattering to Fox, it’s “quashing debate”: Debate suddenly meaning “support me, and don’t say things I don’t want to hear: yet not only don’t those rules, but no rules whatsoever apply to things we say, because ‘that’s different.'”
I grant you there’s a tendency on the part of some concerned with climate change to sometimes use a tenor of intolerance for skeptics, in large part because of much of this same inane and issue twisting rhetoric (and attacks upon everyone else while rhetorically turning even disagreement and argument into “quashing” discussion), and in part because they (sadly) can’t really believe that skeptics really “believe” what they say. It’s human nature. But it’s just these types of responses as your piece above, and the need to constantly twist the issue and impugn almost everyone not on your side (as I have been nearly every time I have responded here) that then produces exactly what you complain about.
I also agree mistakes are made by those concerned about the issue which shows an insensitivity, a lack of empathy, to those who really think climate change is overblown, and are inundated with so much self reinforcing misinformation and rhetoric (such as here, particularly in the comments, and elsewhere) in a largely self selected “news” world. But for the skeptic to understand that, the skeptic has to first understand the fundamental mistake and pattern of misinformation (or irrelevant information made through issue misconstruction and rhetoric to sound relevant) that so called and ironically labeled climate change skepticism requires, in which case one would no longer be a skeptic.
(The term “skeptic” by the way is more than a little ironic because skepticism is the opposite in this case, consisting instead of a belief — with no basis but to instead misconstrue and attack climate science and one-sidedly cherry pick things like this McNutt editorial — while it of course oddly labels the idea that a massive energy shift would affect what’s basically ultimately a long term cumulative expression of energy (climate) as itself a belief rather than scientific reason.)
But those are different issues, and a problem in climate change communication; they do not go to the heart of, or have anything to do with, the actual assessment of this geophysical issue and the risk ranges it presents and why. (Though they do keep people from being able to assess it better.) And they normally pale in comparison to the hostility and projection that emanates from the skepticism side of climate change, which to boot, has the basic underlying issue fundamentally wrong, and remains intransigent to (and in some cases seemingly incapable of) open-mindedly contemplating why.
I’m 100% with you on “intolerance for debate” being a bad thing. But I’m 0% with you on your unrecognized conflation of dismissing the relevancy of incorrect climate skeptic arguments (though I think they should be pointed out instead), pointing out mistakes, or offering frustrated views, with “intolerance for,” or “quashing of” debate – yet that is exactly what you do, do here, and do on every piece that raises or touches on this issue (and many of yours do).
Your 4th sin was the desire to convince others of an ideological truth. Is that not what skeptics are doing on something which is not ideological, but science, or pure geophysical assessment, and logic? As well as on all of the underlying “ideas” driving most skepticism, such as the enormous (if not hysterical) presumption that producing the “good” of less pollution, ending reliance on foreign oil, and mitigation of long term geologically radical atmospheric alteration is somehow itself not of real value, unlike all the silly things we DO do that contribute to GDP, and even though the production of alternative energy and agricultural processes and practices is itself as valid a component of GDP, growth and jobs as anything else.
You also conflate the words of a few with what, to conveniently cling to “skepticism” you assign to anyone concerned about climate change, namely the imposition of some otherwise unrelated ideology, and then the expression of belief of that ideology. This is once again more of the semantic pattern of anything but an open objective look at the actual issue and not cherry picked items and rhetoric to reinforce the “skeptic” belief.
Your last is the creation of a red herring (if I am using that correctly) and then acting as if your conjecture is reality; a willingness to “punish.”
Some people utter some foolish statements on this, and I point it when I see it. But it’s the exception not the rule. And most of even these are misrepresented or taken out of context (and again often highly cherry picked). While again, this is done to reinforce the self sealing nature of climate change “skepticism,” that: “see, if we don’t agree they want to punish us” in order to fit into the imaginary (but believed) meme that simple engagement back, even on a less hostile level than many skeptic sites and leaders engage, and so forth, is “quashing views,” and pointing out errors or dismissing rhetoric is “intolerance for debate.”
The irony is that as, or to the extent this becomes, more ideological on the skeptic side (to perpetuate the belief pretty much regardless of what points are made and even ongoing accumulation of corroborating data rolls in), the very things skeptics worry about only increase in likelihood – stupid rules out of panic at some point in the future, due to horribly misinformed, ideological and semantic game playing “assessment” earlier, as well as more and more dismissiveness of skeptics as people who “know full well they are wrong but are lying because they are selfish” (assessments I don’t generally agree with). Which in turn only further self seals in the tautological circle of logic and perception that, to cling to skepticism, is created and being perpetuated here in the name of ‘debate.’ But which is far from it.
It’s misinformation, it’s issue miscontruction, it’s demonizing, it’s castigation, its excessive rhetoric and semantic cherry picking, all because the “belief” that simply stopping dirty polluting fuels and using clean ones, etc., is some sort of bad thing, and thus that the main issue prompting it (aside from the pollution aspect) – so called “climate change” or the far more accurate “radical long term atmospheric alteration” therefore isn’t real, that big of a deal, or is fundamentally unclear. And thus refuse to see what is, and use every trick in the book (again, here’s a classic but typical one), to continue to believe what one has already been “convinced” of or wants to believe, as a way to avoid the real debate – and what should be being focused on: What does this risk range really present, and what are the best possible, most pro employment opportunity, choice, low mandate approaches to our need to collectively tackle this simple, yet fairly gargantuan, thing we’ve a bit improvidently done; namely, radically change the long term nature of the atmosphere (that we’re still massively adding to), through processes we’ve become a bit habituated to but that for the most part don’t make a lot of sense.
But skeptics think that these things “do make sense,” don’t want to “give them up” (even when totally market oriented such as through a C tax and minor regulation so through choice better mechanisms become more beneficial and shift our economy to a more sensible direction), and so therefore convince themselves that the otherwise completely unrelated geophysical reality, isn’t what almost every single climate scientist studying this (itself again misrepresented) says, the total picture of ongoing earth system changes strongly corroborates, and common sense suggests.
And rational discussion becomes lost. Often, under the believed guise of it.
This “comment” could reasonably not be considered an invitation for someone to engage in debate. It seems to operate under the presumption that if enough mud is thrown some of it may stick.
“” Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.”””
Yes, this “theory” continues, as the long term volatile variable non linear global surface air temp rise continues.
Interesting how the two greatest months of deviation above the norm ever recorded since recording began in the 1800s, were not 19th century, not 20th century, but this century, and in fact this year (Feb and March); and the 4th highest was this century and this year (May). https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201505
2015 is on track to statistically at least likely be the warmest year ever (and right now by an unusually high margin), while 2014 was statistically most likely to have been the warmest year ever recorded up to that point; 2010 before that, and the fourteen warmest years ever recorded have all been in the seventeen years since 1998.
And more importantly despite a major acceleration in air temps in the late 1980s and 90s overall ambient air temps STILL continued to rise above the trailing norm. Though let’s get confused because, by God, our models weren’t perfect, their rate is super accurate relative to randomness, but doesn’t match perfectly and because everyone knows there is no earth, only air, so climate change is just air temps, and inherent variability must be gone (rather than in fact increased) if our actions are impacting the climate, and ludicrously decide AGW or ACC (which is the phenomenon of increasing net earth energy, not short term ambient surface air temperature trends) has “stopped.” Here’s a little more this and why air temps barely scratch the surface, as well as why sites like this one have the basic issue wrong
And this is as ocean heat accumulation continues, at a geologically massive rate in many areas. (Which should have pulled net heat out of the atmosphere and the 2000s should have been far cooler, yet they not only stayed very high relative the modern era, they went even higher.)
And as the north and south polar ice caps, relatively stable as they generally are (and in theory would be), BOTH start experiencing net melt.
As both the north and south polar ice caps both start experiencing accelerating net melt, AND appreciable acceleration. BOTH caps.
……… As the long term arctic sea ice decline continues.
But let’s focus on the one sliver, the large vast open ocean around and stemming north from antarctic, though further from the pole (where a land covers the coldest region) and hence the ice all melts in the summer, unlike the arctic (although that is changing as more and more summer ice is being lost there as well), where SAM wind increases push ice northward, and melt from ice shelves puts a cold insulating layer of fresh water on the surface for insulation from below…and as it increases at about 1/10th the % rate arctic sea ice is decreasing – forget about both polar caps melting AND accelerating, or that climate change means “change” and different responses and patterns over time in different regions, with a total net effect of likely increased heat, but CHANGING PATTERNS and accumulating heat energy, all of which is incontrovertible.
And let’s pretend that long term climate forecasting — hard enough without a huge atmospheric energy dump, if not impossible, even harder with a huge atmospheric energy dump — is a game of darts rather than what’s relevant: So if it goes in the right direction sufficiently to be statistically relevant, which is relevant for corroborating the basic phenomenon (since climate is otherwise “unpredictable”), instead of bolstering the basic fact and knowledge of that fact, we can say (and conveniently believe) it missed the bulls-eye or dart board, so it’s not real!
And forget that climate change is not based upon projections; they only further hone understanding, and overall have been far more accurate than would be remotely plausible based on sheer randomness alone. That’s also wildly misrepresented (or misunderstood) by misconstruing model limitations and what they do, and unrealistically (and scientifically irrationally) putting exact crystal ball prediction requirements onto them for the basic underlying phenomenon of long term accumulating climate impact due to a sudden multi million year alteration in long term atmospheric molecular energy recapture (which models only further hone), to even be real in the first place.
But let’s turn the idea of a massive global wide energy dump into an already impossible to predict system into the scientifically irrational notion that if the exact long term amount, even by region no less, of change, and the exact time path, is not or can not be precisely predicted, that therefore the energy dump “can’t be real” or is “irrelevant.” And not only pretend, but convince ourselves (and others) that this is rational, impugn climate scientists, cry censorship and “quashing debate’ when views are expressed that shun, or show error with, our own, or make pronouncements (there is no real science debate about the basic idea of anthropogenic impact upon climate) that we don’t like or don’t want to believe.
John
Look forward to a reply to my question.
Here is another one: Your link says this amongst many other things
‘The average global sea surface temperature for the year-to-date was the highest for January–May in the 136-year period of record, surpassing the previous record of 2010 by 0.01°C (0.02°F). while the average land surface temperature was also record high, surpassing the previous record of 2007 by 0.05°C (0.09°F).’
Lets ignore how we believe we know the global averages to such tiny fractions and concentrate on how we know the global average of the oceans as early as 1880?
tonyb
Good morning John
Its a question I often ask but never get answered, but when precisely did this ‘goldilocks’ climate exist and more specifically during which decades did it end as man superheated the porridge?
tonyb
climatereason,
Good luck with your question, I can’t even get an answer to what happens if we stop “climate change”. Nobody even seems to be able to define what this “climate” is, apart from being an average of something over which we have no control.
Odd sort of “science”, this.
I’m not sure it’s even worth answering as there doesn’t seem to be evidence of consideration of points that don’t support the predisposed notions (if not fervent belief) of so called “skepticism,” but out of courtesy I will try:
It’s Goldilocks by definition not because it’s “great” (no climate is good or bad on its own, it’s just part of what earth, or our earth system is), but because we, the species we rely upon, much of the geologic landscape and its systems, and (related) the world we built upon, specifically evolved under it.
It’s an important point because climate change is not inherently bad, it’s bad for us (and for many species, though for some it will provide opportunity, particularly the faster evolving and procreating ones – we tend to be glacial in this regard – as well as new strains, many of which we haven’t evolved to deal with, but that’s an unknown.) And it’s not just bad because of the level of likely change (or likely ranges) but also because of the potential wild unpredictability and what we would consider wild shifts, and probably most of all the geologic speed.
I know it seems “slow” but geologically it’s fast, we’re still in an instant of geologic time (there’s also a pretty big lag between cause and effect, despite this popular but egregiously incorrect notion that “increase air capture and it’s immediately and linearly connected to air temp rise”), and that time has seen extremely unusual signs of change. Mostly to the long term drivers of climate that are changing the basic conditions that create it;, but even for air temp alone it’s been pretty unusual, with a good probability of the shift upward in air temp alone over the past century being the largest single ambient global shift since the Holocene (a total period which covers over a 100 different century periods), and all but certainly one of the very few. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
Though that study was of course radically misinterpreted and mangled as well, mainly for comparing indirect data (all we had, and it’s the full composite of all we had) for trailing geologic history and which isn’t all that accurate past several hundred year chunks — hence why we can’t be certain, although it would be a little odd but possible, if a random 100 year period didn’t suddenly experience that kind of long rise and it was then completely hidden over a few hundred year period — with the best we have for the modern era (thermometers etc). Which is the only rational, or at least most relevant, way to put the modern era into some sort of historical context, yet which caused even well meaning but conceptually limited or ideologically driven skeptics or semi sorta skeptics (such as Pielke Jr, who doesn’t even seem to understand it) to scream borderline fraud. (God knows what this website posted, I’m sure it mangled it as it has nearly everything else.)
John
The Marcott paper just wasn’t very good was it? It was withdrawn by the Met Office blog web site
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/6/14/met-office-withdraws-article-about-marcotts-hockey-stick.html
Temperatures have been generally rising since 1700 with the greatest fall being the century immediately prior to this period and the largest rise immediately after. This aspect of natural variability was remarked upon by Phil Jones of CRU with a paper in 2006 who confirmed that natural variability was greater than hitherto realised.
This could be one of the reasons that the Met office stopped promoting the Hockey stick as the climate stability until modern times that it promoted was shown to be incorrect.
I am not sure you answered my question as to when Man started to superheat the porridge. Was it the warmer than today Minoan age, The Roman warm period or the MWP or more recent than that? Please be more specific and name a couple of decades.
Whilst you are about it I am also hoping for an explanation as to how we knew the global temperature of the unexplored oceans back to 1880
tonyb
I can answer for Australia, born in the El Nino of the early 1790s. (That’s the one which killed all the millions in India). When both N America and Eastern Australia fried, by turns, in 1896, more millions perished in India. Monsoon failures, heat, drought…just like before, and like since. No Goldilocks.
By the way, if heats conditions like 1896 in NSW or East Coast USA were to be repeated in 2015, who doubts that many, if not most, of our climate experts and spokespeople would studiously avoid any mention of 1896?
Sad, isn’t it? An intellectual catastrophe, almost.
John Carter:
“Specifically evolved under it”? No they (and we) didn’t.
> when precisely did this ‘goldilocks’ climate exist and more specifically during which decades did it end as man superheated the porridge?
Another unanswered question is why TonyB woukd presume his question is relevant at all.
mosomoso
Australia was around a while before that.
I understand it was first separated from Gondwana around 100 million years ago.
First colonisation by humans was at least 40,000 years ago and maybe longer.
What was that I was just saying about studious avoidance?
Verytallguy , I’d dwell on the climatic events of the 1790s, not play gotchas with me over the distinction between political and geographical entities.
In fact, I’d suggest more curiosity about climate which actually happened and no more gotchas of any sort.
Tonyb has quite a lot of handy material on stuff that actually happened. You could start there.
Galileo Galilei,
We write to inform you
the science is settled,
Your trial starts tomorrow.
The Inquisition.
“Galileo Galilei,
We write to inform you
the science is settled,
Your trial starts tomorrow.
The Inquisition.”
So because there was once an inquisition, now nothing can be agreed upon by climate scientists?
They agree that there’s anthropogenic climate change. McNutt saying that there is no debate over it is no more of an inquisition (skeptics just don’t want to believe this is the consensus, right or wrong, though there is nothing to refute it but arguments that cherry pick data and misrepresent or misconstrue the issue), than saying anything else is agreed upon.
You don’t think that it is (because you and mostly non climate scientists, often tinged with ideology and reinforced with a lot of, uh “information” (so its believed), then you can say this just as others can say the science is settled. You saying it is not is not censorship nor an inquisition, nor is McNutt or another scientists (let alone fairly accurately representing climate scientists on it) saying otherwise any more so.
Incidentally, Galileo was the opposite of climate change skepticism. He embraced the scientific change of the time, and didn’t embrace the old conventional way of thinking (that old way today is that our actions can’t relevantly impact earth or that anything we inadvertently do, if we can, must be in rather than against our interests by default).
Galileo was also suppressed by religious authority, not scientists.
Climate scientists, like Galileo are the ones being dragged into court. (But not by the church, but non scientists and pseudo scientists with often ideological interests, somewhat like the church was in Galileo’s time.)
Galileo and scientists of the time sought to overturn a long held belief. (By championing Copernicus view that sun the does not revolve around earth, the old day equivalent of we are the ones that matter, so if we do something it can’t be bad, even when that thing is bad to us…)
Climate scientists have overturned a long held belief, skeptics adhere to the long held belief.
A pretty good analysis of the several mistakes that make Galileo somewhat opposite of “climate skepticism,”, is in the link just below. Though skeptics have convinced this site is bogus since it lays out the myths that support CC “skepticism.” (So it has to be dismissed as bogus or otherwise that skepticism has to be re examined, and the former is much easier to do, particularly when one strongly wants to have that skepticism.) Reasonable and informative read though: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm
john
Beth is a highly erudite denizen with a sense of humour who would be fully conversant with Gallieo.
tonyb
Tony. Beth is erudite (and concise) with a sense of humour whilst John is erudite (but, unfortunately, not concise) with no apparent sense of humour. I rarely look at personalities, preferring to to read the arguments but I in this case, the contrasting styles are illuminating indeed.
Poor analogy by u John C, I ‘d argue. Galileo presented
observational evidence, his telescope pointed at the
heavens, showing phases of Venus and satellites of
Jupiter moving according to Kepler’s Laws, questioning
the cherished prejudices of orthodox scholasticism.
What have u presented, John C, the predicted signature
Hot Spot, feedback clear evidence, models that match
observation like an 18 year temperature plateau, past
variable climate record, see Tony Brown’s CET historical
record, Glacier and Arctic ice record?
Despite the urgent tone of yr many paragraphs, implying
meme anxiety, not much, in comparison to Galileo’s
challenging observational data that the Inquisition sought
to gate-keep. Gate-keeping …hmmm.
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated.png
“””john
Beth is a highly erudite denizen with a sense of humour who would be fully conversant with Gallieo.
tonyb”””
Not sure why you wrote this. It’s not remotely relevant to her comment. http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/05/the-beyond-two-degree-inferno/#comment-716034 Nor remotely to mine, that was in direct response to it. http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/05/the-beyond-two-degree-inferno/#comment-716042 Nor is it seemingly humorous. And it also greatly misleads on the issue, as she is using Galileo as an example of challenging accepted doctrine through being willing to change based on facts – when skeptics cling to the presumption that man isn’t much impacting our environment, the old time way of thinking, and (until the Pope recently came out otherwise) the Church, Galileo’s foe, has long supported, and which is still heavily supported by fundamental religion.
And saying “the science is settled ” is not an inquisition, much as skeptics and in particular the craftily inflammatory (constantly, including in this post above) and constantly issue misconstruing prose of Curry try to equate it with that, as part of the general pattern to argue anything.
Anything to reinforce the skeptic position. Its human nature, sure, but only up to a point. On climate change it has become near religion. (completely with projecting that religion outward, and giving climate scientists that label, under the guise of self reinforcing and often circular logic.)
Bethserf writes “”””Poor analogy by u John C, I ‘d argue. Galileo presented…..”‘”””‘
Good argument. Especially since it was your analogy. You made a Galileo analogy, and I responded to it, since your analogy was misleading in multiple regards, inflammatory, as well as largely backward. http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/05/the-beyond-two-degree-inferno/#comment-716042
John Carter,
What is ” silly to borderline inane …” is to think you have a clue what the chemical composition of the planet’s atmosphere and energy input from the sun is on even a millenial scale for the last “multi million years”.
Pingback: Congressional Climate Expert Judith Curry Follows Same Pattern, Excoriates Science – My Response | Climate Solutions and Analysis
@Mosher says \\BUT in a science “debate” you cant merely show up with criticisms. you have to show up with a better idea.//
That is so patently wrong, I wonder for Mosher’s sanity.
– When the teacher draws out their master theory on the blackboard any pupil can speakup if they spot a logical mistake or inconsistency in the teachers argument… without having to have their own better master theory. If the teacher has a wacky theory, that is not only disproved by someone else come up with another wacky theory.
The fallacy of appeal to authority seems to be Mosher’s basis.
@Mosher says ‘Show up at conferences, symposia, in journals’ . Perhaps those not toeing the CAGW line have diffculty in gaining admission. Well Lindzen, Curry, Roy Spencer, John Christy and other skeptical scientists have SHOWN UP at Congress, though.
@Mosher’s claims his teams line is “THE Science”. Well do consistently predict what subsequently happens in reality ? When their friends at the Guardian/BBC etc. preach extreme alarmism quoting drastic scenarios his team never seem to rush in and say “no that’s to drastic”. No rather they act as if they operate a religion, taking any old support it can get, but shouting down any opposition. As a result many of the public DON’T think that Team Mosher have “the science” and can predict reality.
‘Yes we have a good understanding of how much temperatures will change as a function of CO2’ he says… Many would argue his team haven’t shown that for the last 30 years.
.. I see he continues on an on in this way, but to many it must seem similar to a true believer defending his religion.
“@Mosher says \\BUT in a science “debate” you cant merely show up with criticisms. you have to show up with a better idea.//
That is so patently wrong, I wonder for Mosher’s sanity.””
I think what Mosher meant was we know there has been this effect. (a sudden spike upward after 800,000 years of fairly undulating, always much lower methane and CO2 levels, and an increase above trailing levels likely going back several million years.) The spike is of substances that trap energy and keep our earth from being a largely lifeless frozen ball of ice and rock.
This would seem to thus increase energy, which would mean that climate would change. If one is going to say this is not the case, there needs to be something beyond rhetoric and belief as to why. (Nothing such has ever been offered.) Criticizing climate scientist mistakes is great. But seeking to criticize simply to cling to the rhetoric and belief, and misconstruing climate science, isn’t as great.
And criticizing climate science mistake does not disprove climate science or provide a reason why a geologically significant increase in the long term molecular recapture of basic energy. In a process so fundamental to earth it it makes up the “insulation” layer that keeps earth from being frozen, in combination with the effects of all the effect ON earth that it in turn causes, which is part of why climate change is not just a simple immediate liner correlation between x LT GGs and average air temps, and the very idea or even anything remotely approximating it (not that some skeptics didn’t ludicrously try http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/03/research-downplaying-impending-global-warming-is-overturned ) is scientifically inane.
Valid criticisms are valid, and or course really important, and help add to and adjust climate science knowledge. The creation of criticism under any theory possible does far more to confuse, and misinform, than add. Showing up with cherry picked (and often, but probably not always, erroneous criticisms) does not disprove undermine or refute climate change, but the very process of science itself – adjustment, learning, mistake, correction – is repeatedly commingled or conflated with, or rather simply (and with rhetorical flourish, dazzle, and outrage) refutation of the underlying phenomenon of climate change itself, when it’s no such thing.
Granted he didn’t express that exactly, but it’s likely closer to what he means.
And by the way, if illogical or mistaken comments like Moshers are evidence of insanity, then it’s hard to find any sane commenters here or probably on earth in general.
Lastly, calling understanding of the basic phenomenon of climate change, or acceptance of climate scientists general pronouncement of it, “religion” (let alone when skepticism itself is founded in belief – see above) is a farce.
It’s science. It’s science you may not agree with. (Though again no real reason supporting that has really been provided, but plenty of conflation of everything else with it, dished up in super clever self sealing rhetoric and perceived logic, has been.) It’s science you may not want to accept. But it’s science, and basic geophysical evaluation.
Concern over it is as legitimate as any concerns, even if sometimes those who are concerned (unfortunately) come across as a little hysterical about it. (Ultimately this is often in response to the reams of misinformation and rhetoric put out by skeptics, and the failure to sensibly address this issue for years if not close to decades, even as we greatly compound it, and it needlessly amplifies.) It’s not a religion. It’s a view, it’s a concern.
In contrast, the “belief” that upping the basic long term energy recapturing property of the atmosphere to levels not see in millions of years, despite what almost all climate scientists who study it say, common sense, as well as corroborating total data, isn’t or won’t have a relevant impact upon our world – with no real rationale other than desire, and lots of rhetoric and cherry picking of the science to support it – is a lot closer to religion.
(Or addiction, as it was George Bush who said “we are addicted to oil.” And of course or presumptions on what constitutes “valid” or real long term economic growth, with the irony being that growth that relies upon heavily polluting and earth altering substances and practices is probably more of an illusion than growth that doesn’t, or specifically addresses those things so we do not, or at least do so less.)
Part of beliefs that self reinforce themselves as “science and logic” to those who believe them, is of course to project outward, and see what is being done, by those who make the arguments you can’t accept. (Seeing what you do in the actions of others.) Aka projection.
Calling climate change a religion, even if some of the advocacy states things that you (and even I) wouldn’t agree with, is classic projection. It helps reinforce the clung to notion that it’s not climate scientists but really ‘skeptics” who are doing the real science, and that those who make otherwise articulate assertions (as well as inarticulate, over conclusionary, or presumptive conclusions about everyone’s mindset and views)nevertheless generally consistent with the prevailing known science of the day (not yesteryear), are practicing religion, and not listening to science and being worried, concerned, or caring, about it.
@John Carter said \\I think what Mosher meant was we know there has been this effect.//
Strawman man : The local day to day temperature IS WHAT IS, the CO2 IS WHAT IS …. and has risen greatly over the last 100 years. No one is arguing about that.
However . to go beyond that and say you have a proven real world relationship between CO2 and temperature such that you can predict with certainty that Climate catastrophe is coming is going beyond science.
– You might claim that extrapolation is : \\basic phenomenon of climate change, or acceptance of climate scientists general pronouncement of it// – You might claim that \\It’s science. It’s science you may not agree with.//
but NO, something is science when it is proven, when it’s models produces reliable consistent accurate advance predictions of the real world.
– When you have CERTAINTY about something that is unproven , then that is characteristic of RELIGION.
\\calling.. “religion” (let alone when skepticism itself is founded in belief – see above) is a farce.//
No the scientific method and skepticism are NOT just another belief system like a religion, cos unlike others it provides a model of the REALITY which improves as more proof is established.
As Richard Dawkins quotes “It works ….unpolitically correct term”
…mistakes are great we learn from them ..but we have to be aware of our limitations.
Basically there is science
…and there is having CERTAINTY BEYOND science.
..That is the problem of a lot of alarmists, many do not understand where the line is.
@Stewgreen,
You’re making the basic mistake that drives skepticism. Assessment of whether to act is made based on an assessment of what we do know.
I could go through all that way do, but that would be pointless. The hard data is trailing geologic data, atmospheric alteration data, basic physics knowledge, geophysical knowledge of the earth (such as it is) and of course, last, and frankly, least, but still important, ongoing corrroborative data.
Skeptics have shielded themselves from all this, through a variety of self reinforcing mechanisms and widespread presumption that it must be reasonable because so many are pushing skepticism, which with the avalanche of issue misconstruing “information” it produces only reinforces further. And thus don’t even have an objective knowledge of the actual relevant data (let alone what is relevant and why).
Bottom line given what we do know, there is no theory to support the lack climatic effect. None. Zilch. It doesn’t even make any sense, and all skeptics attempts to get around that consist of impugning climate scientists, cherry picking or misrepresenting data, misconstruing the issue or, closely related, “relying” on information that is irrelevant without even knowing why it is relevant, or wonderfully concocted rhetoric that is ultimately an expression of full belief (that we’re not relevantly affecting it) made to sound like logic.
But more than the issue is about assessing what we do know.. That is not done by skeptics. What is done is finding things to fit into the mantra, or belief, that we are not relevantly or significantly impacting earth’s long term climate, under the belief that the issue is being “assessed.”
John Carter,
It is axiomatic that if mankind disturbs a chaotic system, then the system’s outputs may change, in an unknown direction, and an unknown amount.
So far, Warmists tell us that the Earth has warmed by a degree or so since the Industrial Revolution. Concommitantly, longevity has improved, standard of living has improved, health has improved, literacy has improved, and do on.
Warmists tell us that that increasing temperatures have bad effects, apparently, and that reductions in the amounts of CO2 and H2O added to the atmosphere are urgently needed. So far warming seems to been beneficial, and only an irrational person would be opposed to more plant food being made available.
Why would you prefer a desert planet to a green and fertile one? Do you really want to surrender all the benefits that appear to come with a slight warming since the Industrial Revolution?
Past weather is no predictor of future climate. As much as you may be wishing for doom and disaster to confirm your bizarre beliefs, there is no guarantee that it will occur. Kicking back and enjoying life is another option, I guess. That’s my choice.
Pingback: Future Nat'l Academy Of Sciences President Wonders Which Circle Of Hell Is Reserved For Global Warming Deniers
Hi Judy – You wrote
“if she wants to advocate for public policy, president of NAS is a less ethically compromising position for her than Editor of Science.”
I disagree. She is in a position to dominate committee appointments and priorities. In the past, I have documented the advocacy role of the NAS on the climate issue, as contrasted with the goal of objective science assessments. See, for example, my posts
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=national+acad
Best Regards
Roger Sr.
rpielke
I understand from the denizens that Obama has promoted scientists that conform to his notion of science to his dream team and can also appoint politically biased judges.
If you want your policies to succeed you must ensure that they are implemented from the bottom up and appointing like minded people to important positions is surely the way to proceed, so I think you are 100% correct.
tonyb
Tonyb,
This is what we get when we have science funding dominated by Government Agencies accountable to a President intent primarily on pursuing his political agenda in a manner that ignores dissent? He rewards those that toe the line and vilifies those that don’t.
Obama says the science is settled and the debate is over, so all the minions who want to keep their jobs and get promoted, fall right in line. I am certain that if Obama said something like ‘wait a minute, let’s be sure we are on solid ground wrt CAGW before going off the deep end’ that Marcia McNutt would be the first to agree and start submitting/approving research proposals to do what the Chief wants done.
The way I view it: NAS is science-policy interface; there will be politics there. But the journal Science really needs to be kept clean of such influences.
I agree with you that I don’t like the NAS advocacy on climate science, but that has been there for decades and its not going away. Such overt advocacy by the journal Science is a new (and to me greater) concern
Both concerns are valid, of course. But Sciencemag has also been biased for a long time, just not so overtly. We will have to see who the new Editor is. It is an interesting question, whose bias can do the most damage, NAS or Sciencemag? NAS blessing is often required for new research programs.
Pure speculation of course, but I wonder if Sciencemag is actually backing (being backed) off of its position on climate change, and the editorial was a parting shot: a “good-bye (not)” fling.
Hi Judy – Any time we have a journal that claims it is “science” but prefilters papers that even go out to review, it is a conflict of the scientific process. Science and Nature are perceived by many as a higher level of standard than our professional (e.g. AGU; AMS) journals when they are not. In tenure reviews in ecology I have served on, they rate a paper in Science or Nature as much higher than their professional journals. That is absurd in my view.
The NAS can work in a similar way when they are not inclusive in their committee selection. I documented such an abuse in my post
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/protecting-the-ipcc-turf-%E2%80%93-there-are-no-independent-climate-assessments-of-the-ipcc-wg1-report-funded-and-sanctioned-by-the-nsf-nasa-or-the-nrc-a-repost-of-and-comment-on-a-january-13-2009/
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/protecting-the-ipcc-turf/
Here is part of what I wrote
“Except for Judith Lean, Art Charo and myself, however, there was no support for the Strawman proposal. The proposal for a formal NRC Panel was rejected by the others, unless it was very narrowly focused, such as on “decadal forecasts”. The agency representatives (from NASA and the NSF) were similarly not willing to support such a study.
The reason, undoubtedly preordained before we even met on that Monday, is that a significant number of the members of the Committee were (and presumably still are) active participants of the IPCC assessment, as documented above.
Thus, the intensity of the dismissive and negative comments by a number of the committee members, and from even several of the agency representatives, with respect to any view that differed from the IPCC orthodoxy, made abundantly clear, that there was no interest in vesting an assessment of climate to anyone but the IPCC.
The IPCC is actually a relatively small group of individuals who are using the IPCC process to control what policymakers and the public learn about climate on multi-decadal time scales. This NRC planning process further demonstrates the intent of the IPCC members to manipulate the science, so that their viewpoints are the only ones that reach the policymakers.
If the NSF, NASA and the NRC are going to appoint and accept recommendations by groups with a clear conflict of interest to protect their turf [in this case the IPCC], they will be complicit in denying all of us a balanced presentation of the physical science basis of climate change, including the role that humans have.
The obvious bias in the 2007 IPCC WG1 report is illustrated in the weblogs
Documentation Of IPCC WG1 Bias by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Dallas Staley – Part I
Documentation Of IPCC WG1 Bias by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Dallas Staley – Part II
As it stands now, there are no independent climate assessments of the IPCC WG1 report funded and sanctioned by the NSF, NASA or the NRC.
The agency representatives at the NRC planning meeting on December 8 2008, either are inadvertently neglecting the need for independent oversight, or they are deliberately ignoring this lack of an independent assessment because the IPCC findings fit their agenda on the climate issue. In either case, the policymakers and the public are being misled on the degree of understanding of the climate system, including the human role within in it.”
Thus, appointing the leadership of the NAS with a clear advocacy perspective is just a continuation of their business as usual.
Roger Sr.
thx, that was my point – the McNutt delta on the NAS isn’t large, but the McNutt delta on Science seemed very large
Roger,
In your 2006 public comment on CCSP report of temperature trends in the lower atmosphere; steps for understanding and reconciling differences,
your comments were suppressed by a Tom Karl.
Same Tom Karl currently adjusting buoy temperature data to match canvas and wood bucket data and eliminate the hiatus?
Also head of NOAA data center in North Carolina?
Please keep fighting and publishing to restore integrity to data observations reporting.
Scott
Yes, Scotts4sf, it is the same Tom Karl, or King Karl as I call him. He chairs the USGCRP steering committee and has long been working to establish a National Climate Service in NOAA, in parallel with the National Weather Service.
Scot, no those adjustment of the buoys were made in this article.
Boyin Huang, Viva F. Banzon, Eric Freeman, Jay Lawrimore, Wei Liu, Thomas C. Peterson, Thomas M. Smith, Peter W. Thorne, Scott D. Woodruff, and Huai-Min Zhang, 2015: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature Version 4 (ERSST.v4). Part I: Upgrades and Intercomparisons. Journal Climate, 28, pp. 911–930, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1.
Scott
Victor has kindly supplied a link to the SST paper. If you search this site you will see several papers from John Kennedy at the Met office on the same subject, together with an article by myself and others which together with the copious comments provides some background, although they primarily concentrate on buckets rather than buoys.
The sparsity of the readings, the considerable interpolation and the methodology employed in securing a sample and reading the result, makes a global SST extremely uncertain prior to around 1960 in my opinion except in some very well travelled trade routes or those patrolled by the British navy?
Google Challenger to see info on the first isolated scientific attempt to quantify the oceans.
Tonyb
@RP: The IPCC is actually a relatively small group of individuals who are using the IPCC process to control what policymakers and the public learn about climate on multi-decadal time scales.
This would only make sense if the 140,000 comments on AR5 were blown off by this “relatively small group”.
What exactly is your definition of “relative small”, Roger?
I call BS.
Re: McNutty science, 7/5/15
The time for debate has ended. McNutt, MK, PhD, The beyond-two-degree inferno, 7/3/2015
If this essay had been written by James Hansen, a climate scientist and self-avowed global warming advocate who is now retired from NASA, and posted on his personal web site, I would have no problem with this essay (other than my personal disagreement) and I wouldn’t bother to highlight it at Climate Etc.
So, with her very impressive credentials, is McNutt an expert on climate change? McNutt is a geophysicist who has no apparent primary expertise in climate science, … . J. Curry, 7/5
Can anyone identify any other scientific journal editor that has written that the time for debate about climate change has ended? Can anyone identify another example where an editor of Science or Nature has declared that the debate is over for any other scientific topic?
Reading Dr. Curry in context, she identifies the problem as McNutt urging that some part of climatology, i.e., AGW, is settled. What Curry, McNutt, and Hansen all overlook is the higher authority over any application that only obsolete science and professional journal science are ever settled.
The problem is that our universities don’t teach science qua science. It would only take a few hours, but that is left for the student to divine on his own through application and post graduate experience, and that all too often embedded in a Post Modern Science milieu of peer-review, publish, and consensus — all subjective tests, criteria for which Modern Science has zero tolerance. At some point, students will have to pull their heads out, raise them up, and look around. Then they will at last have an opportunity to discover perhaps that one of several overarching principles: science is never settled.
McNutt was likely never explicitly exposed to the principles of science when she learned geology. And if she had studied climatology, she would have been no more likely to have learned science, not a science, than was Hansen. Climatology is the poster child for Post Modern Science.
“The problem is that our universities don’t teach science qua science.”
Actually, the problem is that our universities and our leading scientists teach blatant fraud. Scientists are taught (and apparently believe) that any published study represents good quality work, even though we all know that is false. Thus, scientists will make representations to governments and the public about what science says based on nothing more than an abstract they’ve read. Said differently:
1. scientists use their reputations to make representations of quality science to the public,
2. for the purpose of inducing reliance by the public and government,
3. about studies they know have never been replicated or even audited,
4. when there is a strong likelihood that the studies are flawed.
This is a type of fraud, either negligent or reckless misrepresentation.
Dr. Curry has admitted that she did this herself.
Look at the hockey stick, an incompetent perhaps even fraudulent piece of garbage. It was presented to the world by many scientists as quality science, in fact so good according to these scientists that the world should spend hundreds of billions in reliance thereon. These scientists were making representations regarding the quality of the hockey stick, yet they had no personal knowledge at all. Not only had they not personally checked it, they knew or should have known that NO ONE had checked it. No replication. No audit. No nothing. The making of these representations was incredibly reckless, certainly negligent. Also stupid — no intelligent person in the real world invites people to rely on their expertise when they haven’t personally investigated the facts they are making representations about. It’s a great way to get sued.
Until scientists develop an understanding of the ethical requirements of making representations of quality, science will continue its decline. The fraud needs to stop.
Saying “trust me, I’m an expert and this is true” when you have no idea about the facts you communicate is fraud. Also really stupid.
My view (which doesn’t mean much because I’m not a scientist or academic) is that the problem is career pressures which require publication. The academic is strongly motivated to keep the paychecks coming.
The academics have get studies published. Many studies are going to have inconclusive results. Sometimes the data refutes existing dogma.
At the end of an inconclusive effort or one that seems to counter existing mainstream views the academic looks at the data and tries to salvage something and make some statement that is:
1. Statistically significant.
2. Is publishable.
By making “no worries” climate science pieces unpublishable the leaders of the climate science community have warped the science.
The unwarped science isn’t much better. If over 80% of studies are unreproducible, over 80% of “statistically significant” findings aren’t statistically significant.
The problem is so bad that perhaps developing a piece of study validation software would be useful. This would at least prevent publication of obviously incorrect studies. Mandatory training on study methodology might also be helpful.
The bad science is a result of time pressures, incompetence, external influence and malfeasance. Given that it is hard for top scientists to do good work (landmark studies have these problems) it isn’t surprising that the “C” students have difficulties.
Re: Stanton Brown 7/9/15 @ 12:23 pm:
How the PMS world of academe would respond to your claims of fraud:
1. scientists use their reputations to make representations of quality science to the public,
A1: Quality science is just that which passes the three intersubjective criteria: peer review, publication in a certified journal, arguably supported by a consensus among certified practitioners. A scientist commits fraud only if his claim that all three criteria had been met is a misrepresentation.
2. for the purpose of inducing reliance by the public and government,
A2: A scientists has a duty to inform the public and government of impending public harm according to their models.
3. about studies they know have never been replicated or even audited,
A3: None of the 3 criteria requires replication nor provides literal audit, either explicitly or by editorial policy.
4. when there is a strong likelihood that the studies are flawed.
A4: Studies are not flawed if they meet the 3 criteria.
Exactly which of your four criteria did Michael Mann violate with his Hockey Stick reconstruction of data? Or when Mike Mann and Phil Jones arranged to have non–conforming editors of professional replaced with conforming ones? Or when IPCC failed to use Henry’s Law to cause warming to release major proportions of CO2 to the atmosphere? Or when IPCC claimed the surface ocean was in thermodynamic equilibrium to cause acidification? Or when IPCC increased water vapor without adding cloud cover to mitigate warming and amplify the Sun?
Philosophy teaches three main theories of truth: (1) coherence theory: true statement are coherent with the rest of knowledge; (2) pragmatic theory: true statements are useful; and (3) conformity theory: true statements correspond to facts. PMS relies on all three; MS relies exclusively on the third.
Remember, in the PMS world, scientific models don’t have actually to work. As intuitive as it might seem, judging models under one species of science by the standards of the other species is unfair.
The problem at its core is that the whole of PMS science is a fraud — by MS standards.
Those climateers who complain bitterly about comparisons with a new religion should look to their vocal friends. The closing paragraphs of McNutt seem positively evangelical, right down to ‘Hell on Earth’ should temperatures rise above 2C. Then, of course, there is the Pope’s encyclical. It seems hard to be too indignant about the comparison with friends like these!
Could Science be trying to follow the example of Scientific American to appeal to a larger audience. Perhaps there is an ultimate goal to reach everyone … at … the supermarket checkout line.
Good point, Canman. Sciencemag has already gone well down that road. While they are usually described as a journal, well over 50% of their content is devoted to news and lay summaries (90% by item count). The actual journal articles are in the back end, just before the classified job ads. Sciencemag is a newsmag, not a journal.
What you describe makes sense canman.
McNutty’s editorial is indeed somewhat pedestrian sounding when reflecting on what the Science brand is. It’s why I questioned but stopped shy of calling her editorial definitively yellow journalism because it’s not in the truest, most conventional expression of it as you see in the supermarket checkout line, as you state. However when you think about brand and how tabloid rags use this form of journalism to play to the lowest common denominator of bobble heads in society one can’t help but see its influence and use in the unconventional sense; while still maintaining the requisite use of exaggeration, scare-mongering and sensationalism. In higher-up the food chain forms of publication these tenets are modified from the conventional look and read of yellow journalism.
Looking at Science as a brand the before mentioned techniques have unquestionably been appropriated and applied by McNutty towards its more sophisticated demographic. So how does one use yellow journalistic tenets to address a sophisticated, highly educated demographic? You appeal to the education of the audience by using sophisticated intellectual metaphors; like Dante, the double entendre, and the use of already anointed memes, “settled” et al. So the purpose of the editorial is to buttress these memes using the highest authority. The Science audience reaches influential people, these are empowered to go forth and evangelize the message because of its authority, spread fear, because it’s endorsed. The authority makes messaging imminently safer. This is not what you want to see in Science, propaganda, there’s a decorum one expects in a serious publication like this that’s violated here I believe. Sure, an editor can say whatever they want I suppose; a low skill doctor can prescribe whatever regime of medication they deem suitable for a patient in hopes one works for something still undiagnosed too.
I really didn’t mean to call McNutt, McNutty!
I might add, because of McNutt’s future NAS appointment, this editorial serves as a preamble that Obama and other leaders in government can draw from as fodder for speeches without the fear of stepping out of bounds, it has the right pedigree. If the editor of Science endorses extreme messaging, it’s true; they can reference Science directly as citation. It’s a powerful club to beat into submission the opposition.
Inside EPA notes today “The Obama administration is planning to seek input from the National Academies of Science (NAS) on future updates to its controversial social cost of carbon (SCC) figures used to calculate the benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, pledging an open process on any revisions that reflects ‘the best available science and economics.'”. I wonder if that debate is over too?
@rc: ‘the best available science and economics.’
CE should take a poll on which is science is the more dismal, economics or climate.
My take on the more vocal contributors here, especially those who respond in less than 5 minutes to each new post from our host, is “give us any science but those two”.
I bet they’d change their tune if they ever felt threatened by heliocentricity, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, tectonics,or quasicrystals.
Vaughan Pratt,
Why do you refer to economics or climate as being “science”?
Climate is the average of weather, and any reasonably competent 12 year old with a pavement and a piece of chalk can calculate an average. Hardly a science, eh?
Economics was created by God, to make climatology seem like a science.
“The science of . . .” Is the refuge of every quack trying to dignify the patently ridiculous. Bah! Humbug! Astrology produced more scientific breakthroughs than climatology is ever likely to. From astrology to astronomy, from climatology to . . . nowhere! Don’t you agree?
Climate is the average of weather, and any reasonably competent 12 year old with a pavement and a piece of chalk can calculate an average. Hardly a science, eh?
And this makes it different from classical mechanics somehow?
MF: Astrology produced more scientific breakthroughs than climatology is ever likely to.
Great debate topic for fifth-graders in a debating competition. That would be one way to tell if you’re smarter than a fifth-grader. Perhaps you have a better way?
Vaughan Pratt,
The last time I looked, classical mechanics appeared to be useful.
Attempting to divine the future by the examination of historical weather records – climatology – appears to have no use at all.
Weather changes, and always has. The climate, perforce, changes. Hardly surprising, I would have thought, but obviously a bit subtle for some.
@MF: Weather changes, and always has. The climate, perforce, changes. Hardly surprising, I would have thought, but obviously a bit subtle for some.
Right, that was the argument used to ridicule Rear Admiral Richard Beaufort’s attempts at weather forecasting.
To hear you talk he must have been a dismal failure.
Vaughan Pratt,
You wrote –
“Great debate topic for fifth-graders in a debating competition. That would be one way to tell if you’re smarter than a fifth-grader. Perhaps you have a better way?”
No contest. Given that the debate proposition is “Astrology produced more scientific breakthroughs than climatology is ever likely to.”, and you are supporting the negative, my money will be on the fifth grader.
I’ll put up Newton’s Laws of Motion up against Hansen’s Theory of Runaway Warming, anytime. What else have you got? Missing heat, hiding in the ocean? Pretend Nobel laureates?
I suppose it helps to while away the idle hours, dreaming of what might be. To each his own.
Vaughan Pratt,
You wrote –
“Right, that was the argument used to ridicule Rear Admiral Richard Beaufort’s attempts at weather forecasting.
To hear you talk he must have been a dismal failure.”
I don’t think that someone who had a meteorological term – the Beaufort scale – named after him, was a dismal failure. Possibly, one of these days, the Hansen Principle, the Mann Hypothesis, or Schmidt’s Law may pass into common useage. I doubt it, somehow.
You are making things up. What I said was never used to ridicule any attempt at weather forecasting, by anyone. It is a statement of fact.
Maybe you are confusing weather with climate, which is merely the average of weather. Do you believe that the Earth has a “climate”? What use is that? What happens if you managed to stop this “climate” from “changing”?
Have fun.
@MF: Maybe you are confusing weather with climate, which is merely the average of weather.
You keep using the word “the”. I do not think it means what you think it means.
There is no such thing as the average of weather. For starters the World Meteorological Organization defines it as the 30-year running mean of climate, let’s call that 30-year climate. If you accept their definition there is no such thing as the current hiatus, as can be seen from the red curve here. Even if you take it to be 20-year climate, which is what the IPCC prefers in defining TCR, there’s still no hiatus, you have to go down to 10 years.
And if the WMO had defined it instead as being twice as long, namely the green curve in the same plot, you would see nothing but global warming from 1880 to 1985.
What’s particularly interesting about that green curve is that except for a 0.02 °C dip from 1880 to 1885, thereafter the 60-year climate rises at an ever-accelerating rate.
What could possibly cause such an inexorable and ever-steepening rise? Perhaps it’s not CO2. Perhaps it’s volcanoes, or the Sun, or Jupiter, or any of the other possible causes of global warming that have been proposed as an alternative to CO2.
What can’t be denied however is that 60-year climate has been on an ever-increasing slope upwards for the entire century from 1885 to 1985.
Scientists claim it’s CO2. Do you or anyone else have a convincing explanation of why that rise is so steady, and getting steeper all the time, the same behavior as CO2 itself over that period?
@VP: the World Meteorological Organization defines it as the 30-year running mean of climate
Sorry, that should have read “running mean of weather” (more precisely of global mean surface temperature).
Vaughan Pratt,
I can understand that you believe what you want to believe, regardless of any facts to the contrary. You stated that –
“There is no such thing as the average of weather. For starters the World Meteorological Organization defines it as the 30-year running mean of climate, . . . ”
Direct quote from World Meteorological Organisation web page
“Climate, sometimes understood as the “average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.
The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).”
In case anyone is interested, they may wish to compare Vaughan’s assertion with the actual WMO definition. I also point out that most authorities use the word “mean” as a synonym for “average”. I note that the WMO use both in that sense.
Vaughan, you went on to write –
“Scientists claim it’s CO2. Do you or anyone else have a convincing explanation of why that rise is so steady, and getting steeper all the time, the same behavior as CO2 itself over that period?”
In answer to your question, yes. You should be aware that correlation is not necessarily related to causation. You might wish to plot the amount of heat involved in the generation of CO2 required to account for the increased CO2 concentration, including a factor to account for the increased natural sinking which occurred as a result of the injection of vast quantities of both CO2 and H20 plant food into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.
I leave it to you. Thanks.
Mike, thank you for tracking down the precise statement by the WMO about the 30 year number. (Note my immediate follow-up pointing out that I meant ” running mean of weather” where I incorrectly wrote “running mean of climate”.)
In case anyone is interested, they may wish to compare Vaughan’s assertion with the actual WMO definition.
Yep. 30 years, just as I said.
I also point out that most authorities use the word “mean” as a synonym for “average”.
As did I when I wrote “running mean”, also known as “moving average”, or “boxcar filter”, or “gated integrator”, or various other names. Typically the centered running mean is used, meaning that the climate at any given time (to within half a year when the number of years is even) is defined as the average over the 15 years on either side of that time, totaling 30 years.
Excel incidentally prefers “AVERAGE” over “MEAN”. If your time series is in A1:A165 and you want the 60-year running mean in B30:B135 (centered to within half a year) then you put =AVERAGE(A1:A60) in B30 (since there is no B30.5) and then fill down to B135, either by dragging the fill handle—the + at the bottom right corner of B30—or by selecting B30:B135 and pressing CTRL-D for fill down. Almost as easy as PI().
In the case of 60-year climate, that lops off 30 years at each end of the data (well, 29 at the start, to be exact), which is why the green curve in the plot I referred to, based on data from 1850 to 2015, only runs from 1880 to 1985.
MF: In answer to your question, yes. You should be aware that correlation is not necessarily related to causation.
Again, thank you for pointing that out. If correlation was causation I wouldn’t have needed to ask my question
Technically you answered my question “Do you … have an explanation for …” when you said “yes”. The rest of what you wrote answered a different question. In case I was unclear let me rephrase my question more clearly.
How would you explain why that rise is so steady, and getting steeper all the time?
No Mike Flynn
The climate never changes.
The weather changes, but the climate remains the same.
There are TWO definitions of climate.
google Koppen and have a nice day.
Mosh
Surely when I have mentioned Koppen in the past you have been dismissive of them as having any value?
. It was in the context of it being intersting to see a proper BEST type study made to determine what sort of changes each of these climate classifications have experienced compared to the global averages whereby the nuances are lost
Tonyb
There are TWO definitions of climate. google Koppen.
Which definition is the one used here:
http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/pac/Lefevre-BNF-Louvre-5-mars-2009.pdf
I don’t see any criteria in Köppen’s classification that would govern the microclimate of the Louvre.
The climate never changes.
How do you reconcile that with the following from the Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
“Over the recent years, there has been an increasing interest in using the classification to identify changes in climate and potential changes in vegetation over time. The most important ecological significance of the Köppen climate classification is that it helps to predict the dominant vegetation type based on the climatic data and vice versa.”
In any event my understanding was that the current discussion was about global mean surface temperature. If anyone but Steve was talking about the Köppen-Geiger climate classification then that could explain the appearance of talking at cross purposes.
Steven Mosher,
You wrote –
“No Mike Flynn
The climate never changes.
The weather changes, but the climate remains the same.
There are TWO definitions of climate.
google Koppen and have a nice day.”
Are you pretending to be dense? I understand the need for the Warmists to Wriggle, Wiggle, Waffle, and generally resort to nit picking, goalpost changing, and confusing the issue, but you appear to be going to extremes, surely!
You might consider seeking an alternative way of wasting your time, if this is the best you can do! TWO definitions of climate! Have you looked at a dictionary recently? How many seperate definitions and synonyms for the word “climate” do you see? Only TWO? I can only suggest that you may have only consulted the Warmist Dictionary, which bears only a passing and feeble resemblance to a real dictionary, as used by normal people.
Be scientific Steven! Think about it! If you wish to change definitions in mid stream, you then might need to answer the question –
“If the climate never changes, why all the fuss about Climate Change?”
No need for climatologists, no need for any further research. You don’t need to waste any more of your valuable time altering the past.
All you need to do is tell the WMO, the IPCC, and the rest of the climatological community how stupid they are, and that Steven Mosher has decreed that The Climate Never Changes! You Are All Fools!
I’m not sure how that will go over. How will the Warmist community continue to maintain the climate of fear they have worked so assiduously to engender? Hopefully, that climate, at least, might be subject to change in the future.
It’s all good fun, and about as productive as watching football, listening to music, or thinking about the interesting properties of the Cantor set(s). I threw in the last one just to impress you – you may have no idea of how Cantor sets relate to anything in climatology.
Oh well, maybe you are so smart, you don’t need any more knowledge. I’m not sure whether I should envy you in that case. It might be boring, but only you would know, I guess.
Have fun.
Interesting link to NAS; “Climate Intervention Carbon Dioxide removal and reliable sequestration” by NAS just published with Dr Marcia McNutt as chair of group.
link below;
http://www.national-academies.org
Free PDF if one registers with NAS.
Scott
better link.;
http://www.nationalacademies.org/ocga/briefings/ocga_156587
Scott
McNutt was editorializing in an editorial. She never said the science is settled. She said “The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed. ” She is arguing for what Paulo Freiere called praxis.
@JD: She never said the science is settled. She said “The time for debate has ended….”
And somehow that makes her different from Senator Inhofe?
(Sorry, I’m just a logician. Knee-jerk response.)
One of the flaws in McNutt’s argument is that 2 degrees C might be a big hassle, a problem, Miami under water and STILL be preferable to shutting down all coal plants and keeping the third world in the dark. The IPCC volume dealing with impacts is full of grey literature, studies showing what “might” happen, shoddy studies, and blatantly false claims (like about malaria which used to be endemic in Siberia, like about the Himalayan glaciers). Rigor nowhere to be found.
Craig Loehle | July 7, 2015 at 4:49 pm | Reply
One of the flaws in McNutt’s argument is that 2 degrees C might be a big
Total GHG forcing to date is around 1.05 W/m2 over 115 years
How do we get to an additional 7.4 W/m2 in 85?
Craig, I believe, similar to the rationale I just expressed about McNutt’s editorial; that once one drills down into the “grey literature” it becomes obvious this sort of information is orchestrated messaging for the purpose of establishing a messaging beachhead that has the right pedigree to be referenced and used in media to sell the broad narrative about AGW. Sincere scientists look at this sort of information and are drawn into debate about its veracity which is understandable, but rigor is irrelevant to the purpose of advancing the agenda using whatever tools that can appropriated, which includes propaganda.
People like McNutty are just collecting gold stars with quid pro quo in their march towards power and influence.
I have recently spoken to a number of people in the Forest Service and they told me they don’t dare say anything against the climate catastrophe–it would be career ending.
It would be interesting to take a random sample of “people in the Forest Service” to see their opinion of Craig Loehle.
Pingback: Climate news: “The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed.” | The Fabius Maximus website
Time will put an end to this. I expect a drop in global temperatures before this decade ends. This should put an end to it.
McNutt it will put an end to your foolishness based on wishful thinking.
@SdP: Time will put an end to this. I expect a drop in global temperatures before this decade ends. This should put an end to it.
What’s your Plan B? Seriously, now. Will you shut up, or will you keep on predicting a drop?
Prayer beads. Jeebus.
I will keep predicting the temperature drop because AGW theory is garbage and all the data is being manipulated to give this theory a little more life before it becomes obsolete which will be before this decade is out!
In the end the ONLY thing that matters is who is correct and who is not.
I intend on being correct.
@SdP: In the end the ONLY thing that matters is who is correct and who is not.
If you google
the only thing that matters
you will be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with you.
And if you’re wrong about that you’re probably wrong about everything.
Off topic but an interesting question for all of us to sort out for ourselves. Being correct about any issue isn’t terribly important to me and I strongly suspect that very few will care enough to acknowledge this whenever such a thing comes to pass. The most important things in life change as we get older but the quality of being curious is IMO a gift to be cultivated as long as we live.
I never have occasion to disagree strongly with PD. I am delighted to have this occasion to agree strongly with him.
That was my underlying thought Beth. +10
Good to find that we agree on something as vital as this VP
Curiosity is acceptable as long as it leads you to accepting “climate change as caused by human activity and the need to urgent action and the need to demonize anyone who stands in our way”.
Oh we weren’t talking about real curiosity?
Really. We shall see.
Curiosity is acceptable as long as it leads you to accepting “climate change as caused by human activity and the need to urgent action and the need to demonize anyone who stands in our way”
Good point. The other side of the climate debate would never dream of demonizing the climate scientists or their subject. They’re much holier than that.
Evidence matters else any fried egg theory is as good
as anuther. But weather we have the truth, the whole
truth and nuthin; but…qui sait, qui sait? In the long run,
as Peter says, curiosity counts, fer curiosity’s the thing
whereby we may unravel something of the mystery out
there like the riddle of the sphinx or magic number of the
universe… so fergit complacency, fergit alarmism and
guilt, c-u-r-i-o-s-i-t-y rules, not “rules”.”Thou shalt /not.”
Serf-on-the-littoral.
Gettin’ plus 10’s is so reassurrin’ PD, bur I hafta’
remind myself that I don’t *no* nuthin.’ )
@bts: I hafta’ remind myself that I don’t *no* nuthin.’
Not to worry, Beth. Even Newton admitted that he had to stand on the shoulders of giants to see where he’d put his keys. (They had tall ceilings in those days.)
But do keep reminding us, that’s the sort of thing we tend to forget.
Pingback: Tutto torna, per il bene della scienza | Climatemonitor
Pingback: De zwartste dag van “Science” - Climategate.nl
Pingback: » Dot Earth Blog: Avoiding a Climate Inferno
Pingback: Judith Curry: Dismissing our Points is “Quashing Debate. ” When We Dismiss., Disparage and Misrepresent Your Points or Claims, That is Debate! | Climate Solutions and Analysis
Pingback: Hva er felles for USA’s vitenskapsakademi og Nord-Korea? | Klimarealistene
Pingback: Climate: investigation alarmism and irrresponsible science writing. | Catallaxy Files
The religious hysteria underlying this is now as clear cut as I said it was almost 20 years ago. The lineaments of the redistributionist scam is become more so than I had foreseen. Now it makes sense from the religious left’s internationalist socialism viewpoint and it’s all beginning to fit in with subjective perversion of every kind of law from human to scientific.
Hey, I like it. We’re from the religious right and we’re into objective perversion. Come join us, send us your contact info. ;)
We all have a right to make a big deal about climate change, i mean excess co2. Thus, we don’t really have to know more than the simple 8th grade basics. Why? Because it’s a simple fact that too much co2 will change the biosphere. That’s planetary folks (“global” is just a little muddled anymore).
What I have to agree about is people without “proper” positions promoting solutions like improper ideological social changes such as limiting energy use instead of promoting a better source than fossil fuels.
Limitation is only a solution as the form of efficiency. We still need gobs of energy, non fossil energy to power futureworld. Therefore wet all have aright to get downright fanatical about it.
I want to edit: NO person is qualified to even suggest that we must limit our consumption because we have the science to provide even more energy than that of even fossil fuels – and safely.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
@jc: But my main concern is this – the editorial was published in Science and written by McNutt who is the CHIEF EDITOR for Science.
Not to worry, Judy. Editors of ostensibly serious magazines sometimes say the weirdest things.
One of my areas of interest is vacuum technology (I have a basement full of vacuum equipment) and I’ve been subscribing to Vacuum Technology & Coating for over a decade. It has very serious stuff that I pay close attention to.
So I was quite startled by one of its editorials by its publisher, Richard A. Cowan, who went on and on about how Obama was born in Kenya.
Perhaps he was right. Perhaps McNutt is right. In neither case do I care. I focus on the data itself, not on what others make of the data.
These days I’m increasingly amazed at the diversity of interpretations of the data. It’s like the data itself didn’t even exist, or at least didn’t deserve to.
You should be paying attention to the science. If you’re in a frame of mind where you get worked up about what silly editors say, you’re missing out on the bigger picture that science has to offer.
My issue is this: journals editors can use the editorials as a rationale for biasing review and acceptance of journal papers. Other than that, I don’t care what Marcia McNutt says.
Judy,
link to latest that Dr. Marcia McNutt says:
better link.;
http://www.nationalacademies.org/ocga/briefings/ocga_156587
Scott
thx
journals editors can use the editorials as a rationale for biasing review and acceptance of journal papers
It doesn’t matter what the magazine is, Judy. Editorials are not the same thing as peer-reviewed science. When people editorialize they are expressing opinions, with no peer review. Any journal editor that bases their reviews on unreviewed opinions expressed in editorials, no matter how famous the editorializer, instead of on properly reported and reviewed research in scientific papers is incompetent.
You have a very low opinion of journal editors when you accuse them of being incapable of thinking for themselves.
Vaughn, you are missing two big points:
1) Nobody’s ever heard of the journal “Vacuum Technology and Coating”. Everyone’s heard of Science magazine.
2) Nobody cares what some obscure journal’s editor might say about Obama and Kenya. On the other hand, what the editor of Science says about science has a potential to affect the whole of science.
And claiming in ANY science field as half-baked as climate that “the time for debate is over” is, in my book, a Science editor going way, way over the line. That’s an unethical attempt to put the butcher’s thumb on the scientific scales.
But then, I warned people last year that Ms. McNutt was not a reliable source, and I took a lot of grief for not being politically correct about it. Well, political correctness be damned, I was correct where it counts, in my assessment … the woman is indeed a danger to science.
w.
And claiming in ANY science field as half-baked as climate that “the time for debate is over” is, in my book, a Science editor going way, way over the line.
As I said, Willis, “Editors of ostensibly serious magazines sometimes say the weirdest things.” If you’re reading that as my disagreeing with you then I’m clearly not communicating clearly.
Science progresses by debating points of disagreement. It’s always been that way, and always will. The opinion expressed in that editorial that “The time for debate is over” is weird, or at least ill-considered, not to mention entirely unnecessary for her call to action. In fact it is counterproductive to that call because it can be read as advocating charging ahead with eyes closed, which would be extremely unwise.
Equally weird is getting worked up over that opinion, since no matter which side the opinion-holder takes there will be plenty of people upset by it. It’s the nature of editorials.
What makes much more sense for you to get upset about is not whether she’ll have any effect on stifling debate, which seems highly unlikely, but whether her call to action will be heeded, which may be more likely.
If a superior being offered you the superpower of being able to prevent a likely action that might unwisely spend trillions of dollars, or that of preventing the lower-probability event of the debate over climate change being stifled, and you could only choose one, how would you choose? Would you stand on principle and let the money be wasted, or would you forgo your principles in the hope that maybe no one can ever stifle that debate, and leap into action to stop the hemorrhaging?
That is some really lame BS, doc. The Vacuum Coating whatever publisher clown is not trying to shut off a scientific debate of great importance for public policy. You are embarrassing yourself.
How does one go about “shutting off scientific debate?”
Don, I see you have not lost your sense of humor. People decided years ago whether the debate was over or not, and they’re all settled into their positions. What proportion of Science’s 130,000 subscribers and 440,000 online readers (1st paragraph of the Wikipedia article) who think it’s not over are going to take McNutt’s word for it that it is now over? One percent maybe?
Which would be less than 0.0001% of the world’s population.
Those journal editors who do consider the debate over are not going to change their reviewing criteria merely because the Science editor-in-chief agreed with them.
And those who don’t are unlikely to suddenly change their minds on account of an editorial by someone they probably didn’t agree with in the first place. They might get upset with McNutt, like Judy did, but they’re getting upset over something that is not going to have the dire impact forecasted by Judy.
Gosh, suddenly I’m a skeptic. ;)
NO person is qualified to even suggest that we must limit our consumption because we have the science to provide even more energy than that of even fossil fuels – and safely.
God, the rubbish one reads on CE. Judy, don’t you find it embarrassing to be the moderator here? Even Anthony Watts runs a tighter ship.
Vaughan Pratt,
If you don’t like it, don’t read it!
Start your own blog. Ban everyone who doesn’t agree with you. Maybe that will get the world warming. Nothing else seems to be working, does it?
@MF: If you don’t like it, don’t read it!
If you don’t like what I write, Mike, don’t comment on it.
Vaughan Pratt,
Why not? That seems to be the idea, on a blog which provides for comments.
Don’t you agree?
The people suggesting that we limit energy consumption fall into one of several camps:
1. Control freaks (socialist progressives).
2. The economically/politically/career motivated (people doing it for gain or because we are paying them to lie).
3. The victims of bad analysis.
There have been some common ground improvements to refrigerators, air conditioners, lights, computers (things that use a lot of power).
At this point it is cheaper to generate more power than improve efficiency. Things follow a 90/10 rule – you get 90% of the benefit with 10% of the cost and it just isn’t worth going after the last 10%. We have spent the 10% plus some and eliminated the low hanging fruit.
The people who suggest we spend 90% for a 10% improvement in the energy or environmental areas are members of quasi-religious groups who are motivated by ideology and whose arguments only make sense to members of the group themselves.
Or the misinformed.
Vaughan Pratt my plan B is to put a stop to the blind leading the blind, and present an alternative theory as I show below which is much more comprehensive then AGW theory and conforms and explains the temperature trends that have taken place of late(last 8000 years or so-present ) based upon the historical climatic data not manipulated.
The last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest of the Holocene overall.
Most of the Holocene temperature loss ~-1.5°C has been in the last 3 millennia since 1000BC
edhoskins says which is spot on.
Going forward the long term climate drivers Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability (secondary effects),and these factors which moderate the first two factors those being , Geo Magnetic Field Strength (enhancing solar variability when weak)., Land /Ocean Arrangements., Ice Dynamic are all in an overall cooling pattern since the Holocene Optimum.
The warm periods since the Holocene Optimum being tied to solar variability which is superimposed upon the general climatic trend. MEDIEVAL ,ROMAN warm periods to name two.
Further refinement to the temperature trend since the Holocene Optimum ,coming from ENSO, PDO/AMO phase and Volcanic Activity.
I would say all the above when combined and superimposed upon one another can account for all of the climatic changes since the Holocene Optimum – Present Day.
Therefore going forward the trend in the global temperature should be down as soon as the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends and solar activity in general remains at sub-solar levels which it has been since 2005, and approaches my low average value solar parameters going forward, with a sufficient duration of time at or around these values.
Solar Flux 90 or less, AP index 5.0 or less, Solar Wind 350 km or less to name some of them.
These values much above these levels during the maximum of solar cycle 24 through today , although the maximum of solar cycle 24 is very weak, however the balance of this decade going forward should feature these low solar parameter readings as the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 ends ,and once this is takes place I fully expect the global temperature trend to be in a jig saw down trend.
The latest temperature data keeps intact what I say in the above which is CO2 has no effect upon the temperature, it is all ENSO,PDO/AMO ,and Volcanic Activity driven (short term climatic factors) which are superimposed over the longer term climatic factors, which I mentioned in the above which now all point to cooling going forward.
For all the talk about AGW it has done nothing to bring us into a new climatic regime ,we are simply in the same climatic regime post the Dalton Minimum , with climate variability associated with the 11 year rhythmic solar cycle ,pdo/amo phase, volcanic activity and enso.
For the big picture Milankovitch Cycles(favorable for cooling on balance in contrast to 8000 years ago), the weakening Geo Magnetic Field and the switch from active to inactive solar activity post 2005 will work to bring the climate into a cooler and possibly a climatic regime change, maybe back to Dalton conditions.
Land /Ocean arrangements so very favorable for cooling ,and the Ice Dynamic in the S.H. becoming very interesting.
> For the big picture Milankovitch Cycles
For a biggest picture:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/gallery/ptemp_browse.jpg
Source: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=169
If it’s not big enough, click to enlarge.
Maybe it’s a picky point, but that thermometer is way off. The planets are shown from the perspective of someone far away from it. From that perspective, if you take the planet’s temperature with an IR thermometer you’ll get a vastly different picture.
Using albedo a and orbital radius r in gigameters of 0.9 and 108.2 for Venus and 0.3 and 149.6 for Earth, and using the formula 5775*sqrt(sqrt(1-a)*.348/r) for effective temperature, the thermometer will show Earth at 254.8 K (−18.4 °C) and Venus at 184.2 K (−88.0 °C),
Brrr.
What the scale needs to disambiguate this is a label to the effect that it’s surface temperature. That should be on the figure, not buried a few paragraphs into the article.
Why not? That seems to be the idea, on a blog which provides for comments.
So you’re ok with my commenting on what you write when I don’t like it, but recommending that I don’t read it.
I often get the feeling that’s what you do when commenting on what I write, like when you answered my earlier question with “yes” and then answered a different question.
Vaughan Pratt,
Yes.
Vaughan Pratt, I suggest you save my climate prediction and then when the time is right you can (if you are man enough ) admit I was correct or on the other hand if I am wrong you can say I told you so. I stand by what I say.
Does that seem pretty fair and straight forward? and unlike AGW theory enthusiast if wrong, I will admit to it and will not try to spin/manipulate the data.
I suggest you save my climate prediction and then when the time is right you can (if you are man enough ) admit I was correct
Deal. (I’ll be admitting it to several people who’ve made a similar suggestion to me.)
or on the other hand if I am wrong you can say I told you so..
Couldn’t help noticing that you stopped short of promising that you’d be man enough to admit it. ;)
For definiteness my climate prediction based on HadCRUT4 since 1860, oceanic mixed layer depth on a 0.5×0.5 ° grid, rising CO2, Bz of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field, Earth orientation parameters since 1800, and the relevant physics is that a trend line fitted to HadCRUT4 for the period 2011 to 2021 will have an upwards slope of between 2 and 5 °C/century.
And if it turns out to be 6 °C/century I’ll be man enough to admit I was wrong.
What’s your prediction?
Here it is Vaughan.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity(which we have had ) 2005-2015.
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
© 2015 Southwest Weather, Inc. All Rights
As far as being correct in most things in life it is not all that important, but when it comes to this issue of climate change the arrogance of AGW enthusiast have made it to be so.
They are going to be put down before this decade ends as far as their absurd theory goes.
the arrogance of AGW enthusiast have made it to be so. They are going to be put down before this decade ends as far as their absurd theory goes.
Fight fire with fire. Par for the course.
It’s all so comical that us folks over at the Azimuth Project solved the ENSO modeling problem, while you are struggling with your credibility
http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/14739/#Comment_14739
How do you like them apples?
WebHubTelescope: It’s all so comical that us folks over at the Azimuth Project solved the ENSO modeling problem, while you are struggling with your credibility
http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/14739/#Comment_14739
Thank you for the link. That’s cool. Have you written out your prediction, or model results, for the next 18 months?
From the bottom of the page linked to:
Where are the pro climate scientists on this?
They may be waiting until a peer-reviewed account comes their way. The point of peer review is to save people’s time with a preliminary filter that avoids their having to judge every random website. Otherwise it’s terribly duplicative of the review process.
I commented on the AAAS and Science magazine in May 2014 (a blog on the demise of Lennart Bengtson after his joining the GWPF. Alan Leisher (former head of AAAS) had just issued a letter to AAAS members in May 2014 http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/ which (confirming AAAS desire to be on the lead wave of policy making) said, inter alia:
[quote] Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a large fraction of this country’s population and policymakers can’t seem to accept the fact that the climate is changing. It’s time to shift the debate from whether human-caused climate change is happening to what we can do about it. We need to make it clear that scientists believe that doing nothing now is extremely dangerous and could result in abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on future generations. And we need your help. AAAS recently launched a new initiative to expand the dialogue on the risks associated with climate change. At the heart of the initiative is the “What We Know” report, an assessment of current climate science and impacts that emphasizes the need to understand and recognize possible high-risk scenarios. But to have the greatest impact, we must do more than issue a report. We must continue to get the word out about the urgency of this issue. As members of the science community, we need to change the conversation from whether the earth is warming to just how we are going to work together to alter the course our planet is on. We have to reach out to the American people, to policymakers, and even to other countries about what science is showing about the dangers of climate change and the severe outcomes that could occur through inaction or continued resistance to change.[unquote]
I pointed out said seven statements by Leisher that are unsupportable with factual data and therefore are inconsistent with / do not represent the views of qualified critics with bone fides including those of participants in Judith Curry’s Climate Etc blog.”
Now… what happened to Bengtsson in 2013-2014 is happening right now to Dr. Ivar Giaever of the University of Colorado who has said, ““Global warming really has become a new religion … “Because you (are not allowed) to discuss it, it’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.” Giaever argues there’s been no global warming for the last 17 years or so (based on satellite records), weather hasn’t gotten more extreme and that global temperature has only slightly risen — and that’s based on data being “fiddled” with by scientists, he said. “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever said.
What’s all this fuss about Dr. Ivar Giaever?
Of the 37 Nobel laureates taking a public stand on global warming at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany this year, 36 signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change and one said that Obama was “dead wrong” on climate change.
That’s 97.3% advocating decisive action to minimize the substantial risks of climate change and 2.7% against.
This is to be expected. Nobel laureates are no different from other scientists in questions of science outside their specialty, they put on their pants or slacks one leg at a time just like all scientists.
Dr. Giaever is to be commended for doing his part to maintain the standard ratio of 3% among Nobel laureates.
Climate skeptics should be grateful for the 3%, without whom they would not have a leg to stand on, or put into their trousers.
Disclaimer: I have no position on rapid action, which is addressed by the IPCC’s Working Groups 2 and 3. My training qualifies me only for WG1 assessments and therefore I don’t feel my background gives me special insights into impact (WG2) and mitigation (WG3) of climate change. Dr. Giaever seems to feel no such compunctions.
Vaugh Pratt,
Get your numbers straight. There were 65 “laureates” participating in the meeting and 36 signed the manifesto. That’s roughly 50/50 where I come from.
The “fuss” about Ivar Gieaver is that he is a man of courage who is not afraid of being vilified by the green progressive mafia.
Pingback: Rafe’s Roundup 10 July | Catallaxy Files
Pingback: Rafe’s Roundup 10 July - Freedom's Floodgates
Nope. Congress needs to pass a law sunsetting all EPA regulations. Then, the EPA needs to find real science that justifies putting their regulations back in place.
“All the literature” is based on old, unreplicatable science (AFAIK: unless the data can be made properly available.). So it needs to be thrown out and re-done.
The question isn’t whether “PM2.5 is harmless”, it’s whether all PM2.5 is as dangerous as whatever the EPA studies used.
@Curryja
You write: “Some seem to think that I advocate for public policies (but they can’t really say which policies)”
It doesn’t bother you that you can’t see that how to address the issue of (geologically) radical long term atmospheric alteration is a public policy issue, and that speaking out against many suggestions of redress (while simply disparaging ideas of relevant redress most of the time) is part of policy advocacy?
In this case, you also continue to shed doubt about action because you conflate the inability to fully and exactly know the future, with a reason to not act, nor reasonably and objectively assess what we do know; so you instead find things to support doubt under the guise of “reasonable and objective” when there’s little of either about your posts here. Not to mention a fully reversed application of the “uncertainty monster” idea – you need to check out the real relevance of uncertainty here, as well as the massive presumption about what’s “good” for real healthy long term economic growth, that’s driving much of it.)
I guess to bother you would have to see it first.
Just like this: (emphasis added) “By stating ‘the time for debate has ended,’ she appears to be [impugnment of McNutt]…….The IPCC doesn’t think the time for debate has ended.” Namely, the ludicrous conflation of ongoing science learning – of the continued existence of the IPCC – with the notion that therefore debating whether to act (and thus NOT acting) has to be the appropriate course of action. To wit; Mocking the “debate being over” (which merely means it’s time to address this based on what we do know) because, to wit, “The” IPCC still exists, etc.
A much more illogical reasoning path could not have been possibly followed. Yet your piece does it – which apparently all your commenters, like almost all mistakes, missed.
I don’t like McNutt’s phrase because I’m not sure there has been an actual debate this millennium, but that’s nitpicking. And meanwhile we’re not having the debate and discussion we need to be; how best to mitigate net emissions, which in turn is only worsening rhetoric across the board
You want to argue we shouldn’t, you can do that. But others have the same right to not agree with you or state that that doesn’t create a “legitimate” debate over whether our actions are very likely significantly impacting our long term climate. And the editor of a science magazine certainly has the right to express that belief in an editorial, particularly when her basic assertion regarding what it’s time “to debate” happens to also represent the overwhelming consensus view of professional, practicing climate scientists. (Though skeptics have self deceiving tricks to convince that’s not true also.)
Sensible redress to mitigate net emissions or a widespread understanding that right now the overwhelming consensus – slowly growing for 30 plus years even while being attacked and picked apart and misrepresented from all angles and then some – is that there is no real debate as to whether our sudden multi million year atmospheric increase is impacting earth and ultimately its climate, and that this is likely being heavily amplified and the risks increasingly radicalized by continuing to pile on even more – also does not mean learning stops.
Nor that suddenly papers that would get more attention than any other by the nature of what science is and the fact that in particular it wants contrary (and “good” news) analysis – “Yay, some good news on climate change” – would get less attention; and your conflation and inflammatory insinuations otherwise is best case a full blown case of projection, since you seem unable or unwilling to objectively assess anything that conflicts with your view, and seem to cherry pick, misinterpret, and see out all that “appears” to support it – only further reinforced by the multitude of lopsided and often egregiously issue misconstruing comments that follow each of your posts – and perhaps wouldn’t even be able to even when it was specifically your job as editor of a magazine.
My response to your piece is here. You should read it.
Followup, here.
Sorry for the html mistake. They happen, and there isn’t a way to fix in the original.
Here is the comment:
@Curryja
You write: “Some seem to think that I advocate for public policies (but they can’t really say which policies)”
It doesn’t bother you that you can’t see that how to address the issue of (geologically) radical long term atmospheric alteration is a public policy issue, and that speaking out against many suggestions of redress (while simply disparaging ideas of relevant redress most of the time) is part of policy advocacy?
In this case, you also continue to shed doubt about action because you conflate the inability to fully and exactly know the future, with a reason to not act, nor reasonably and objectively assess what we do know; so you instead find things to support doubt under the guise of “reasonable and objective” when there’s little of either about your posts here. Not to mention a fully reversed application of the “uncertainty monster” idea – you need to check out the real relevance of uncertainty here, as well as the massive presumption about what’s “good” for real healthy long term economic growth, that’s driving much of it.)
I guess to bother you would have to see it first.
Just like this: (emphasis added) “By stating ‘the time for debate has ended,’ she appears to be [impugnment of McNutt]…….The IPCC doesn’t think the time for debate has ended.” Namely, the ludicrous conflation of ongoing science learning – of the continued existence of the IPCC – with the notion that therefore debating whether to act (and thus NOT acting) has to be the appropriate course of action. To wit; Mocking the “debate being over” (which merely means it’s time to address this based on what we do know) because, to wit, “The” IPCC still exists, etc.
A much more illogical reasoning path could not have been possibly followed. Yet your piece does it – which apparently all your commenters, like almost all mistakes, missed.
I don’t like McNutt’s phrase because I’m not sure there has been an actual debate this millennium, but that’s nitpicking. And meanwhile we’re not having the debate and discussion we need to be; how best to mitigate net emissions, which in turn is only worsening rhetoric across the board
You want to argue we shouldn’t, you can do that. But others have the same right to not agree with you or state that that doesn’t create a “legitimate” debate over whether our actions are very likely significantly impacting our long term climate. And the editor of a science magazine certainly has the right to express that belief in an editorial, particularly when her basic assertion regarding what it’s time “to debate” happens to also represent the overwhelming consensus view of professional, practicing climate scientists. (Though skeptics have self deceiving tricks to convince that’s not true also.)
Sensible redress to mitigate net emissions or a widespread understanding that right now the overwhelming consensus – slowly growing for 30 plus years even while being attacked and picked apart and misrepresented from all angles and then some – is that there is no real debate as to whether our sudden multi million year atmospheric increase is impacting earth and ultimately its climate, and that this is likely being heavily amplified and the risks increasingly radicalized by continuing to pile on even more – also does not mean learning stops.
Nor that suddenly papers that would get more attention than any other by the nature of what science is and the fact that in particular it wants contrary (and “good” news) analysis – “Yay, some good news on climate change” – would get less attention; and your conflation and inflammatory insinuations otherwise is best case a full blown case of projection, since you seem unable or unwilling to objectively assess anything that conflicts with your view, and seem to cherry pick, misinterpret, and see out all that “appears” to support it – only further reinforced by the multitude of lopsided and often egregiously issue misconstruing comments that follow each of your posts – and perhaps wouldn’t even be able to even when it was specifically your job as editor of a magazine.
My response to your piece is here. You should read it.
Followup, here.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #187 | Watts Up With That?
McNutt us an out and out ideologist and a danger to western science. She is the latest move in the takeover of our institutions by global warming activists. Although a minority they have already taken over most of our scientific societies. Lysenkoism was tried in the Soviet Union and it completely ruined their agriculture. The warmists want more – they want to shut down civilization. I have nothing to offer that would stop them except real science. It will eventually win. In this spirit I offer the comment below that I posted on the the web site of Science Magazine.
*******************************************************************
So now we are treated to pseudo-science on the editorial page of Science. There is absolutely no science in the assertiom that a “two-degree inferno” is real. McNutt takes it as a fact and develops a series of irrational proposals to save us from that imaginay inferno. She considers global warming so far-reaching in its impact, so dire in its consequences,and so likely to occur that it has engaged all nations in risk mitigation. Fact is, this pseudo-scientific movement has misled politicians to “risk mitigation” that is totally worthless. The best way to save the reputation of Science as a leading science magazine is to fire her forthwith. The truth is that there is no warming now and there has been none for 18 years. The stoppage in warming I speak of is called a hiatus. It manifests itself by the lack of greenhouse warming when carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere. We know how much CO2 is added from the Keeling curve. We can use the Arrhenius theory of greenhouse warming to tell us how much warming to expect. For all these 18 years the Arrhenius greenhouse theory, used by IPCC, has been telling us to expect warming but we got nothing. A scientific theory whose predictions are wrong is considered invalid and belongs in the waste basket of history. There is an alternative theory called MGT (Miskolczi greenhouse theory) whose predictions accurately describe the lack of greenhouse warming that the Arrhenius theory could not handle. The distinction between the two is that MGT recognizes that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere like Arrhenius does. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and there is ten times as much of it in the air as there is of carbon dioxide. They both simultaneously absorb infrared radiation and it is for us to sort out how they divide up that task. According to MGT they establish a joint absorption window in the IR whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb as Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as it happens water vapor will start to diminish and rain out, the original optical thickness is restored, and no warming takes place. The predicted observation is that addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will not cause any warming, and that is exactly what we have now.. It nullifies McNutt’s preaching of an imaginary 2 degree inferno and her catastrophic warming scenarios.
Arno Arrak
****************************************************************
I don’t want to take a chance on the skeptics being wrong. Water vapor precipitates, excess co2 doesn’t. Thus the (already) observed warming trend, as rising sea levels, loss of ice and increasing bark beatles, lowering of the pH of surface waters, etc.
Now, the last thing to promote is energy rationing (as that is the effect that most iinvironmentalists would cause by placing restrictions on FFs and nuclear). The solution to FF depletion is actually that even MORE powerful source which is advanced melt down proof closed cycle molten salt nuclear reactor global scale up. The only reason it’s “too” expensive is because of the environmentalists that use excess co2 as an excuse for that great satan: limitation.
Some scientists that think earth is going to get cold! Even has that 97% accuracy number in it!
“Scientists: Sun’s irregular ‘heartbeat’ could mean future freeze”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/world/sun-irregular-heartbeat-ice/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iref=obnetwork
Has a nice flowing 3:25 video with plot of the temp out past 2030. Peaked in 2014; low in 2020
Pingback: Judy Curry Uses Preposterous Logic, so Naturally our Half Anti-Science Congress Chooses to Use Her as One of Its Key “Experts” on Climate Change | Climate Solutions and Analysis
Pingback: Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review — Judith Curry | Climate Etc. | Taking Sides
Pingback: Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review | Enjeux énergies et environnement
Pingback: Political Answers on Climate Change By Charlie Martin | RUTHFULLY YOURS
Pingback: Ins and outs of the ivory tower | Climate Etc.