Week in review 8/25/12

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

It has been a very busy two weeks for me, next week is also very busy, hopefully by September things will settle down (for a month, anyways).  I haven’t been able to keep up with what is going on elsewhere in the blogosphere, or to develop any new content, but here a few things to stimulate discussion over the weekend.  I would like to thank those of you who have been sending me links via email

The adventures of Michael Mann

Over at Bishop Hill, I have been following the latest on Michael Mann’s lawsuits, particularly the pending suits against CEI and Mark Steyn/National Review.  Also over at Bishop Hill (also WUWT), they are discussing the latest tranche of emails obtained by CEI.

I am trying to figure out what Mann is trying to accomplish with these lawsuits.  I guess he is hoping to intimidate people into not saying negative things about him?  It seems to be backfiring, since his suits and threats of suits don’t seem to be slowing people down from criticizing him.  I imagine that CEI would relish a lawsuit and all the info they could obtain on discovery.  All this must be costing Mann a fortune, but I guess the Climate Scientist Defense Fund must be doing well?

I just spotted this new post over at RealClimate, written by Mann, entitled “Language Intelligence,” about a new book of this title by Joe Romm.  An excerpt:

The book is a de facto field guide for recognizing and assimilating many of the key tools of persuasive language and speech, something that is ever more important to science communicators who face the daunting challenge of having to communicate technical and nuanced material to an audience largely unfamiliar with the lexicon of science, sometimes agnostic or even unreceptive to its message, and—in the case of contentious areas like climate change and evolution—already subject to a concerted campaign to misinform and confuse them.

Well I haven’t read the book (don’t intend to), but it sounds like lessons in propaganda to me.

Climate science as culture war

The Stanford Social Innovation Review has a length article entitled Climate Science as Culture Wars.  Subtitle:   The public debate around climate change is no longer about science—it’s about values, culture, and ideology.   The material here is familiar territory for Climate Etc. regulars, but it provides a well written and comprehensive overview.  And it only uses the word ‘denier’ in the context of a discussion on recognizing the power of language and terminology.  The article is worth reading.

Climate change and Catholic guilt

The catholic culture blog has a very interesting article:  The Moral Downside of Climate Change.  The whole article is well worth reading, but I particularly like the closing paragraphs:

In any case, it will take far more study, with far more accurate and universally respected results, over a much longer period of time before our limited human comprehension can form a true picture of what is happening, why it is happening, whether it is a source of long-term concern, and whether there is anything particular to be done about it. Under these circumstances, making climate change into a moral priority—that is, a guilt trip—is extraordinarily imprudent. It will serve as more than a distraction. Like many a cause célèbre before it, climate change will become an excuse to ignore the damage done through human relationships that are sadly based on a rejection of God and the natural law.

As many a pundit has said in other contexts: It’s not the heat, it’s the humility. Or at least it ought to be. We could place greater trust in researchers who recognize this. And if all the rest of us could recognize it too, and so stop our endless rebellion against the real moral law, even the environment would benefit.

It’s not the heat, it’s the humility.  Quote of the week.

Tropical Storm Isaac

Sometime next week i will do a post on Isaac, describing some new developments in extended range hurricane forecasting.  For those of you living on the Gulf Coast, our current forecast is for Isaac to develop into a hurricane (most likely weak), at landfall at most a Cat 1 (probably a TS).  In terms of landfall location, our forecast has been consistently tending westward of the National Hurricane Center’s forecast.  Our cone of uncertainty is starting to narrow, with the track distributions centered around Pensacola FL and Mobile AL.  Looks like Mitt Romney and co are off the hook for a Tampa landfall.

Arctic sea ice

Blogs are atwitter with discussion of a possible record low Arctic sea ice extent this year.  The Arctic Sea Ice Graphs site keeps track of all available sea ice data and analyses.  Depending on which data set you look at, the Arctic sea ice extent is approaching or has surpassed the record minimum extent (for the period since 1979) in 2007.  There are even predictions of an ice free Arctic Ocean by the end of Sept.  I’ll do a post later in Sept on “what is going on and what does all this mean.”   But in the mean time, here is highly confident prediction:  the Arctic Ocean will NOT be ice free by the end of Sept.  In fact, nearly all of thin and loosely consolidated ice has already melted (helped along by the big cyclonic storm in early Aug).  The remaining ice is consolidated near Greenland and the Canadian archipelago, and is at high latitudes where the autumnal cooling is well underway.  So I would suspect that there will be an earlier than usual sea ice minimum this year, with the minimum not getting much lower.

770 responses to “Week in review 8/25/12

  1. Michael Mann has hung himself by his own petard.

    • Even the NY Times is opening up to reality. This morning I was allowed to post these truths about the current pseudo-election campaign:

      “Climategate emails and documents that were released in Nov 2009 – and the strange response of world leaders and leaders of the scientific community to clear evidence of scientific fraud – have finally forced us to one undeniable conclusion: Politicians have shadow-boxed before TV cameras since 1945 to hide secret agreements to form a tyrannical one-world government to save the world (and themselves) from the threat of nuclear annihilation:

      http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-818

      Now it is time to “Reclaim your birthright !”

      Oliver K. Manuel
      Former NASA Principal
      Investigator for Apollo
      http://www.omatumr.com
      – – – –

      Some scientist, probably Fred Hoyle (FH), contacted another British writer of science fiction George Orwell (GO) in ~1946-47 and warned him that science was corrupted to obscure the energy (E) stored as mass (m) in the cores of heavy atoms like U and Pu, perhaps planets like Jupiter and Saturn, ordinary stars like the Sun, and galaxies.

      GO had already written “Animal Farm” about the rise of communism under Stalin before WWII. In 1948 GO wrote a futuristic novel, “Nineteen-Eighty (1984)” to warn society of the disaster ahead when a tyrannical government distorts information and uses electronic surveillance to control people.

      http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

      We steadily moved toward 1984, except for a brief disruption of plans when John F. Kennedy (JFK) unexpectedly won election in Nov 1960. Tensions rose in 1961, 1962 and 1963 as the USSR launched the first human into space, the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, JFK announced the USA would use the Apollo program to win the space race, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the murder of JFK and the killing of his assassin.

      Richard M. Nixon (RMN) was elected in 1968. Henry Kissinger flew to China in 1971 and agreed to end the Apollo program. RMN announced that decision in Jan 1972, and world leaders were back on track to unite nations and end national boundaries, while politicians (Democrats and Republicans; Conservatives and Liberals; Capitalists and Communists) shadow-boxed before TV cameras.

      Sorry I couldn’t decipher the puzzle before the Climategate surfaced in 2009.”

      http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obama-relentless-negativity-article-1.1143143?comment=true

    • Uhhh, I believe it’s hoisted, not hung, by his own petard. A petard being a bomb used to blow a hole in a castle. I suppose we could say he has hung himself on his own yardarm, but it lacks the panache.

      • More like, instead of any physical damage from an actual explosion between the legs, the science of Mann is more like a wet péter’ in a crowd

      • Michael Mann is simply a pawn in a big-stakes game that frightened world started in 1945 to save themselves and the world from annihilation by “nuclear fire” !

        George Orwell warned us of this in 1948:

        http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

        I recognized serious problems ahead when the late Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I were ambushed at the National AGU in Washington, DC in April 1976, but couldn’t decipher the intrigue before witnessing the equally strange response of world leaders and leaders of the scientific community to Climategate after Nov 2009.

        Thanks to Professor Curry and others who publicly addressed deceit in government science, we finally have a chance to reclaim our birth-right, provided:

        a.) Politicians don’t start a war to stay in power, and
        b.) We don’t waste time and energy on pawns like Michael Mann.

    • “the enginer Hoist with his owne petard” -Hamlet
      = sapper exploded with his own bomb

      • Figuratively, Mann is now harmed by his association with Penn and CRU, both organizations fhat formerly fhad been useful to him to bring about harm to others…

  2. Dr. Curry

    What is Dr. Mann attempting to accomplish by his lawsuits?

    I can’t really comment, as I don’t know the details of all the odious business, however as a general principle if someone names you a pedophile on a national forum, at length and with great enthusiasm, and you have asked them to stop and retract and they go on to become more insistent.. I think that might be in and of itself sufficient explanation for suing them, with no need for a deeper agenda. That the National Review has apparently flaunted with extreme contempt the purpose of the discovery process to patently attempt to avoid a lawsuit by bullying Dr. Mann.. hardly endears their conduct to one, or raises the opinion of the civil-minded about their morals or ethics. Certainly, they’ve lost any semblence of truth.

    Or do you think calling colleagues pedophiles merely to demean their conclusions is fun, and fair game, in Science?

    • If you have actually read the articles in question then you know they did not call him a pedophile, or even compare him to one. The reference to Sandusky was an indictment of PSU investigative methods.

    • Having spent 3 years at Penn State (1989-1992) and doing my best to leave as quickly as possible (after encountering much unpleasantness that got swept under the rug by the administration), I have a pretty good understanding of the problems with the Penn State administration. No one has called Mann a pedophile, but IMO it is legitimate to point out the problems in the Penn State administration as evidenced by the football scandal.

      • Why not let the evidence speak for itself?

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn

        In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:

        I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

        Note that Rand Simberg’s post was retracted with apology. NR’s, not.

        But if you’re going to compare someone to a person whose personal morality doesn’t come out looking too good among your readers for the sake of trying to torpedo their arguments, at least learn from how the real professionals do it without exposing themselves to lawsuit:
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/24/suing-mark-steyn-for-libel-has-michael-mann-ever-heard-of-oscar-wilde/

        Though those gloating about the power of discovery ought be reminded there’ve been nine inquiries involving Mann; discovery was part of half of them; they got noplace. And contemptuously announcing you invite a case simply to profit by discovery will not endear you to most judges.

      • How about this one, talking about a corrupt agency. Three people were put in charge by the USA anti-doping agency to nail Lance Armstrong. One of them was Clark Griffith, a Republican product of wealth, who earlier this year essentially plead guilty to molesting a female student.
        Old man Clark Griffith goes at the top of the list of all time nasty hypocritical thugs.

      • So where would Bill Clinton rank in your panoply of nasty hypocritical thugs? Teddy Kennedy?

      • Clark Griffith was the son of the Minnesota Twins baseball franchise owner Calvin Griffith. Everyone knows that sports franchise owners are the great leaches of public funding, preying on homerism of gullible sports fans and cowardly politicians that give in. The molester son Clark Griffith frequented the local Republican talk shows and has never done anything to serve the public good . He got caught molesting once, so he likely did it more often. Beyond that, going after Lance Armstrong and indirectly all the charitable works that Armstrong has done has made him a pathetic excuse of a human being.

        My view on steroids and doping is mixed. I know that usage leads to anger and rage issues (i.e. roid rage) but Armstrong has never shown any of those side effects. He is possibly more of a medical miracle than anything else. His chemotherapy could have somehow changed his natural metabolism to use oxygen more effectively. Who knows?

        I also have a huge interest in improving personal transportation. What if drugs could improve muscle recovery and could be made safe? This could extend people’s ability to get around on human-power further on in their years.

      • Steven Mosher

        You need to understand the logic of metaphors.

        When I say ‘nixon is a rat’ I am not literally claiming that he has a tail
        and eats garbage. A metaphor asserts that there is a subset of predicates
        that apply to each entity. There are some exceptions to this such as
        “no man is an island” . The goal in interpreting a metaphor is finding those set of predicates that are true of both entities.
        At the level of syntax a metaphor looks like a statement of identity, but sematically it works if and only if it picks out a subset of predicates.
        Love is Love, doesnt work as a metaphor. Love is a puppy, works.

        Reading the text you can see exactly what predicates They intend for the reader to pick out. Mann “could be said” to be Sandusky because he tortured and molested data. That sentence tells you which predicates are picked out. While the metaphor is way over the top as far as civil discourse goes it’s par for the course in today’s climate debate.
        I suspect no law suit will arise, especially if they have a look at the irregularities surrounding the penn state investigation. One look into the “recusal issue” and Mann’s lawyers will wise up.

      • You need to understand the logic of metaphors.

        The “logic” is that Mann is being analogized to a pedophile.

        Nice way to stand in opposition to the “tribalism” in the debate, steven.

      • Reading the text you can see exactly what predicates They intend for the reader to pick out. Mann “could be said” to be Sandusky because he tortured and molested data

        Seriously. That has to be some of the worst dissembling I’ve seen yet in the climate debate. You’re trying to say that he compared Mann to a pedophile to make a point about the validity of Mann’s science?

        Hilarious.

      • Steven Mosher

        No Joshua I am explicating the metaphor, although they already did it for the reader in the text. I grant that the metaphor is gross, uncivil, over the top. you name it. I’m doing exactly the same thing I would do if someone analogized a skeptic with a holocaust denier. or if someone called me a nazi. I think any properly informed jury would see the difference between me literally calling you a serial killer and me saying that you were the ted bundy of the blogosphere, kidnapping and killing every conversation.

        I suppose if you or willard want to challenge my explantion of how metaphor works I can dig around and find the references from Lakoff and Johnson. Bottom line: mann can sue for catecresis, probably not libel.

      • I grant that the metaphor is gross, uncivil, over the top.

        I think that there is little else to say of meaning here. It is tribalism in a rather base form. Decoding the semantics of the metaphor misses the real meaning. It’s trees for forest stuff. It was obviously meant as an insult by virtue of comparing Mann to a pedophile.

        Personally, I could care less about how the semantics overlap with the legal analysis. Perhaps you’re more interested in the semantics.Fine.

        For me, however the court rules or however someone parses the semantics doesn’t change the intent of the analogy (and I see it as more an analogy than a metaphor).

      • Josh,

        I know that your reading comprehension is good enough to have understood what was written in the piece.

        So why make this statement?

      • tim –

        Which piece?
        Which statement?

      • Steven Mosher

        Joshua if you want to see it as an analogy that is fine. There is a close relation between the two. It could also be taken as a similie. In any case,
        I think the better case for them rests on the charge of “fraud”
        If a bad analogy is enough to occasion a libel lawsuit, then I would expect the courts to be filled with violators of Godwins law.
        You should also note the slimy way they distanced themselves from actually making the claim themselves.

        compare: Joshua is a rat with ‘it could be said that Joshua is a rat’
        They didnt add those words for nothing. Those words are added to give plausable deniability. ‘we didnt say he was a such and such’ we wrote that it could be said. slimy. shows a consciousness of the impropriety of what they are writing.

      • Joshua,

        Please check this other one:

        > The vicious tone of Mann’s response to criticism was worthy of Andrew Fastow.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/10519534633

        Is it a metaphor or an analogy?

      • Steven Mosher

        catecresis or catechesis?

      • I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t the grounds for a lawsuit the accusation of fraud rather than the metaphor?

        The guy at NR has tried to soften the accusation by saying he didn’t mean Mann committed criminal fraud.
        So, perhaps NR does not want to try to defend itself against libel if the issue is an accusation of criminal fraud.
        Are there different kinds of fraud? I don’t know.

      • Excellent point Steve. They made a snide reference that he had molested the data. It’s supposed to be slightly humorous and mean and also to convey the point about his data handling.

        By the way I also liked this quite a bit: “I think any properly informed jury would see the difference between me literally calling you a serial killer and me saying that you were the ted bundy of the blogosphere, kidnapping and killing every conversation.”

      • Steven Mosher

        heh Bill, you liked the ted bundy one. I think however that example and the sandusty example share a certain flaw.

        A good metaphor or a good analogy illuminates or structures the unknown using the structure of the known.

        My metaphor about Joshua and the metaphor about Mann do not do this.
        They are not illuminating, we understand nothing better about mann situation. the metaphor is made because of the connotation. That is, the data irregularities in Mann’s work are not CLARIFIED by the metaphor they are framed in such a way that decent discourse about the factual matters are rendered impossible.

        This is not using metaphor as a way of knowledge. So while they look like they avoid calling him a pedophile , its exactly like those heartland billboards. defensible on purely legalistic grounds, but pretty wretched otherwise.

      • steven –

        Useful analogies are useful.

        Useless analogies are useless.

        Always have been, always will be:

        To have the bad form of quoting myself (from my moment of blog fame!):

        Joshua Says:
        February 3rd, 2012 at 9:59 am

        I don’t think that the [Lysenko and dentist analogy in the dueling editorials] are equally tortured. However, I do think that they both miss the larger point. IMO, the purpose of an analogy is to shed new light on a subject, to help someone understand something in a way that they didn’t before. Of course, analogies can also be used to chalk up rhetorical points – but in the context of the climate debate, IMO, that is a pointless exercise. People are running around scoring points as we get absolutely nowhere. No one was convinced of anything by either analogy. No one gained new insight from reading either analogy. The only purposed served by either analogy is to add fuel to the fire.

        http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/02/01/summing-up/

        The Mann as pedophile analogy serves no purpose, none, other than to fuel fires. “Skeptics” get to sit back and say “Ha, ha, isn’t that funny – comparing Mann to a pedophile. A real knee-slapper.”

        It’s cynical exploitation of the depravity of child molestation. It has no place in any aspect of scientific debate. Anyone who argues otherwise is just kidding themselves.

      • “Bottom line: mann can sue for catecresis, probably not libel.”

        Thanks, best laugh I’ve had all week.

      • Clmate Etc is favoured hang-out of convicted paedophiles.

        That’s not a metaphor, is it?

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        Joshua: You’re trying to say that he compared Mann to a pedophile to make a point about the validity of Mann’s science?

        The very sentence that uses the metaphor explicitly denies that Mann committed crimes or lewd acts against anyone. The metaphor of “torturing data” is so widely used as to be a cliche, equivalent to even a mild criticism of statistical methods. The really important direct comparison is between the two investigations by Penn State officials, and I expect that to be understood by any American jury. It will be especially clear to the jury when the language of the two exonerating reports is read, in which the effectiveness of bringing money to Penn State is cited as exonerating evidence. That some climate scientists and Penn State administrators seem not to understand the point may mean that they are too biased or thick to serve on a jury.

        I personally am delighted that Mann is represented by attorneys for the “Merchants of Doubt”. After years of AGW believers and proponents decrying the influence of money, climate scientists are now being asked to pay the salaries of attorneys for Big Tobacco. It is too sweet for words.

        I also am delighted that the suit, if it proceeds, will be going against Mark Steyn. I may not agree with everything he says, but he says it very well. I probably won’t (in Voltaire’s phrase) “defend to the death [his] right to say it”, but I will certainly donate to his defense, should that seem necessary. I don’t think it will be necessary. Mark Steyn is paid to write, and he will be paid before, during, and after trial for writing about his experience and his point of view. I expect it to be great reading, handsomely rewarded.

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        Steven Mosher: defensible on purely legalistic grounds, but pretty wretched otherwise.

        It will be on purely legal grounds that the libel suit, should it proceed, will be decided. And should it go to court, I am sure that the point of the comparison, that it draws attention to two investigations by Penn State officials, will be repeatedly driven home in reporting on the trial, and driven home to the jury in the trial. However this affects public esteem for NRO, Investors Business Daily, Mann, Steyn, and other publications, the libel trial, should it proceed, will make the Penn State administration look worse and worse the longer the trial takes. I expect that every publication that ever published an editorial critical of AGW or policies advocated by AGW proponents will now follow IBD and publish editorials quoting the passage of Steyn that is the target of the libel suit.

      • Steven Mosher | August 25, 2012 at 1:53 pm |

        Where a lawsuit’s involved, it’s more important to understand the logic of Civil Law.. which I make no claims to apprehend in the slightest.

        However, the component look like this, according to legal loudmouths commenting so far for free (in law, free advice is worth every penny):
        1.) attempt to demean professional credibility removes the defense of the target is a public figure – you can call Nixon a rat, but if you say he’s committed criminal breach of trust, you’re liable for defamation;
        2.) knowing the charge false or not caring removes the defense of press freedom; saying Mann fell into your trap and you intend to use discovery to find information barred from you previously is ‘not caring’;
        3.) malice compounds; putting Mann in the same box as Sandusky’s marginally fair game, given Penn State’s many problems administratively (it’s not unique, by the way – in all forms of sexual assault and deviance, universities in America run at 2-20 times the average incidence, but try to get that published in a peer reviewed journal); repeating the slur with imputation that it is much more than just a common administration with a common issue about looking into problems, that’s malice, and it makes it plausible that the NR’s editor has handed Mann a Brinks truck of the NR’s money.

      • Michael said: this place is a favored hang-out of convicts. And like The Fight Club, you aren’t supposed to point out the fellow’s name.

        Because like the perp Clark Griffith, who went after Lance Armstrong, we have a combined perp/crackpot here who will go to great lengths to raise FUD, for whatever twisted reasons that suit him.

      • > Metaphors are the Rolls Royce of figures. Or, to put it more aptly, metaphors are the Toyota Prius of figures because a metaphor is a hybrid, connecting two dissimilar things to achieve a unique turn of phrase.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/480035578

      • Steven Mosher

        no man is an island.
        sometimes the lack of a connection works as well as a connection.
        some research into cognitive linguists ( start with the great linguistics wars) might be in order. next assignment will be to bring together heidegger, lakoff, and Derrida. Nietzsche if you are bold

      • Steven Mosher

        Check kiting is a wonderful metaphor. The other day someone asked me if I was going to publish a paper of metadata for station inventories because they needed to cite it in their work. The puzzlement was deep until I explained it with steve’s check kiting metaphor. The metaphor, if it works, structures the unknown with the conceptual framework of the known. But as frost wrote.. all metaphor breaks down. hmm, that’s either in one of his essays on poetry or his letters.. not sure. if you want an exact cite it may take a bit of searching.

      • Steven Mosher

        You can google frost on metaphor willard. You’ll find some interesting stuff.
        Nietzsche and Frost is also an tasty intellectual reeses peanut butter cup.

      • Here’s another good one:

        > Maybe this is a little more schizophrenic than it appeared at first blush. Like the NAS report.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/521848474

      • Speaking of Frost, who’s a God to me:

        > We dance round in a ring and suppose, / But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/6249746834

        Please don’t tell Chuck Norris.

      • Steven Mosher

        Ah willard. so glad you like frost. Somewhere around here I have the first 100 pages of a dissertation on him. it starts with.. the poem.. and walks
        a straight crookedness from there..

        http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173528

      • Technically, as there is no cause-and-effect, it’s not correct to say “logic of metaphors”; metaphorical reasoning, or reasoning by analogy is, strictly speaking, a form of magical reasoning, like teleurgy (gravity is a pull at a distance), contagion (once you’ve dropped food on a dirty floor, it’s contaminated by floor contact), similarity (a plant that looks like a liver will have medicinal properties that affect the liver), etc.

      • Technically speaking, metaphor theory is only metaphorical:

        > There is no single principle on which metaphor works.

        http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/dempsenp/bibliography/poetics/searlemetaphor.html

      • > Why not let the evidence speak for itself?

        Because it’s afraid of Chuck Norris.

      • Doug Badgero

        The article you post proves the point…………They did not call him a pedophile.

        Regarding the PSU inquiry:
        Even if Mann was an angel the inquiry was flawed. They claimed that Mann was above reproach simply because he was successful at raising funds and conducting research. There is a glaring logical flaw in that reasoning.

      • David Springer

        Bart R | August 25, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Reply

        “But if you’re going to compare someone to a person whose personal morality doesn’t come out looking too good among your readers for the sake of trying to torpedo their arguments, at least learn from how the real professionals do it without exposing themselves to lawsuit:”

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/24/suing-mark-steyn-for-libel-has-michael-mann-ever-heard-of-oscar-wilde/

        Mann just can’t catch a break. NRO compares him to a homasextual caught and imprisoned and now Forbes compares him to another famous homasextual caught and imprisoned. What gives?

      • David Springer | August 25, 2012 at 2:49 pm |

        Mann can’t catch a break from a barrage of persistent, mean-spirited, untrue and frankly dimwitted persecution.

        He’s not the arch-Climatologist in chief. He’s not the foremost proponent or thinker in AGW and Climate Change. His studies and figures aren’t the bulk or bullwark of the case for GHE. He isn’t the establishment, holds no position that could make him conceivably important in proportion to the efforts spent attacking him, and as far as I can tell, not particularly likely to find these tactics motivation to change his mind about the science facts.

        It’s a waste of time to go after him.

        See, I can get being a denialist — it’s a fundamental psychological aberration, like kleptomania. I can even get being a ditherist — paralysis by analysis and neurotic hesitancy are commonplace. But just wasting all these efforts on bullying one single guy? That’s just plain meanness. I’d cross the street to avoid coming into contact with that sort of stupid.

      • Bart R,

        Why the constant scapegoating, you ask?

        Here’s Ron Broberg’s explanation:

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

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

      • BartR,

        “He’s not the arch-Climatologist in chief. He’s not the foremost proponent or thinker in AGW and Climate Change. His studies and figures aren’t the bulk or bullwark of the case for GHE.”

        I couldn’t agree more. Mann started out as a grad student who wrote a paper that the movers and shakers in the CAGW activist camp realized would make a great icon for their movement. The hockey stick.

        As a scientist, he was too sloppy, and/or too vain, to get the help on statistics he so sorely needed. Once he was published, and his graph used as one of the central talking points of the movement, he and those in the movement who had adopted them had to circle the wagons and defend every deletion, every flip of a graph, every statistical gaffe, as though they were the work of Einstein.

        Personally, I think that in the dark of night, Gavin Schmidt dreams of chasing Mann around, beating him across the head and shoulders with a tree corer.

      • While the 2001 AR3 (or TAR) included the hockey stick, the AR4 in 2007 didn’t. The science moved on in the last ten years, but this bickering is stuck in the past. Can they find some IPCC referenced work since 2001 to complain about? It would be a discussion of more relevance.

      • “I’d cross the street to avoid coming into contact with that sort of stupid.”

        I used a similar line describing the scary stupid, specifically writing “if I saw him getting on the bus, I would wait for the next one”.

      • steven –

        Those words are added to give plausable deniability

        They aren’t the only ones who add words to ensure plausible deniability. Our dear Judith did it as well:

        No one has called Mann a pedophile, but IMO it is legitimate to point out the problems

        It is true that they didn’t “call” him a pedophile. But they freakin’ analogized him to a pedophile.

        When I parse the semantics there, I see a rhetorical flourish; a kind of combined ambigious antecedent and non-sequitur. How does “but” connect those two clauses? Why would calling him a pedophile affect the legitimacy of “point[ing] out the problems one way or another?”

        What happened in this case was a cynical exploitation of repulsion about child abuse for the purpose of scoring cheap political points. No more and no less.

        Honestly, I don’t think it matters in a certain sense. I certainly don’t worry about Mann’s feelings being hurt. Sticks and stones and all of that.

        My problem is when people who are trying to diminish the influence of tribalism – and I do believe that to be Judith’s goal – can’t get far enough out from under their own tribalism to be constructive rather than counterproductive. Just as Mann shouldn’t engage in such behavior, nor should anyone else. Each and every time that Judith turns a blind eye to tribalism among “skeptics” – whether it be McKitrick calling someone a coward or Steyn analogizing Mann to a pedophile – she misses an opportunity, IMO.

      • Steven Mosher

        Trust me Im well aware of the dangers of rhetorical excess. When I wrote for Big Government defending Jones against the charge of Fraud the comments I got back were not very nice. The rhetorical excess of charging him or mann with fraud, leads some to foment for legal action, where I think some institutional housecleaning is in order.

        Bascially we are in a position where mann charges people privately with fraud and other people charge him publically with fraud. I don’t want to adjudicate those cases. Rather, I would ask this question.

        Which is going to be more effective in restoring civility.

        Mann’s tribe pointing out the incivility of people on the other side.
        Mann’s tribe doing what they can to clean up discourse where they control it: on their side of the street.
        Balls tribe pointing out the incivility of people on the other isde
        Balls tribe doing what they can to clean up discourse where they control it. on their side of the street.

        It’s interesting to watch. I’ve been hanging out at nevens every day this year. Saying almost nothing. The discourse was very civil…basically no skeptics go there. Folks happily chat about the science and ice. As records fell, readers would venture out to “skeptic sites” and start some confrontations. (me too of course) and back home on the ice blog the discourse changed.. away from the ice towards politics. Quickly the regulars took control and admonished folks to keep their eyes on the ice..
        fascinating to watch. He runs a nice focused blog, you should read it.

        Nobody who participates in this discourse can clean up anybody elses act but there own and their own tribe (perhaps) And I fully recognize that I fail at that myself on a regular basis. I also recognize that its futile for me to point out the excess and lapses on all side. That just recapitulates the issue. Maybe before people build bridges we ought to practice building a peaceful island. More and more I’m coming to the realization that ravetz was right in Lisbon when he offered non violent communication as a path out.

        here at judiths ( and at keiths perhaps) its just open warfare. Actually two of the only places where you have actual engagement by both sides.
        If your interested in communication its fascinating to compare home turfs with the battleground sites. Interesting also to watch the sporatic raids on home turfs.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        That is an outstanding post Steven Mosher!

        (1) Forums like Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice are places where rational public discourse holds sway.

        (2) Forums like WUWT are places where denialism and abuse reign unchallenged.

        (3) Forums like Climate Etc are markets where both factions display their wares!   :grin:   :grin:   :grin:

        So it’s simple, eh?   :grin:   :grin:   :grin:

      • Yes – I liked that comment also:

        Mann’s tribe pointing out the incivility of people on the other side. Mann’s tribe doing what they can to clean up discourse where they control it: on their side of the street.

        Balls tribe pointing out the incivility of people on the other isde
        Balls tribe doing what they can to clean up discourse where they control it. on their side of the street.

        I consider those questions rhetorical, and agree with your rhetoric.

        I read Neven’s blog some. First started reading it when he got in a dust-up with Jeff Id, IIRC, just about when I first started looking at Air Vent.

        Nobody who participates in this discourse can clean up anybody elses act but there own and their own tribe (perhaps)

        Yup.

        And I fully recognize that I fail at that myself on a regular basis.

        The important failure isn’t really engaging in tribal discourse – I consider that a natural tendency for almost anyone (going back to the fundamental nature of motivated reasoning). The important failure, IMO, is in the hubris of thinking that you, yourself don’t do it, or that your group doesn’t do it, or that the balance isn’t more or less equal, and even more, the biggest failure lies in a lack of good faith effort to correct for that tendency.

        I also recognize that its futile for me to point out the excess and lapses on all side.

        Maybe so. My experience thus far has shown that very few on “the other side” will give me any benefit of doubt of good faith. Without trust, efforts at communication are mostly futile, I agree.

        That just recapitulates the issue.

        See comment above.

        Maybe before people build bridges we ought to practice building a peaceful island.

        I think no doubt.

        More and more I’m coming to the realization that ravetz was right in Lisbon when he offered non violent communication as a path out.

        I’m starting to think about a prioritized a list: (1) human capital as a solution and (2) stakeholder dialog as a means to get there – and I think that stakeholder dialog requires non violent communication.

        here at judiths ( and at keiths perhaps) its just open warfare. Actually two of the only places where you have actual engagement by both sides.

        I have some very unscientific (not quantified, not controlled for bias) thoughts about that. I actually think that there’s more dialog at Keith’s. Mostly because in general the “skeptics” in balance are of a higher caliber in terms of intent to communicate (I don’t think that is true of the “realists” there and wonder what might happen if that were true also). Purely speculative – but I think that is because Keith is more balanced. Here – non-violent “realists” like Moolton and Peeka get very little traction. My guess is that they’d get more traction at Keith’s if they showed up there. Thus my speculation that if Keith experimented with balancing his “schtick” more he might generate more non-violent dialog.

        If your interested in communication its fascinating to compare home turfs with the battleground sites. Interesting also to watch the sporatic raids on home turfs.

        I do find it all interesting. It is amazing just how sticky the communication problem is – and just how little solid dialog there is across battle lines.

      • Joshua,

        Here’s an interesting metaphor from the article I believe Mosphit is citing:

        > In an effort to shoe horn a paper into the IPCC report, the scientists working together with Stephen Schneider of Climate Change journal, destroyed the credibility of chapter 6 of the 4th Assessment of the IPCC.

        http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2010/02/01/Leake-and-the-London-Times–Climate-Scientists-thwarted-FOIA

        The first occurence of “Jones” in that article is this one:

        > It was this concern, continually highlighted by the peer-to-peer reviewers, that has brought so much perspective to the now infamous Climategate email of “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline” sent by Phil Jones.

        The second occurence is this one:

        > [T]hey knew as they hijacked the process that Stephen McIntyre was watching. Yet they persisted and were caught. One scientist, Phil Jones, even suggested changing the dates on papers to hide the misdeed. But there was no hiding of the misdeed as they left a paper trail of violations.

        This should be evidence that Moshpit defended Jones, I suppose.

        It would be interesting to have some examples of comments to this article. My browser gives me “0 comments”.

        ***

        Interestingly, this article does not appear there:

        http://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/Steven-Mosher

      • He did molest the data. What’s the problem?

      • Steven Mosher

        wrong cite willard.

        The worst thing about the piece was that they change my title from Jones Angonistes to what you read below. ( Gary Wills was a great teacher )

        http://pjmedia.com/blog/climategate-not-fraud-but-noble-cause-corruption/

        it only took 33 comments to break godwins law.

      • The correct cite for:

        > When I wrote for Big Government defending Jones against the charge of Fraud the comments I got back were not very nice.

        is from this site:

        http://pjmedia.com/blog/climategate-not-fraud-but-noble-cause-corruption/

        and not this other site

        http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2010/02/01/Leake-and-the-London-Times–Climate-Scientists-thwarted-FOIA

        My mistake.

        ***

        We now see Moshpit’s defense of Jones:

        > Jones’ failing amounts to a version of Nixon’s crime: obstruction of science.

        This figure of thought has been reused in the last paragraph:

        > After Nixon’s interview with Frost, a substantial majority believed he was still covering up, and nearly three-quarters of viewers still believed he was guilty of obstruction of justice.

        Is “Nixon’s crime” an analogy or a metaphor?

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        A fan of “MORE* discourse: Forums like WUWT are places where denialism and abuse reign unchallenged.

        WUWT in particular invites challenges. If you write a rebuttal to one of their points, they will rebut your rebuttal, and a long thread full of citations of science and data can ensue. I have disputed (and sometimes praised) Willis Eschenbach, for example. No doubt they have a skeptical bias in their selection of what to discuss, but they permit challenge.

      • Dear Moshpit,

        Najdorf players understand that their defense is first and foremost a counterattack.

        The attack is the best defense, I suppose.

        Except for championships, perhaps.

        Please have honor to acknowledge that your “defense” line was fake.

        At least once.

        Nobody’s reading except you and me anyway.

        This is your last chance.

      • Steven Mosher

        Yes, willard. As I said ‘wrong cite” i pointed you to the big government post when i meant to point you to the later post at PJ media.

        i’m not quite sure what you want to make out of the fact that i confused the two. As you can tell I’m not a regular contributor there. Basically one piece in early feb of 2010 and my last in late feb. as i recall.

        Like i said I defended jones against the charge of fraud. What I struggle with even to this day is the right conceptual framework to make sense of it. So, you will see a series of analogies. duh. i’m not happy with a single one of them and none gets it right. If I got it right I imagine folks on both sides would say ‘yes, that nails it’

        it’s not fraud. its not boys behaving badly. what is it?

        1. noble cause corruption? a concept taken from law enforcement
        2. obstruction of science.. like nixons obstruction of justice.
        3?

        What is it? I would never say that I catgeorically defended Jones against all charges. I clearly don’t. I dont defend Jones against all charges. But, as i’ve said repeatly I think calling it fraud was over charging the case and calling it boys behaving badly was under charging it.

        To put it another way, the prosecution was trying to charge the defendent with murder and I testified that he couldnt have commited murder at the time, because at the time of the murder he was jaywalking. I want to call that a defense. You want to call it it an attack. I’m fine with that. I attacked him for jaywalking to explain why he could not have commited the murder others were accusing him of.

        Some moves on the board are sharp. Some moves look like a defense and can be described as a defense, but they open lines of attack.

        That said, I was struck at the time by the parallel between the stories.
        down to the frost interview. The same way I was struck by the screwtape story. the question to ask is always, does this old story help us understand this new story? If not, suggest another way to comprehend it.

      • Dear Moshpit,

        I asked you to acknowledge that for you to say that you “defend” Jones in any way is a stupid trick.

        The first paragraph does not address that.

        Nor the second paragraph.

        Nor the third paragraph.

        Nor the fourth paragraph.

        We do get some parsomatic effort in the sixth paragraph:

        > I would never say that I catgeorically defended Jones against all charges.

        Nice try, Moshpit.

        You’re just a fake.

        Godspeed,

        w

      • Your understanding of discovering is somewhat limited.

        In any case brought against Mann discovery is limited(he was the defendant). This is protected by ‘unreasonable search and seizure’.

        Mann is bringing the suit, in effect the prosecutor. The defendant will be entitled to ‘near unlimited discovery’, because the prosecutor is not protected by ‘unreasonable search and seizure’. The defendant is entitled to rifle thru virtually all of the prosecutors documents in an effort to find evidence.

      • “The defendant is entitled to rifle thru virtually all of the prosecutors documents in an effort to find evidence.”

        Sometimes “skeptics” are so cute I just just want to ruffle their hair and send them on their way.

        I only wish I too could live in a world of makebelieve where physics is whatever I want it to be and the law works like something from a shoddily researched crime novel.

        Now not only do you get to put someone on trial for a crime, simply by publicly accusing them of it, but you actually get to put them on trial with fewer safeguards, a lower standard of evidence and no restrictions whatsoever.

        Maybe if the NRO claims they need to tie Mann backwards on a horse and run him out of town the judge will do that too.

        Oooh! Or maybe the NRO can claim that via the EPA President Obama needs some investigin’ too. Those lines for a Whitehouse tour can be pretty long, much better if the judge lets you walk into the oval office and go through the drawers.

      • “The defendant is entitled to rifle thru virtually all of the prosecutors documents in an effort to find evidence.”

        Really? Even if they have no idea what they are looking for? Just a fishing expedition?

        Just to clarify this with an example, if I called someone a pedophile with no evidence and they sued me, I would be entitled to search their computer, look over their bank accounts and their work history, plus more? No limit? Can I search their home?

      • My post was not retracted, and there was, and will be no apology. A couple lines referring to Sandusky were simply deleted from it.

      • simberg8 | August 25, 2012 at 8:05 pm |

        Do your publishers and editors say the same thing?

        Could they?

      • To clarify, it appears they do not, and you know it, and you don’t mention it:

        *Two inappropriate sentences that originally appeared in this post have been removed by the editor. (Your own blog’s bolding, not mine.)

        Oh, and the definition of retraction is “removed by the editor,” to the common person.

        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/retraction seems to be pretty much exactly what happened to your piece at the hands of your editors.

      • OK, apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
        They did not retract the piece, and they did not apologize. They merely deleted a couple lines.

      • Deleting a couple of lines is retracting them.

        Explaining that you had done something inappropriate and retracted it is an apology.

        Sure, it’s a pretty lame retraction and a pretty weak apology, and given that you’re unapologetic it seems others — the editors — are speaking for you in this; which calls into question your power to speak on your own behalf.

        Is there a grown up there who we can talk to?

        What are the names of the editors who retracted the lines and dictated the apology to you?

        Can they explain what went down?

      • Unfortunately for your illogical thesis, Mann continues to demand a retraction and apology from CEI, which continues to be not forthcoming.

      • Impressive though it is that you still think you have anything interesting to say about this, can we hear from the editors who retracted the offensive lines and dictated the insufficient apology?

        It’s hardly surprising Mann wasn’t satisfied with it; let’s face it, it’s lacklustre and feeble. Who are these editors again?

      • David Springer

        There’s a perhaps unfair but common perception that when it comes to entities such as state university administrations they’re all alike. All the actors went to the same schools to learn the trade, so to speak, so they’re all alike. Penn States tribalism to protect their own is therefore what we expect from all university administrations. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good bet.

      • > All the actors went to the same schools to learn the trade, so to speak, so they’re all alike.

        All except Chuck Norris, who’s not an actor anyway.

        Beware not to think that Chuck Norris is an actor while in His presence.

      • What makes you so sure, Cap’n?

      • Steven Mosher

        Chuck is actually a nice guy

      • As much if not more than Ronald Reagan, no doubt about that.

      • but IMO it is legitimate to point out the problems in the Penn State administration as evidenced by the football scandal.

        Wow! Someone analogizes Mann to a pedophile and nary a peep of criticism from you? In fact, you go on to say that it is “legitimate” to “point out problems” in the context of him reacting to being analogized to a pedophile?

        Interesting way to “build bridges.”

      • And it’s Chuck Norris.

        Too afraid to think otherwise.

      • David Springer

        You don’t seem to have a problem equating CAGW skeptics with holocaust deniers. Is that somehow better or unlike equating a pedophile coverup with a scientific fraud coverup?

      • Apparently that was directed at me?

        Once again, you form false conclusions. Which is what happens when you form conclusions without any evidence.

        Come back again when you’ve begun the nature of valid conclusions.

        We’ll talk.

      • You don’t see to have a problem beating your wife, Joshua.

      • The football scandal is evidence of the football scandal, and nothing else.

      • k scott denison

        Head. Sand. Bury.

        Hint: the “football scandal” had nothing to do with football. Had a lot to do with the integrity of the school’s administration.

      • Neck. Necktie. Party.

        It had nothing to do with Mann.

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        JCH: The football scandal is evidence of the football scandal, and nothing else.

        Fair enough. But flaws in the Penn State internal investigation into allegations of problems in the football program are evidence of flaws in Penn State internal investigations, led by the same man, into other allegations. Not evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but certainly “probable cause” to believe that the same team conducted both investigations with equal superficiality.

    • David Springer

      Mann hasn’t got a leg to stand on re pedophile. Mann clearly qualifies as a recognized public figure. NRO is a recognized source of political news and commentary. The burden is on Mann to prove that a reasonable person would believe that Mann is a pedophile based upon what NRO wrote. Otherwise NRO is commentary is protected political parody. The Supreme Court precedent is rather famous – Jerry Falwell vs. Larry Flynt 1988 – which ws made into a movie with an A-list cast in 1996.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

    • Bart
      In Football and Hockey, Mark Steyn actually wrote:

      I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet

      The key benefit for NR

      But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery. If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.

      I encourage readers to donate to Dr. Ball’s legal fund where he is undertaking such discovery.

      The National Review Response Letter provides an excellent summary on the legal issues of defamation.

      For an extensive historical review, see:
      Climate Depot responds to Mann and his lawyer’s claims about the Hockey Stick & Climategate

      See also: Fighting the Mann
      Best Michael Mann Headline Evah

      • David L. Hagen | August 25, 2012 at 2:38 pm |

        Yeah. About that. Please don’t take this as an argument from authority; on many topics I pretend to no authority whatsoever, however when it comes to insulting others through metaphor and smear, I’m .. above the average level of conversance and familiarity with the subject matter.

        NR pretty much said Mann was a pedophile because Mann has taken a position in Science they dispute and wish to bring down. That’s not really a practice that is tolerable, especially given the extremity of it. I’d expect every Scientist to find it as offensive in any form to the spirit of Science as when it was done by Steyn and NR in public and maliciously, gleefully and intentionally as when it was done in private and incidentally, smugly and thoughtlessly by Jones and CRU in the Climategate emails about Curry.

        But Jones didn’t call Curry a pedophile. He suggested in passing that she was neurotic about why no one was citing her results. It’s hardly on the same scale.

        As for the unemployable ex-geographer, Tim Ball, and his defamation of Andrew Weaver, I’d urge people to distance themselves from odious people doing and saying odious lies about personalities because they disagree with their unrelated Scientific conclusions.

        Tim Ball’s witch-hunting tactics ought be offensive to any person of faith; after all, David, weren’t your kind burned at the stake once upon a time? No, wait. I’ve got that backwards. You’re from the burning good, books bad tradition. My apologies should you feel slighted by the unintentional comparision to superstitiousand ignorant practitioners of dark arts.

      • David L. Hagen

        Bart R
        Re: “Please don’t take this as an argument from authority”
        OK I will accept that you have none.
        On the invalidity of Mann’s models, I believe Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have done an excellent job of exposing the errors.
        In addition, Mann makes Ball’s case in the Climategate emails and in his hiding the poor R2 data for his models etc.

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        Bart R: NR pretty much said Mann was a pedophile

        The written text, which was the basis of the libel claim, explicitly denies that. Whatever the text says “pretty much”, it fully and explicitly claims that Mann tortured data. I expect that, at trial, the literal meaning of the text, and its explicit denial of a claim that Mann committed any crime, will count a great deal toward a judgment of whether the published text constituted legal libel.

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler | August 26, 2012 at 12:30 pm |

        Except that won’t be what the trial will be about. The trial will be about the word “fraud” and their impact on the potential professional employability of Mann and his expected revenues, compounded by NR openly admitting it didn’t care if the claims were false, and by the malice in comparing any person to a pedophile.

        NR won’t get to make the trial about what it wants, because the trial will be about what the Civil Law allows to be tried on. That’s the way the law was built. You think situations like this are new under the law? That all lawyers and judges are idiots and you know the law better than them? This wishful thinking view of the legal system is why lawyers get paid so very, very much.

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        Bart R: Except that won’t be what the trial will be about.

        If that is the case, then your comment that I responded to was irrelevant.

      • I’m not famous for my relevancy.

        This is news to you?

    • David L. Hagen

      On Mann v Ball:
      John O’Sullivan: New SLAAPstick Courtroom Capers as Michael Mann Falls Foul Again

      as plaintiff in the action, Mann picked the worst possible jurisdiction to do legal battle over his “hockey stick” graph. This is for two key reasons:

      (1.) The “Truth Defense” to Libel

      Canadian courts offer the defendant in a libel lawsuit the unique opportunity to pursue the “truth defense.“ Ball has sagely opted to pursue that path rather than, for example, the “fair comment” defense. This is because the “truth defense” places a higher – more onerous – evidential burden on the parties. This means any and all evidence demanded by either party in the ongoing discovery process must be revealed. So effective can the “truth defense” be that some cynics refer to it as the “scorched earth” defense.

      (2.) “Spoliation”: The Intentional Withholding/Destruction of Evidence

      Since 2008 we can give thanks that Canada has beefed up it’s due process laws to punish litigants that intentionally withhold or destroy evidence (e.g. see McDougall v. Black & Decker Canada Inc.,[1.]). This means that Mann’s lawyer, Roger McConchie, cannot persist in indefinitely stalling over compliance with Ball’s motion to hand over those “hockey stick” r-squared correlation coefficient numbers.

      Purposely prevaricating and failing to comply with this disclosure demand renders this omission to act a willful contempt of court (“intentional spoliation”) with serious repercussions. As such, due process rules entitle Ball to file a motion demanding the imposition of [a] punitive sanction[s]. Note: this is not discretionary but mandatory upon the court. . . .
      If the British Columbia Supreme Court rules against Michael Mann and in favor of Tim Ball then there is a strong likelihood that Mann’s conduct in the tree ring controversy was malevolent. As such, it becomes increasingly likely he and others will face criminal investigation.

      Michael Mann v Timothy Ball VLC-S-S-111913 25 Mar. 2011, Supreme Court of British Columbia

      1st Skolnick Affidavit April 17, 2012

      John O’Sullivan: Canada Bar Association Rules ‘No Misconduct’ by Tim Ball’s Legal Team

    • David L. Hagen

      JOhn O’Sullivan posted on Mann’s Facebook:

      “Hi Mike,
      Absent full courtroom examination of your “dirty laundry” (that hockey stick metadata you keep hidden) which I anticipate in due course, I believe your intentional withholding of the r-squared cross-validation results for the HS constitutes an act of intentional deception – and thus criminal fraud. . . .

      • David L. Hagen | August 25, 2012 at 3:21 pm |

        You do understand that the net and sum of O’Sullivan’s legal credentials come from a mail-order company? That citing O’Sullivan’s opinion on law amounts to taking the least informed, most erroneous possible stance?

        I suspect you do. You’re a smart enough guy to be doing this on purpose, as opposed to actually believing what you say.

      • David L. Hagen

        Bart R
        Why are you attacking O’Sullivan’s authority instead of examining his evidence? In my citation, O’Sullivan explicitly referred to the “r-squared cross-validation results for the HS”. Steve McIntyre recently reiterated that Mann’s “r-squared” results were about 0 – ie not significant.

        We published these criticisms in good faith. In my opinion, not only have the specific criticisms not been refuted in subsequent commentary, but, if anything, our findings have been confirmed even by adversaries. For example, our finding that the verification r2 of the Mann et al reconstruction was not only not significant but ~0 was confirmed by the very adversarial Wahl and Ammann article.

        Mann’s withholding the evidence that the “hockey-stick” had no significance is at the heart of the scientific and the legal controversy.

        O’Sullivan’s review appears to reasonably address legal issues. Your burden is to show that his analysis was wrong. For starters, see:
        Libel Law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Towards a Broader Protection for Media Defendants Amy R. Stein, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 10 (4) 1986 Art. 6

        In all Canadian libel actions, if the plaintiff can prove that a defamatory statement was published, then falsity is presumed, and the defendant has the burden of asserting the defense of truth. 37 . . .
        37. Christie v. Geiger, 35 A.L.R.2d 316, 329 (Q.B. 1984); Thomas v. Canadian Broadcasting Sys., 16 C.C.L.T. 113, 142 (N.W.T. Sup. Ct. 1981); Thompson v. NL Broadcasting Ltd. 1 C.C.L.T. 278, 285 (B.C. Sup. Ct. 1976)

      • Why are you attacking O’Sullivan’s authority..?

        I suspect if you had any grounding in law, you wouldn’t need to ask. See, you cited not O’Sullivan’s evidence only, but O’Sullivan’s rationale and conclusions. Which in law would be thrown out.

        That’d be why his authority is not just meaningless, but a positive detriment to the case, given he’s repeatedly made false claims about his standing before the bar. His clearly fraudulent habits mean his evidence itself is tainted, and ought be treated with utmost skepticism if allowed at all.

        But that’s not me saying it. That’s what the Canadian courts have said.

        I have no burden whatsoever with regard to the analyses of a fraudster, however much you claim otherwise.

        Where did you get your law degree?

    • Hey Bart,

      Time to activate your other brain cell.

      We will all wait for you to catch up.

  3. “I guess he is hoping to intimidate people into not saying negative things about him?”

    Of course, if Dr Mann thinks being accused of fraud and likened to a pedophile is objectionable and legally actionable that must mean he wants to “intimidate” his critics.

    Maybe his critics could find a way to be critical that doesn’t involve false accusations of criminal misconduct?

    Or is this another one of these situations where one must never ever criticise the “skeptic” tribe and instead find some way to make the “IPCC scientists” responsible?

    • David Springer

      The pedophile cover-up comparison is protected political speech.

      The fraud accusation perhaps not. Mann appears to be on the ropes in the Canadian lawsuit. The Canadian court ordered him to produce all the data and notes used in the tree ring temperature reconstruction so it can be determined what he knew and when he knew it. The accusation is that Mann knew the reconstruction failed the common practice of giving the model partial calibration data and seeing if it could reproduce the rest: i.e. does the model know the right answer without being told what it is? Mann is accused of withholding his knowledge of the model failure and thus being intentionally deceiving which may or may not constitute criminal fraud. Unless Mann produces the evidence the court ordered he’ll be held in contempt, fined, and the suit dismissed.

      • “The Canadian court ordered him to produce all the data and notes used in the tree ring temperature reconstruction so it can be determined what he knew and when he knew it. “

        I haven’t followed the case – when did this happen?

      • The pretzels of law are indeed convoluted:

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/affidavits-in-michael-man_b_1711581.html

        http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball

        Skydragon Slayers + defamation + children?

        Yeah, I’m staying way back from this one, other than saying shame on them all.

        Oh, and while we’re at it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/mann-fights-back.html

        Shame on Mueller:

        Look at what Mueller does: he says “This is the data as they published it on the cover.” And he shows a chart of his own in different colors than what was really published. Why? Because his colors make his story clearer. It’s not true, but it’s clearer. So he’s saying something for the sake of making his side of the story clearer, but he’s using a trick to hide the decline in correlation between what he’s saying, and what actually happened. Mueller’s not wrong, really. He simply uses a few changes in what were actually factual occurences to present his case. Perfectly innocent and justifiable. In a speech, not peer-reviewed. Or, say, on the cover of a pamphlet, not peer-reviewed.

      • Colors? Really? That’s the substance (or lack thereof) of your critique?

        How does it change the fact that they “hid the decline”?

      • Other Bart

        See if you can follow the difference:

        The text in bold is part of a continuous thought, distinct from what went before it.. The text in italics is part of a different but related thought, distinct from what went before it.

        The text in bold is part of a continuous thought, distinct from what went before it. The text in italics is part of a different but related thought, distinct from what went before it.

        See what Mueller did? He took a line that was red and stopped around 1960 and another line that was black and started around 1960, and made them both black, and claimed that the line was misleading. Well, duh! He made it misleading.

    • Pay attention. Mann’s lawyers have sent threatening letters to a number of news outlets. The NRO incident is merely the latest round.

      He threatened a lawsuit against Minnesotans For Global Warming over the ‘hide the decline spoof video’.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/20/prominent-climategate-figure-threatens-lawsuit-over-spoof-video-no-cap-and-trade-coalition-says-%E2%80%9Cbring-it-on%E2%80%9D/

  4. .”however as a general principle if someone names you a pedophile on a national forum, at length and with great enthusiasm, and you have asked them to stop and retract and they go on to become more insistent..”

    Even assuming this is accurate, which it is not….what about all the other law suits either pending or threatened. The statement in question: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences”

    Only a willful misreading would conclude Mann is being called a pedophile.

  5. should read…”only a willful misreading could result in the conclusion that…”

    • There is an inference that no one knows what all went on between Mann and his sycophant understudies in private but the public result of their collaboration is godawful.

  6. PIOMAS arctic sea-ice volume is a model based on observations. Unlike area, the annual volume trend has been much more shocking. If you extrapolate the minimum as they do on this site, 2015 becomes a possibility for zero volume.
    https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas

  7. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    It’s surprising that no-one on Climate Etc seems to know that Michael Mann is suing *both* National Review *and* — in a parallel legal action — The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

    Sourcewatch says  The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC with long ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns … CEI employs approximately 40 office people, including support staff and in-house and adjunct policy analysts … CEI does not publish a list of its institutional donors … [CEI originated] television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate.”

    Mann’s strategic rational for the parallel lawsuit is evident, and is based upon the observation CEI and NR published startlingly similar, startlingly abusive, startling ill-judged editorials.

    ——————-

    Mann’s Objective  Publicly expose the command-and-control structure of climate-change denialism.

    Mann’s Strategy  Call witnesses to testify, under oath, regarding the parallel origins of their libelous assertions.

    Mann’s Tactics  Offer each of CEI and NR a plea-bargain, providing each “peaches” upon the other, regarding denialist marching-orders and astro-turfing operations.

    Mann’s Guidance  The Code of Omertà is robust at the institutional level of climate-change denialism, yet notoriously flimsy at the individual level. To exploit this weak point, Mann’s legal team will therefore focus legal pressure upon the individuals under whose name the libels were published. In particular, what services has CEI’s staff of 40 provided to denialist bloggers, and to sister institutions such as Heartland?

    ——————-

    Predictions  (1) CEI and NR will do all they can to ensure that individuals named in Mann’s suit do not testify under oath … or if they do, that their testimonies are well-rehearsed and carefully coordinated. (2) Conversely, Mann’s team will do all they can to exert pressure upon individual witnesses, in particular by calling multiple witnesses to the stand, and by deposing CEI and NR employees in separate discovery processes.

    Question  What portion of climate-change denialist prose, nominally originating from private citizens, in fact originates from CEI professional operatives?

    • David Springer

      OMG! You mean watchdog agencies like NRO and CEI are actually doing what watchdogs are supposed to do! Holy SHEEE-IT! That IS big news!

      :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

      • David Springer

        Prediction. IF Mann actually sues, which is unlikely, Mann will not comply with discovery orders, be held in contempt and fined, and the suit dismissed.

      • I think his tobacco lawyer is too smart to let that happen. Now if Mann fires him and hires another lawyer, that’s when you want to buy popcorn futures.

    • fan,

      already started in on your pot smoking, in anticipation of the ballot measure passing in Washington?

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Now you are starting to understand, David Springer! Very good!   :)   :)   :)

      Yes, Michael Mann’s objective is to win in the court of public opinion, by illuminating — in depositions under oath! — the subsidized preparation, by hired operatives, of denialist demagoguery.

      Within a republican democracy, Michael Mann’s objectives are of course wholly laudable. Well done, Michael Mann!   :)   :)   :)

      What is your next question, David Springer?   :)   :)   :)

      • David Springer

        I don’t deny Michael Mann the right to deceive the public nor practice corrupt science. By the same token he has no right to do this free of potential civil, criminal, and professional consequences. Let the chips fall where they may.

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        A fan of *MORE* discourse: Yes, Michael Mann’s objective is to win in the court of public opinion, by illuminating — in depositions under oath! — the subsidized preparation, by hired operatives, of denialist demagoguery.

        If that is his goal, he picked a losing strategy. As it stands now, he is threatening to sue for libel. All the defendants will need to show is that what was published was not libelous. Mann’s team will have to show that it was libelous, as defined by law and court judgments. Who paid whom and when probably won’t be admitted as evidence, as long as it does not directly relate to the question of whether the published text itself was libelous.

        Maybe those most familiar with the laws and court cases can chime in on this.

      • Matt,

        I am a big fan of Mark Steyn, and hope he is given the chance to do to Michael Mann what he did to the language police in Canada when they falsely accused him of hate speech.

        Steyn used the word fraud with respect to Mann’s published work. So Mann will likely be able to sustain his initial burden of proof that the remark was libelous. The other remarks, almost certainly not.

        But on the claim of libel for fraud, in the hugely unlikely event Mann actually filed suit, Steyn will argue both that the comment was true, which is an absolute defense, and that since Mann is a public figure, he has to show “actual malice.”

        Actual malice does not mean bad intent in this usage, but knowledge, or reckless disregard of the fact, that the statement was false. In other words, Mann will have to prove that what Steyn said was false, AND that he knew it was false, or should have.

        But since no case will probably ever be filed, we will never get the chance to enjoy the fireworks.

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        Gary M

        I liked your comment.

    • David Springer

      Your bowtie must be on too tight again if you think anyone who doesn’t already share your left-wing ideology would consider SourceWatch to be a trusted source.

      Watching SourceWatch

      ——————————————————————-
      :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

    • I did not realize you were a conspiracy theorist. You should get together with Gleick and Oliver who always posts here.

    • David L. Hagen

      fan appears to have drunk the climate alarmist kool aid.
      See the University of Arizona release

      emails show how the Hockey Team came together to attempt to thwart criticism of their field from a German geological institute. The message is from Stefan Rahmstorf to Overpeck: . . .

      I wonder whether there is some sinister connection or orchestrated campaign here, the german coal industry connected with their US counterparts? Do you have access to any materials (pamphlets etc.) that the US “sceptics” have produced? This is not really something for me to follow up but I’m thinking of passing information to a friendly journalist – I think it’s a job for a journalist to research some of the background of where the ideas and funding for this recent campaing over here actually come from. I think in either case – whether the BGR is using taxpayers money to produce disinformation leaflets or whether they are sponsored by coal money – it is something the public should know about.

      Regards, Stefan

    • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

      A fan of *MORE* discourse: (1) CEI and NR will do all they can to ensure that individuals named in Mann’s suit do not testify under oath … or if they do, that their testimonies are well-rehearsed and carefully coordinated. (2) Conversely, Mann’s team will do all they can to exert pressure upon individual witnesses, in particular by calling multiple witnesses to the stand, and by deposing CEI and NR employees in separate discovery processes.

      (1) is almost a prediction, but I am sure that witnesses will be reminded to answer questions truthfully, to the best of their ability, and that all of the defendants will review reliable knowledge. Of course their testimony will be well-rehearsed; who would want it off-the-cuff?

      (2) are you saying that Mann will try to win a libel suit by establishing that a bunch of people talked and wrote to each other to make sure that what they printed was accurate and not libelous?

      • I think he’s saying what we might discover is some interesting communication links between eg CEI and other thinktanks and certain journalists who may or may not be being paid by said thinktanks.

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        lolwot, if you are correct, how does that pertain to the charge of libel? So Steyn is paid out of funds from NRO subscribers, contributors and advertisers — so what? The editor of IBD likewise is paid out of money from advertisers, subscribers and contributors — how is that relevant to a charge of libel?

  8. Nothing much has changed from the point of view of AGW True Believers–e.g., their models may be flawed and their predictions may have failed and even if the promoters of global warming alarmism — like Al Gore and Michael Mann — are now seen as charlatans, they still are certain that moderninity is screwing the Earth and every living thing under the Sun and they must stop it by screwing America.

  9. The attack on the glaciers may be happening at the water level causing calving and loss of many cubic miles of ice. Much of industry uses cooling water which, after being heated, goes to rivers and oceans and makes its way to the arctic. (I also believe it is the heat emitted from our fossil fuels and nuclear power, not CO2, that is causing global warming. I have belabored this point at length on previous blogs but won’t do so here.

    • I have belabored this point at length on previous blogs but won’t do so here.

      It is probably good that you don’t. A single thunderstorm of moderate size reflects back into space more energy than is emitted as thermal radiation from all power plants on the Earth put together.

      Do the math.

    • Do the maths or look it up. The heat from thermal power station is miniscule in context.

  10. Any one thinks Mann is an intelligent animal?

    • You mean sort of like Ayn Rand’s Ellsworth Toohey, a popular columnist for the Banner, must have been intelligent?

    • Latimer Alder

      @plazaeme

      My amateur diagnosis is that he suffers from some form of borderline egotistical personality disorder. Like the very odd Julian Assange, attention seeking comes pretty high up his list of behaviours and needs. A guy who really believes that there is no such thing as bad publicity and goes out of his way to generate some if the spotlight fades away.

      I believe that people with similar conditions can score highly on IQ tests. Whether IQ tests are actually a measure of ‘intelligence’ is another question.

      But I am firmly convinced that he has only a limited concept of how ridiculous his antics make him appear to many, and absolutely no real world ‘nous’ or judgement. I do not find him trustworthy or reliable. And I doubt a judge and jury would find him so either.

      • > I do not find him trustworthy or reliable.

        Who would have guessed?

      • Latimer Alder

        @willard

        You do find him trustworthy and reliable???

        Here, drink some of this wonderful Snake Oil Extract from my Old Grandpappy’s Secret Recipe while you sign the contract to buy this nice bridge I just happen to have about my person. Cash (used notes) in advance will do nicely, thanks.

        And then let me escort you to your next appointment with my friend the financial wizz Bernie Madoff who will help you invest the remainder of your fortune.

        Sucker!

      • Dear Latimer,

        Thank you for probing my mind.

        We now have more badassociations: an hypothetical snake oil seller and Bernard Madoff.

        That hypothetical snake oil seller could very well be using your Grandpappy’s recipe.

        I’m not sure how you can be so sure.

        Does it leave a bad taste in the mouth like yours?

      • Latimer Alder

        And just ans an afterthought, fighting three simultaneous libel actions is going to take a lot of the plaintiff’s time and energy. How would his employers feel about these peripheral interests impacting upon the ‘proper work’ he is paid to do?

        I know that in my commercial career, an employer might well have turned a relatively benign eye on one such suit f it was quick and successful. But by the time it got to three, sharp questions about commitment to the institution and the value it received from the employee would have been asked.

        Or is academia really just full of sinecures as I suspect

      • Good work Latimer, that’s another angle in the effort to try and shut him up. It’s almost as if you guys think he might…win!

      • Latimer Alder

        I think if I was his employer I’d be asking some searching questions about whether I was going to get any work of any value out of him while he was concentrating on the lawsuits. And if the answer was ‘no’, I’d be starting to take steps to get rid of him.

        Nothing to do with ‘shutting him up’. He can make as much noise as he likes (the more he does so, the more his dwindling reputation suffers IMO – and that is only good news).

        But it seems to me he can’t occupy an institutional position and draw an institutional salary while devoting his time and energies to purely personal matters. Unless his post is just a well-funded sinecure.

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        lolwot: Good work Latimer, that’s another angle in the effort to try and shut him up.

        Mann works under contract to the Federal Government and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He has to manage his research group, research funds, publish results and file reports and meet with classes. If his pursuit of the lawsuits interferes with those contractual obligations then he will have to forego future grant applications (i.e. take a cut in pay and reduce the income to Penn State that Penn State cited favorably in its review of him.) “[T]he effort to shut him up” is poor wording to describe contractual obligations.

        I think Latimer’s worry is more theoretical than real. Whatever else, Mann seems to work really hard, and his record to date suggests that he can probably pursue the libel suits as well as meet his obligations. Still, it is a potential problem that Penn and Federal auditors will probably be alert to.

      • Latimer Alder

        @MattStat

        ‘Still, it is a potential problem that Penn and Federal auditors will probably be alert to.

        Let’s hope they are so alert, because at the moment the key Mannian lawsuit indicator is trebling every few days. And – using an approved method of climatological extrapolation – that means that there will be 9 active suits by the end of August, and a staggering 729 before the end of September. However hard he works, Mann cannot keep track of all these and do whatever work he gets paid for.

      • Personality disorders are kind of like mutts. When you have more than one breed, you get some weird looking creatures. In Mann’s case, he’s clearly got a lot of narcissist, but it’s hard to tell what else is mixed in there. I also see a huge persecution complex, but that’s often part of the narcissism thing.

  11. When weather is at its worst and you need help who are you going to receive help from, others like you who share the danger or a tenured climatist ponificating from an ivory tower?

  12. As I commented over at BH, my personal opinion for Dr Mann’s recent actions are that they help re-inforce his self-image of being on the front lines of the climate war. He apparently feels that it is easier to be heroic as a “warrior” or a “soldier in the trenches” than as a college professor or scientist. Perhaps he should consider following Scott Mandia’s lead and on occasion dress up as Crusader (mail coat, white coverlet with red cross, etc).

  13. Dr. Curry, you write with respect to Arctic sea ice “I’ll do a post later in Sept on “what is going on and what does all this mean.””

    Thank you very much for this, and I look forward to what you will write and the discussion that will follow. I hope people will resist the urge to make any comments at this time. Does it make sense to have a little discussion of what is happening to the Antarctic at the same time?

  14. There are even predictions of an ice free Arctic Ocean by the end of Sept.

    Would you mind linking to where this prediction has been made?

    • No Dr Curry made sure not to mention that part.

      • Iolwot

        I suspect she is referring to this, which has been on the front page of wuwt for several months
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/the-arctic-ocean-could-be-nearly-ice-free-at-the-end-of-summer-by-2012/
        Tonyb

      • So we have one statement from 2007 that the arctic will be “could nearly ice free,” by 2012 to compare to Judith’s reference to plural predictions that it will be ice free – with a clear implication that those predictions were recent?

        I certainly hope she was thinking of something that more closely matches her description. Otherwise one might think she was being perhaps just a tad or smidgeon hyperbolic?

      • Surely not.

        Zwally in 2007 said: “the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012”.

        Watt’s interpretation of this: “the Arctic will be “nearly ice free” according to a prominent NASA scientist”

        He’s changed could into will. Not even subtle.

        In any case I am pretty sure Zwally doesn’t believe as of now that the arctic ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of this summer. So who exactly does Dr Curry think believes that?

        All it looks like to me is she is aiding the denier led deception, a deception to pretend that arctic sea ice isn’t melting as fast as “those alarmists” are predicting.

        When in reality it’s the deniers who have the ones wrong. 2007 was supposed to be an outlier. The sea ice was supposed to be recovering. Caught with their pants down the climate deniers try to pretend arctic sea ice is declining slower than expected, when the truth is the opposite.

        Put it this way: You don’t see Watts comparing IPCC AR4 sea ice projections with reality do you? No he has to pick the most extreme prediction and even then has to switch “could” for “will” for it to work.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Searching the comments on Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog for the word “free” finds multiple remarks like these:

      “I can’t imagine how [this year’s] remains can survive next El Nino warm year. Ice free will be September 2013. No blob, completely gone.”

      “As part of Watts’ readers poll, he did give the option of voting for “Zwally’s ice free forecast (less than 1M). I would have thought that this is an unlikely outright winner; but its chances of being the most accurate (below 2.45 would be closer than Wang’s 3.9) are gaining ground.”

      “[Complete ice-melt] will happen, it’s really just an issue of timing. The most informed predictions so far remain 2016, +/- 3 years … The rising heat content of the ocean is unstoppable.”

      “I have been reading where some are still bring up the ice holding for another 2 decades or more. I say we should count ourselves very luck if we do not see ice free before ’15. I think it was only Hansen who in ’07 said we may see it by ’12. As far as I am concerned he was frighteningly too close to the truth for my peace of mind.”

      Although these remarks are reasoned and serious, all are off-the-cuff remarks.

      None-the-less, it is strikingly evident that this year’s Arctic ice-melt is proceeding far faster than any IPCC forecast ever envisioned.

      Yikes.   :cry:   :cry:   :cry:

  15. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    BREAKING NEWS  The Competitive Enterprise Institute — which had posted a libelous attack on Michael Mann — now has removed two sentences that it regarded as inappropriate.

    It is mighty interesting that CEI has partially yielded to Mann’s demands, whereas National Review remains entirely obdurate.

    Interpretation  CEI foresees that they cannot win in trial, whereas NR is obdurate.

    Prediction  Mann will take both cases to trial, with a view toward public exposure of the command-and-control structure of subsidized denialist demagoguery.

    So Mann’s objectives and strategy both are simple, eh?   :)   :)   :)

    And laudable too, because public transparency is good, eh?   :)   :)   :)

  16. David Springer

    Tranparency would be nice. Particularly in view of the lengths to which Michael Mann, UVA, and Penn State have gone to specifically to avoid transparency. This was the whole point of NRO’s commentary. Maybe someday even you might understand that what’s transparent for the goose is transparent for the gander.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      David Springer, it is terrific that you and Michael Mann agree on the virtue of transparency!   :)   :)   :)

      Let us all hope that The Competitive Enterprise Institute sees the light too, eh?   :)   :)   :)

      • David Springer

        And I’m so glad that you agree with me that Michael Mann should release all the research behind the hockey stick into the public record.

        Do you anticipate it will require court order or will he have a change of heart and do the right thing voluntarily? NRO’s strategy is to goad him into a situation where a court will order the disclosure. They’re interested in the truth wherever it may lead. I’m glad you agree with and support NRO in this matter.

      • “I’m so glad that you agree with me that Michael Mann should release all the research behind the hockey stick into the public record.”

        What at this point isn’t in the public record?

      • David Springer

        I suspect the records requested and denied to the State of Virginia justice department in its investigation into Mann for violations of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act while he was employed at UVA. The Supreme Court of upheld the university’s refusal to release the records.

        More here:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_of_Virginia's_climate_science_investigation

        The Supreme Court of Virginia basically reached the finding of “witch hunt” and that Virginia DOJ had insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to move forward to discovery.

        With Mann now in the role of accuser the defendant (NRO) has a right to those same records in its own defense. NRO is interested in the truth and is doing whatever it takes to get the records that Virginia DOJ failed to obtain. So Michael has to now ask himself if what’s in those records is worth exposing to get NRO and countless others to stop the accusations of wrong-doing. They’re more or less daring him to come clean and willing to risk being on the losing end of a defamation suit in the process if the evidence is exonerating.

      • “I suspect the records requested and denied to the State of Virginia justice department in its investigation into Mann for violations of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act while he was employed at UVA. The Supreme Court of upheld the university’s refusal to release the records.”

        What specifically. is not in the public record. Be specific.

        If you can.

      • “The Supreme Court of Virginia basically reached the finding of “witch hunt” and that Virginia DOJ had insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to move forward to discovery.”

        If the state of Virginia had insufficient evidence to force discovery what on Earth makes you think the NRO will do any better?

        Do you really think you can accuse people of crimes and then use the inevitable lawsuit to rifle through their records looking for evidence of said crimes?

        If the NRO can show specifically Mann is in possession of something that will help their case they might get somewhere. “Give us his emails so we can see what fraud might be in there” and “Give us all his written notes so we can look for the fraud” will get laughed out of court.

      • David Springer

        I we knew what was in Mann’s email, computer, and filing cabinets we wouldn’t need a court order. Duh.

        Mann is now the accuser. He’s accused NRO of the crime of defamation. And yes that does entitle NRO to whatever evidence is in Mann’s possession that may exonerate them. Withholding evidence is a crime in and of itself.

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

      • If Mann files suit against NRO, will be entitled to discovery of any documents and information that are relevant to his claims, and NRO’s defenses extending to anything that might lead to such relevant evidence. It is a very broad standard. And entirely fair.

        In this country, NRO is not liable for defamation just because Mann, and you, think he should be. He has to prove it to a jury first. And if he wants to pursue that route, he has chosen to subject himself to the rules of discovery.

        By the way, Mann will also be subjecting all the other members of the Team, and their institutions, to discovery just as broad. I would love to see the emails going back and forth about that right now. (And if there is a law suit, we just might.)

        Which is why I don’t believe he will ever do so against Mark Steyn. Steyn already has a history of fighting against censorship by law suit.

  17. Mann probably thinks that he can tell the judge only to allow his side to present evidence because the respondents are “deniers”. I would bet that he knows better and is bluffing.

  18. People who keep ‘interesting company’ should think twice before suing for defamation of character.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/13/friday-funny-dr-michael-mann-keeps-interesting-company/

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Incredibly, the folks at WUWT have understood neither whose discovery Mann is seeking nor why.   :!:   :?:   :!:

      Perhaps you should assist them, oh vukecevic?   :)   :)   :)

      • I am happy to quote a more accurate AMO reconstruction. :)
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm

      • AfoMd
        Hundreds of your posts and countless hours of your time are going to waste. Your contribution to humanity would be beneficial rather than harmful if your undoubted debating skills are directed in promoting the real cause of climate change, rather than parroting the AGU dogma.
        If you are paid to do what you are doing, perhaps tone it down, to save you any possible future embarrassment.

      • David Springer

        If anyone is paying John Sidles to post as he does here it must be the oil lobby because he’s just making the CAGW crowd look even more foolish, if that’s possible.

      • vukcevic said:

        “If you are paid to do what you are doing, perhaps tone it down, to save you any possible future embarrassment.”

        Well, you are already on the list of alternate theorists, growing every day. The list is up to 30 commenters who contribute to Climate Etc with their own anti-consensus theory. All 30 theories differ to some degree. They can’t all be right so either all 30 of you are wrong, or one of you is right and the consensus is wrong.

        Mr.Vukcevic, are you the one with the correct theory? Are you willing to be embarrassed if your own theory turns out wrong?

        Whatever attitude that the Fan of Discourse presents, which is actually kind of mild encouragement, it really pales in comparison to the crackpots that push their own theories here relentlessly.

      • WHB
        My hypothesis is only known to an eminent member of a top American university, the opinion is not positive, but not entirely negative either, cautiously neutral with strong degree of skepticism.
        Is it correct? No idea but it yields good correlations.
        Would I get embarrassed? Don’t really care, but I doubt I would since I use only data from top science and research institutions, and it is a hobby after all.
        What about CO2? Suspect not much in it, time will tell.
        If you really wish to make some contribution to science than find the numerical data file for the graph
        Figure 6. An illustration of the effect of the regression of the moon’s nodes on the water levels at Puget Sound, WA.
        ftp://ftp.flaterco.com/xtide/tidal_datums_and_their_applications.pdf
        then we can discuss science if you so desire.
        If not than continue to ‘thrash the empty straw’ as many of your erstwhile correspondents here do, or use your time intelligently and spend one minute or two and compare my results with those of Mann and Gray
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
        or google
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/*.* there are 53,700 entries.
        Science should be fun
        :)

      • I am indeed impressed.
        http://www.washington.edu/news/2011/06/01/john-sidles-receives-2011-guenther-laukien-prize/
        It should be noted that it is possible that Seattle is in an area which may prove that the natural forces are primary and by far most important driver of the multidecadal climate oscillations.
        Dr. Sidles I would appreciate if you could dig the numerical data for the graph on page 23
        Figure 6. An illustration of the effect of the regression of the moon’s nodes on the water levels at Puget Sound, WA.
        ftp://ftp.flaterco.com/xtide/tidal_datums_and_their_applications.pdf
        Dr. Sidles if you do get a file you will be first to know why natural magnetic oscillations so fundamental to climate change on macro as well as on micro scale elsewhere.

      • David Springer

        A $20,000 award shared by 3 researchers is impressive? I was one of several engineers at Dell in the late 1990’s serving on the patent committee who voted up/down on ten prizes that size each and every week. And that was the just the immediate award for having a patent abstract approved for filing with the US PTO. It was actually a $5,000 stock option per named inventor on the abstract, up to 3 inventors, that would vest over a period of 5 years. If the patent was granted the vesting became 100% at the same time. Given the US PTO took about 3 years back then to grant a patent and that Dell stock was splitting at least once a year during my tenure there the options were worth, in some cases, six figures for each inventor per invention. We had some prolific engineers who had 20 or more patents granted and made millions of dollars that way. I could be wrong but I believe each of the 300 patents I approved for filing between 1997 and 2000 went on to be approved including 4 of my own abstracts. I reviewed and voted on about 1000 patent abstracts (rough estimate 10/week for 100 weeks). It was certainly an eye opening experience learning how the patent game is played amongst the uber giant high tech companies. I’m not favorably impressed with it to say the least.

      • David Springer

        I was at Puget Sound once. Back in 1988. I was the first engineer in the world to get an Intel 82786 vector graphics coprocessor working with three parallel processors all synched to the same clock with one co-proc each for the red, green, and blue color planes. Basically did it in a company I founded with just 3 employees and me the only technical guy. As I recall it was Motorola or maybe Raytheon who were developing an upward looking sonar on submarines that produced a real-time 3D display of overhead ice. They were having problems getting the Intel graphics co-proc working and asked Intel to send help. So Intel hired me to go to Puget Sound. Lovely there. I seem to also recall driving up to VanCouver, Canada on that trip as I had customers for my 82786 graphics accelerator products there. Quite impressive. I was in that area few times for meetings at Microsoft as well. Actually got pitched by Bill Gates hisself. You’d be amazed at the red carpet that gets laid out to engineers who design products that are sold by the millions with Microsoft O/S and Intel CPU in every one. Got the royal treatment a few times in Taiwan too by companies making laptops for us. Shark fin soup – meh, can take it or leave it. I would have loved to go to Sony in Japan for a while when I was on the design team for Dell’s first color laptop circa 1993. Sony was our manufacturing partner on that project.

      • Impressive too, but I think that both Dr. Sidles and you and few others here are engaged in a waste of valuable time and talent ?
        I still hope that Dr. Sidles via his university contacts may be able to dig out numerical data for the graph on page 10 (27/127)
        Figure 6. An illustration of the effect of the regression of the moon’s nodes on the water levels at Puget Sound, WA.
        ftp://ftp.flaterco.com/xtide/tidal_datums_and_their_applications.pdf
        since my attempts have filed.
        My appeal goes to anyone else too, who may be able to help

    • People who keep ‘interesting company’ should think twice before suing for defamation of character

      Nice twist on the “Mommy, mommy, they did it fiiiirrrrrst” defense. Actually never saw that one before.

  19. Re: The Moral Downside of Climate Change

    “an almost willful refusal on the part of the proponents to open their eyes to the for more pressing moral infections which have already metastasized in our culture like a deadly cancer.”

    It’s not an “almost.” This is why the AGW idea exists in the first place. AGW is a classic case of a disinformation campaign. It’s designed to distract, not inform. There’s never going to be a scientific resolution, just the bleating of Warmer sheep until night falls.

    Andrew

  20. David Springer

    What’s the difference between a camel and a jackass?

    Michael Mann’s lawyer successfully defended Joe Camel, the cartoon camel that RJ Reynolds used to promote Camel cigarettes when the Federal Trade Commission said the cartoon character was in fact advertising cigarette smoking to children.

    Filed under the category “I sh!t you not”

    http://www.cozen.com/attorney_detail.asp?d=1&atid=1406

    • Could it be their URL is an indication of their approach to practicing law?

      Definition of COZEN
      1
      : to deceive, win over, or induce to do something by artful coaxing and wheedling or shrewd trickery
      2
      : to gain by cozening someone

  21. k scott denison

    For anyone who thinks Mann is thinking clearly when he threatens to sue, ask yourself this: if there is nothing to hide, then why has UVA spent so much money fighting FOI? So clearly, Mann will willingly go into discovery in libel trials. Sure.

    I’ve got a bridge for sale for all who believe this.

    • “why has UVA spent so much money fighting FOI”

      Moral principle? perhaps not something you are familiar with

      • David Springer

        Tribal culture. Something that you, consciously or unconsciously, have deeply ingrained in your psyche.

      • k scott denison

        Very generous of the people of Virginia to allow the University to be so moral.

        Wonder why the folks at that other state university in Virginia didn’t feel as compelled to be so moral?

  22. What some do not understand in my humble opinion is that rage is perhaps the most powerful of all emotions….certainly powerful enough to cause a person to commit self-destructive acts. All Mann knows is that his professional reputation…which I have the sense is everything to this man…is under attack. This fills Mann with rage, and his hunger for revenge causes him to do things that are clearly not in his best interest (to say the very least)…

    Most skeptics I know are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of Mann having to turn over things that can expose him for the fraud many of us are convinced he is.

    • If you sue me for saying you spread STD’s, does discovery mean I get to examine all of your medical records, and even have you examined by a doctor? If so, that doesn’t seem right to me, even if it is the law.

      BTW, I am speaking hypothetically, rather than actually accusing you have having or spreading STD’s.

      BTW, I am not accusing you of cheating on taxes or

      • Disregard my “BTW, I am not accusing you of cheating on taxes or ” in my previous post.

        Wait ! Now it sounds like I am accusing you of cheating on taxes. I’m not. Of course you might have. I don’t really know.

      • David Springer

        That seems awfully close to reductio ad absurdum. Medical records are afforded an extreme amount of confidentiality. Research, notes, and correspondence relevant to an unclassified project sponsered with taxpayer money seems like it’s in a completely different category.

        But yeah, your medical records would indeed be seen at least by the judge if not the defendants and jury. You may have heard that rape victims are warned that if they pursue a rape charge in court it’s brutal. The accused has the right to face and question their accuser so there’s no getting out of it getting grilled on the stand. Their sex life and any relevant medical records are all fair game in open court. The defending attorney’s duty is to make them look like a slut and plant a seed of doubt in a jury’s mind that the rape was really a consensual act.

      • David, I hope the public has advanced beyond thinking a prostitute can’t be raped.

        I don’t know anything about discovery in a libel suit, but I doubt the defense has unlimited access to information on the plaintiff. I imagine the defense would be limited to getting information that is relevant to the suit.

  23. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    David Springer (and pokerguy, Bad Andrew, etc.) … climate-scientists are rejoicing that recent denialist commentary regarding Mann’s legal actions has been so utterly irrelevant to the primary strategic elements of the climate-change debate.

    Scientists are rejoicing for this simple reason: over the long run, it is precisely denialist malfocus that ensures the defeat of denialist demagoguery, eh?   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

    David Springer (and others), thank you for comments that have consistently and plainly illuminated the malfocus and bankruptcy of climate-change denialism!   :grin:   :grin:   :grin:

    • David Springer

      You’re confused, John Sidles. I deny nothing that is true and I’m an astute student of the truth. You on the other hand evidently wouldn’t know truth if it bit you. It if hasn’t bit you yet, by the way, it will.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Dave Springer, everyone here on Climate Etc — including even you yourself  :grin: — appreciates that your comments are similarly rational and focused to the abusive editorials — and billboards  :grin: — of CEI, NR, and Heartland.

      Strikingly similar, eh?   :!:   :?:   :!:

      Thank you for this illumination, Dave Springer!   :grin:   :!:   :grin:

      • It must be a fun way to live, Joy. Decide a priori what you’re going to believe, then serenely ignore any and all data that might cast doubt on that belief. Personally, I think Mann will be pulled back from the precipice by those with wiser, cooler heads. I passionately hope not, but I think that’s the way it will go.

      • David Springer

        I wouldn’t say a kind word about Heartland if you held a gun to my head. I have no idea who CEI is and frankly if I’ve lived this long without needing to know I’m not going to bother learning now. NRO on the other hand is the online version of the National Review which was founded in 1955 by no other than William F. Buckley Jr. and which has a stellar reputation. Mann tangles with NRO at his own risk. Interestingly enough Mann’s lawyer is a well known defense attorney for oil and tobacco companies. How ironic is that?

    • Latimer Alder

      You don’t half write a load of pretentious old bollocks, mate, No wonder the hoi polloi think you’re all away with the Fairies from Planet Zog.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Latimer Alder, leading climate scientists appreciate that (in the words of General Marshall) The end is not yet clearly in sight but victory is certain.”

        The victory of science over denialism that is.

        The victory that comes because (as we see in the Arctic) “Nature cannot be fooled.”

        Perhaps it’s time for you to switch sides, Latimer Alder?   :?:   :!:   :?:

      • David Springer

        John Sidles, I certainly understand why you keep harping on Arctic Ice Extent. It’s the only thing you have given that global average temperature has been trending down for the past 14 years.

        I would simply point out that the Arctic is a very small corner of the planet earth and any warming there has not been enough to offset the declining global average temperature. You do understand the difference between regional and global warming, correct?

      • Latimer Alder

        More on the topic of pretentious old bollocks a la ‘A Fan’ and why the hoi polloi completely disregard it from the excellent Ben Pile:

        http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/08/environmentalisms-amoral-disorder.html

    • David Springer

      I don’t think climate scientists do much rejoicing these days unless it’s in Cancun for a free convention with open bars at the after parties. For the most part they seem bitter, guarded, and angry.

      If anyone is rejoicing these days it’s people like me over the fact that the IPCC is nothing more than a paper tiger whose policy advice is largely ignored by the U.S. government and rejoicing over the fact that best global temperature sensing network, MSU equipped weather satellites, has recorded global cooling for the past 14 years. Three more years of that and it qualifies as climate in Ben Santer’s expert opinion who’s on record as saying less than 17 years is weather not climate. I can hardly wait. Cheers!

      • I am surprised you accept the MSU weather satellites, considering the research hasn’t been released.

      • David Springer

        What are you talking about? Spencer and Christy’s work at UAH is an open book and so is Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) who independently replicate it

      • Steven Mosher

        Actually not an open book.
        a few years back one of us, magicjava, went down the path of trying to get all the software to check the satellites from the sensor to the final output.. estimation of temperature. That means checking UAH work and the code for the data product they consume from the data originators they use.

        Magicjava ran into a little thing known as ITAR.

        so, you are wrong. it’s not an open book and will never be an open book unless you can get past the ITAR requirement.

      • David Springer

        I’m sorry Steven because I must be mistaken in that it appears you’re comparing needing a security clearance to get weather satellite source codes from NASA to needing a court order to get tree ring source code from Michael Mann.

        Surely that’s not what you meant to say, right?

        In any case the private firm Remote Sensing Systems has the requisite security clearance and they do a bang-up job of independent replication and audit. I’m very careful to never choose one over the other due to any minor difference and in fact prefer RSS because I won’t have to deal with the bigots who have a chip on their shoulder over UAH’s Christy and Spencer being Christian apologetics who believe God created the universe. The RSS boys are co-authors in all sorts of papers by the usual list of suspects like Ben Santer. When possible I choose the least unimpeachable sources by the loony left. I quote wickedpedia constantly even though everyone acknowledges its liberal bias. You know you’ve arrived when you can beat the snot out of your opponents with references to their own work. Just this evening I referred to a 2007 article I wrote:

        http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/ipcc-ignores-studies-of-soots-effect-on-global-warming/

        which exclusively uses NASA, Geophysical Research, and James Hansen himself for the data and images to make my points. It’s a real gem. You should read it carefully. Some of the image captures are from NASA interactive tools they’ve since removed from public access and or “adjusted” since then to better reflect the change in upper level management from Bush to Obama. Global warming was revised upward concommitant with the change of political party of the boss man in the White House. Isn’t that just precious?

      • David Springer

        Imagine, magicjava, whoever the f*ck that is, doesn’t have a security clearance. I had a secret clearance at one time. The FBI needed more than just my real name to approve it, to say the least. They interview your neighbors when you were a child along with your high school teachers, and others I’m probably not aware of because it didn’t get back to me through the grapevine.

        I wonder how loud and long the laughter at the FBI when some anononymous internet coward named magicjava asks for confidential government satellite source codes. Get your butt buddy Richard Mueller to fetch it for you and get you on the approved access list. It’s probably only a confidential clearance you’ll need which is pretty easy to obtain but it will involve a real name, a real address, photo ID, and probably a birth certificate. Now that I think about it that’s more than you need to become president of the United States and get the nuclear weapons access codes and commander-in-chief of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and
        my beloved Marine Corps. How messed up is that?

      • David Springer

        To be honest I think they gave Obama a fake football that doesn’t really contain the nuclear launch codes. I refuse to believe the Pentagon, CIA, and other agencies that outlive individual presidents were quite stupid enough to hand over the keys to the US arsenal to someone who might not even be an American citizen for all they know.

      • David Springer

        Well, I take that back. I’m sure the CIA does know if Obama is a legitimate US citizen or not and have acted accordingly without risk of making the Democratic party US look like something out of a banana republic.

        If I were Mitt Romney and Obama was demanding my tax returns I’d tell him I’d trade one year of my tax returns for his Columbia college records, another year of my returns for his selective service registration, another year for his social security number, another year for his pre-senatorial passport record, and the final of the five years of tax returns for a microfiche image of his original 1961 birf certificate ostensibly on file with Hawaii.

        I’d bet dollars against donuts there would be not be a single trade made.

      • “in fact prefer RSS because I won’t have to deal with the bigots who have a chip on their shoulder over”

        Oh I thought it was because only RSS shows a negative trend since 1998…

        “In any case the private firm Remote Sensing Systems has the requisite security clearance and they do a bang-up job of independent replication and audit”

        This is sooo interesting. You accept the satellite data even though you now discover it cannot be publicly audited because data it relies on is withheld from the public.

        The data is hidden from the tax paying public who paid for the data and you are absolutely fine with that. Not only are you fine with it, you defend the record as being audited by another group (RSS).

        Which begs the question: Are you guys simply acting like drama queens when you cry about tax-payer data being withheld in other areas? When you claim the science cannot be verified/it cannot be trusted is that just an act? Because your stance with the satellite records is certainly not consistent with it being genuine. If it were genuine you would surely act outraged that these scientists using tax-funded satellite data had not released the data behind their research. You would be demanding that either the data is released or the results struck from the journals they are published in.

      • Actually, RSS charges academic (even NASA funded researchers) to use their data

      • It also strikes me that you thought “Spencer and Christy’s work at UAH is an open book” when it wasn’t. So much for due diligence. If I had made such a statement in my line of work without verifying it I’d have been fired for incompetence.

        “Spencer and Christy’s work at UAH is an open book and so is Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) who independently replicate it”

        Well now we know neither are an open book what do you think now? Yes you stick to the line that RSS independently replicates it so that’s why you accept it.

        Except if you were consistent you’d have to admit GISTEMP replicates HadCRUT and therefore GISTEMP and HadCRUT don’t need to be open books either…

        Seems clear to me that the only reason you demand open books from certain scientists and not others is because you enjoy pretending they are doing something wrong, when really you don’t actually have a problem with closed books.

      • All is right because RSS was Intelligently Designed. :)

      • David Springer

        The satellite data is available. Mosher’s anonymous friend wanted the DSP code in the satellite instrumentation. Evidently that’s not something the US wants its enemies to have. Perhaps it has applications to other kinds of sensors used in the spy business. Try to keep up.

  24. Robert Ayers

    The Stanford Social Innovation Review article contains this:
    But studies also have shown that people are more likely to believe in the science when they have an experience with extreme weather phenomena. This has led climate communicators to link climate change to major events, such as Hurricane Katrina … The cumulative body of weather evidence, reported by media outlets and linked to climate change, will increase the number of people who are concerned about the issue, see it as less uncertain, and feel more confident that we must take actions to mitigate its effects.
    That made me much less accepting of their overall scientific perspective.

    • David Springer

      Kind of a giveaway when they feel the need to leverage the psychology of adverse anecdotal experience to buttress the shoddy science, isn’t it?

      Can you imagine if your trigonometry teacher thought they had to frighten you into believing the Pythagorean Theorum? Classic. Pass the popcorn.

  25. Political Junkie

    Mann’s tobacco industry experienced law firm is “Cozen O’Connor.”

    Google for the meanining of the word “cozen.” Hilarious!

  26. Last week (I have been absent, and this may have already been discussed), John Christy evaluated Jim Hansen’s recent efforts:

    “In press reports for this paper (e.g., here), Hansen indicated that “he had underestimated how bad things could get” regarding his 1988 predictions of future climate. According to the global temperature chart below (Fig. 2.2), one could make the case that his comment apparently means he hadn’t anticipated how bad his 1988 predictions would be when compared with satellite observations from UAH and RSS:”

    “By the way, a climate model simulation is a hypothesis and Fig. 2.2 is called ”testing a hypothesis.” The simulations fail the test. (Note that though allowing for growing emissions in scenario A, the real world emitted even more greenhouse gases, so the results here are an underestimate of the actual model errors.)”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/fun-with-summer-statistics-part-2-the-northern-hemisphere-land/

    • “Note that though allowing for growing emissions in scenario A, the real world emitted even more greenhouse gases, so the results here are an underestimate of the actual model errors.”

      That’s wrong. Roy and John are incompetent.

      • No sense explaining why they’re wrong when it’s so much easier and so much more fun to attack them personally.

      • The claim is wrong. The real world emitted far LESS greenhouse gases than scenario A.

      • David Springer

        Yeah but it emitted MORE carbon dioxide than scenario A.

        You never heard me bitch about laws to limit real pollutants like methane, soots, nitrides, and sulfides. CO2 is plant food and more of it is beneficial.

      • Your bitching does not give you the excuse to cherrypick data.

      • David Springer

        The cherry-picking is all yours. CO2 isn’t the bad guy. You and your ilk tried to make it that way because your mission isn’t really to prevent global warming its to slow the economic growth of the major fossil fuel consumers. You can’t do that without making CO2 the target. The US is a major fossil fuel consumer but we lead the world in clean technologies targeted at everything except CO2. That’s because we rightly recognize that CO2 is plant food and will also become an important commodity as a raw material for manufacture of durable goods made largely out of carbon compounds by synthetic microorganisms. Carbon is the most versatile and useful element there is for making stuff. There are more and more diverse and more useful carbon compounds than any other class of materials.

      • David Springer

        You’re funny. I agree with you that methane and soot and things other than CO2 are bad for the environment and you can’t bring yourself to gracefully agree on the common ground we happen to share. I’m the enemy so nothing I say can be right. The cognitive dissonance you are experiencing right now must be physically painful in intensity if you have more than two brain cells that operate in concert.

      • You don’t get it do you.

        If Hansen says CO2+N2O+CFC+CH4 = 0.6C warming

        you don’t get to claim he predicted 0.6C warming from CO2 alone and because that hasn’t happened he is wrong.

      • David Springer

        Great. Hansen was right. Global warming was halted by means other than slowing down the growing abundance of plant food in the atmosphere. I’m betting its mostly the outlawing of incandescent light bulbs but that’s just my opinion and it could be wrong. In any case… mission accomplished. Global warming arrested and nowhere in sight. No need to take any further actions. You shouldn’t fix things that are not broken. Sage advice. Write that down.

      • David Springer

        Actually back in 1988 Hansen said soot was the largest single forcing agency after CO2. Do your homework for a change. The shock might kill me if you do.

      • David Springer

        LOLTWAT:

        This is me back in 2007 writing about how the IPCC vastly downplayed the role of soot in global warming even though climate change golden boy James “Jimmy Dean” Hansen was the author of the study assessing the amount of warming that soot was responsible for…

        http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/ipcc-ignores-studies-of-soots-effect-on-global-warming/

        Enjoy.

      • “Actually back in 1988 Hansen said soot was the largest single forcing agency after CO2.”

        citation needed.

        interesting URL btw. So you are skeptical of the theory of evolution too.

      • David Springer

        I’m skeptical of all bandwagon science supported by just-so stories. Mud-to-man evolution by a random dance of atoms happens to be one of those bandwagons. I believe the evidence points to two possibilities in general – there are an infinite or nearly infininite number of universes each with its own set of physical laws the hugely vast majority of which have laws that cannot support the formation of stars and planets and life and one universe that was purposely created with the almost impossibly unlikely conditions that allow us to be here to observe and wonder about its origin.

        Did you know that if the mass of the universe was greater or lesser by the mass of a single grain of sand it would have either collapsed in upon itself from the force of gravity or flown apart before stars could form?

        This is referred to as “the fine tuning problem”.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning

        The cosmological constant was once though to be precisely zero. Einstein put this constant into his equations for general relatively and then called it the biggest mistake of his life because it should have been zero and cancelled out.

        As it turns out the cosmological constant isn’t quite zero. It’s zero followed by 21 zeroes to the right of the decimal point followed by a one. That small deviation from zero is about how much the universe would weigh if measured in grains of sand. If was one grain larger or smaller we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. There are many other physical constants that must have the precise value we observe or the whole shootin’ match wouldn’t work.

        So you believe what you want. Me, I’m an engineer and I believe I know a design when I see one. I could be wrong but the alternative to a created univserse is an accidental one and that seems pretty preposterous to me given the precision and interdependence of a great many physical laws and constants needed for it to exist and persist long enough for life to arise.

      • David Springer

        Citation…

        Actually it’s Hansen 2005. Here’s an image I snagged from somewhere of individual forcings. Note BC (black carbon) is 08W/m2 while CO2 is 1.5W/m2. Soot is more than half of the forcing of CO2 according to the following VERY long list of experts who put their name underneath Hansen’s in 2005. The 2007 IPCC report showed 0.1W/m2 of forcing due to BC. What’s up with that?

        JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, D18104, 45 PP., 2005
        doi:10.1029/2005JD005776

        Efficacy of climate forcings

        J. Hansen

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        M. Sato

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        R. Ruedy

        SGT Incorporated, New York, New York, USA

        L. Nazarenko

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        A. Lacis

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        G. A. Schmidt

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        G. Russell

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        I. Aleinov

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        M. Bauer

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        S. Bauer

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        N. Bell

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        B. Cairns

        Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        V. Canuto

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        M. Chandler

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        Y. Cheng

        SGT Incorporated, New York, New York, USA

        A. Del Genio

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        G. Faluvegi

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        E. Fleming

        NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

        A. Friend

        Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Orme des Merisiers, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

        T. Hall

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        C. Jackman

        NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

        M. Kelley

        Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Orme des Merisiers, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

        N. Kiang

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        D. Koch

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        Department of Geology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

        J. Lean

        Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C., USA

        J. Lerner

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        K. Lo

        SGT Incorporated, New York, New York, USA

        S. Menon

        Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA

        R. Miller

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        P. Minnis

        NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA

        T. Novakov

        Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA

        V. Oinas

        SGT Incorporated, New York, New York, USA

        Ja. Perlwitz

        Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        Ju. Perlwitz

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        D. Rind

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        A. Romanou

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        D. Shindell

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        P. Stone

        Center for Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

        S. Sun

        NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

        Center for Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

        N. Tausnev

        SGT Incorporated, New York, New York, USA

        D. Thresher

        Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

        B. Wielicki

        NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA

        T. Wong

        NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA

        M. Yao

        SGT Incorporated, New York, New York, USA

        S. Zhang

        Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

        We use a global climate model to compare the effectiveness of many climate forcing agents for producing climate change. We find a substantial range in the “efficacy” of different forcings, where the efficacy is the global temperature response per unit forcing relative to the response to CO2 forcing. Anthropogenic CH4 has efficacy ∼110%, which increases to ∼145% when its indirect effects on stratospheric H2O and tropospheric O3 are included, yielding an effective climate forcing of ∼0.8 W/m2 for the period 1750–2000 and making CH4 the largest anthropogenic climate forcing other than CO2. Black carbon (BC) aerosols from biomass burning have a calculated efficacy ∼58%, while fossil fuel BC has an efficacy ∼78%. Accounting for forcing efficacies and for indirect effects via snow albedo and cloud changes, we find that fossil fuel soot, defined as BC + OC (organic carbon), has a net positive forcing while biomass burning BC + OC has a negative forcing. We show that replacement of the traditional instantaneous and adjusted forcings, Fi and Fa, with an easily computed alternative, Fs, yields a better predictor of climate change, i.e., its efficacies are closer to unity. Fs is inferred from flux and temperature changes in a fixed-ocean model run. There is remarkable congruence in the spatial distribution of climate change, normalized to the same forcing Fs, for most climate forcing agents, suggesting that the global forcing has more relevance to regional climate change than may have been anticipated. Increasing greenhouse gases intensify the Hadley circulation in our model, increasing rainfall in the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), Eastern United States, and East Asia, while intensifying dry conditions in the subtropics including the Southwest United States, the Mediterranean region, the Middle East, and an expanding Sahel. These features survive in model simulations that use all estimated forcings for the period 1880–2000. Responses to localized forcings, such as land use change and heavy regional concentrations of BC aerosols, include more specific regional characteristics. We suggest that anthropogenic tropospheric O3 and the BC snow albedo effect contribute substantially to rapid warming and sea ice loss in the Arctic. As a complement to a priori forcings, such as Fi, Fa, and Fs, we tabulate the a posteriori effective forcing, Fe, which is the product of the forcing and its efficacy. Fe requires calculation of the climate response and introduces greater model dependence, but once it is calculated for a given amount of a forcing agent it provides a good prediction of the response to other forcing amounts.

      • Earlier Dave Springer: “Actually back in 1988 Hansen said soot was the largest single forcing agency after CO2. Do your homework for a change.”

        Dave Springer Now: “Actually it’s Hansen 2005.”

        Whoops!

        So, as I stated CO2 was the largest component of Hansen 1988 scenario A.

      • http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm

        “As Figure 4 shows, Hasen’s Scenario B is currently closest to the actual forcing (according to Skeie et al.), but running about 16% too high (since 1988).”

        Real world emissions were closest to, though lower than, Scenario B.

        Once you adjust for the slightly lower emissions Hansen’s 1988 projection is only slightly too sensitive – something Hansen accepts and corrected in later research.

        People that try to prove his 1988 work “wrong” invariably end up having to seriously misrepresent it to make it so. You really have to consider just how sloppy Christy and Spencer must be to get a basic fact like that wrong while making a comparison.

      • David Springer

        More CO2 was emitted than scenario A. If you want to go after real pollutants that are far less costly to control then be my guest. Methane and soot can be public enemies #1 and #2 for all I care. Stop the practice of flooding rice fields with precious fresh water just to kill weeds prior to planting which generates huge amounts of methane and stop feeding high carbohydrate foods to cattle that causes them to burp methane like crazy. I’ll get behind that. Make the rest of the world burn soot free gasoline with catalytic convertors and computerized fuel systems to vastly limit polluton (GHG and otherwise) and make them put particle filters in industrial smokestacks. The US already does that. Follow our example to a cleaner more properous world. You know you will eventually anyway just as sure as you wear blue jeans and use the internet we invented.

      • shareperoo

        Scenario A was for CO2 growth rate in the 1988.

        The CO2 growth rate has been increasing since 1988 as shown in the following chart:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12

        The CO2 growth rate has been increasing because the slope of the CO2 has been increasing.

      • David Springer

        The hilarious thing is methane growth in the atmosphere virtually halted in 1998 without a bit of effort expended to stop it. No one knows why.

        Curiously, global warming halted at the same time. Curiouser and curiouser the designated global warming scapegoat CO2 continued to grow at the same rapid pace it’s been on since the industrial revolution began.

        The most curious thing of all is how this doesn’t change the narrative that CO2 growth must be stopped at all costs even when the CO2-global warming link vanishes into thin air.

        This is characteristic of dogmatic beliefs. No amount of contrary evidence will sway the true global warming believer. This is no different than Young Earth Creationism. People who rely on faith to support their beliefs never let facts get in the way.

      • Global warming did not halt in 1998. In fact according to UAH the rate of warming has slightly increased when data since 1998 are added in:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/to:1999/trend/plot/uah/trend

        Warming still happening, CO2 still rising (remember ocean acidification too). Scenario A not happening does not make scenario B good.
        The reason for focus on CO2 is because it is the primary component of the human forcing:

        In scenario A had come about that would be different, but it didn’t.

      • David Springer

        Dear loltwat,

        Your graph is for the past 33 years. I did not claim that all past global warming was negated from 1998 to present. I said global warming halted and global temperature began to decline in 1998. And indeed it has:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss-land/from:1998/trend

        Read it, weep softly to yourself, and deny deny deny in public. Play to your strengths little buddy.

      • David Springer

        Sorry, not that it makes any difference because both datasets show declining temperature since 1998, but I accidently picked land-only above.

        Land + ocean is also in decline:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

      • David Springer

        FOURTEEN YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING AND COUNTING!!!

        It must suck to be a CAGW dipthong today. Three more years and the spell of cooler weather turns magically becomes a cooling climate. At least according to Ben Santer…

        http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

        JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
        doi:10.1029/2011JD016263

        B. D. Santer

        Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA

        Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale

        Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

        It must REALLY suck to be Ben Santer.

      • David Springer

        Compact flourescent light bulb reaches mass market in 1995.

        The helical (three-dimensional spiral) CFL was invented in 1976 by Edward Hammer, an engineer with General Electric,[5] in response to the 1973 oil crisis. Although the design met its goals, it would have cost GE about $25 million to build new factories to produce the lamps, and thus the invention was shelved.[6] The design eventually was copied by others.[6] In 1995, helical lamps, manufactured in China, became commercially available.[7] Since that time, their sales have steadily increased.

        ~wikipedia

        Global warming halts in 1998 and begins a decline:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

        Coincidence? You decide!!!!

      • David Springer

        Oh that’s rich, loltwat.

        I back up my claims with, in the most recent example, a 2011 paper by climatologist Ben Santer that appeared in Geophysical Research and you back yours with link to a blog, Skeptical Science.

        Nice contrast, don’t you think? LOL indeed.

      • “Your graph is for the past 33 years. I did not claim that all past global warming was negated from 1998 to present. I said global warming halted and global temperature began to decline in 1998. And indeed it has:”

        Incorrect. If warming had stopped and declined since 1998 then we’d expect the rate of warming since 1979 to have fallen. It hasn’t.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/to:1999/trend/plot/uah/trend

      • David Springer

        That’s weak.

        Here are the two periods with the trend separated for each period.

        The reason the trend over the entire period rose, try to follow along here, when the post 1998 data is added is that the post 1998 data is consistently higher than the 1979-1998 period. A plateau was reached in 1998. It’s a high plateau but global average temperature has been slowly declining since reaching it.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1979/to:1998/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

      • Your graph trend line shows 0.14C warming between 1979 and 1998.

        If warming had really stopped after that then temperature rise from 1979 to 2012 would be 0.14C or less.

        But in actual fact the temperature rise from 1979 to 2012 is 0.45C
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/trend

        Therefore warming did not stop in 1998.

        I rest my case.

  27. Judith – aren’t there a tad too many paranoids among the commenters at this site? am starting to think there is zero information below the “Leave a reply” line

  28. Judy,

    Speaking of metaphors, I found this one about you:

    > Please stop presenting your own bright ideas to Judith Curry as though she’s some kind of truth machine.

    http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/742194676/truth-machine

    Speaking of truth machine, I’m starting to miss Bender Bending Rodriguez.

  29. To briefly summaries IPCC’s climate science, as shown in the chart below, it built the AGW sand castle by smoothing the GMST oscillation before the 1970s, leaving the warming phase of this oscillation since then untouched, and calling this recent warming man-made.
    http://bit.ly/OaemsT

  30. Today, there is no doubt that a scientific consensus exists on the issue of climate change. Scientists have documented that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are leading to a buildup in the atmosphere, which leads to a general warming of the global climate and an alteration in the statistical distribution of localized weather patterns over long periods of time. Today, there is no doubt that a scientific consensus exists on the issue of climate change. Scientists have documented that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are leading to a buildup in the atmosphere, which leads to a general warming of the global climate and an alteration in the statistical distribution of localized weather patterns over long periods of time. This assessment is endorsed by a large body of scientific agencies—including every one of the national scientific agencies of the G8 + 5 countries—and by the vast majority of climatologists. The majority of research articles published in refereed scientific journals also support this scientific assessment. Both the US National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science use the word “consensus” when describing the state of climate science.

    That consensus was obtained by misinterpretation of the data by smoothing the GMST oscillation before the 1970s, leaving the warming phase of this oscillation since then untouched, and calling this recent warming man-made.
    http://bit.ly/OaemsT

  31. More generally, one can seek possible broker frames that move away from a pessimistic appeal to fear and instead focus on optimistic appeals that trigger the emotionality of a desired future

    =>Continue the manipulation by another means.

  32. NSF is building a $33 million national propaganda system to spread the climate change scare.

    http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/08/nsf_promotes_climate-change_ed.html

    The focus is on how best to spread the scare, with a focus on adults. Each grant goes to a network, which is then supposed to clone itself and grow. The San Diego group is even focusing on so-called Key Influentials, which sounds like lobbying to me.
    http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1239797

    This is being done by NSF’s Division of Undergraduate Education, but it has little to do with that. DUE is just the vehicle. They are being very systematic, targeting different climate issues and communication channels.

    When it comes to government propaganda efforts, I have never seen anything of this scope. The funny part is that the Republicans are paying for this travesty, since they control the House and hence the budget. This massive propaganda effort should be killed as quickly as possible.

  33. Climate Science as Culture War
    By Andrew J Hoffman

    It is a very well written article that supports your position on what to do to stop man made Global Warming.

    Enjoyed reading it.

    However, I disagree with your position.

    In the following chart, when you look at the global mean temperature data since record begun 162 years ago, there has not been any change in its pattern.

    http://bit.ly/Aei4Nd

    Its pattern has been on a slight warming trend since the little ice age.

  34. David Springer

    Steven Mosher | August 25, 2012 at 5:26 pm |

    “It’s interesting to watch. I’ve been hanging out at nevens every day this year. Saying almost nothing. The discourse was very civil”

    You saying almost nothing. Discourse was very civil.

    Connect the dots there, Steverino!

  35. David Springer

    By the way, where can skeptics go where climate change trolls don’t come to stir up sh!t? Civil discourse is easy peasy when the trolls aren’t around. Even when religion and politics is the subject matter which are traditionally off limits for casual discussion in the presence of differing beliefs if unpleasantness is unwanted. And of course catastrophic global warming is about little other than dogmatic belief and politics.

    • where can skeptics go in order to claim that emissions followed Hansen’s scenario A without someone inconveniently pointing out that isn’t right?

      Try WUWT, Jo Nova or ClimateRealists. They’ll put up with false information and attack anyone who attempts to correct it.

      • David Springer

        No no no. Read what I wrote. I specifically requested an example of somewhere where no attacks on skeptics take place. Mosher mentioned a place where there are no skeptics attacking the group think. Where is there a place a skeptic can for a peaceful groupthink atmosphere? I don’ think such a place exists. The only groupthink is done by the practioners of bandwagon (a.k.a. consensus) science. Put a dozen skeptics in a room together they’ll start hating each other in short course precisely because the science IS NOT settled.

      • When you start talking science and math, you are in my house. I don’t want to see anybody throwing down stuff that don’t make sense. Get it, bro?

      • lolwot

        The issue is CO2. Your villain is CO2.

        Its positive slope has been increasing since 1958 as shown in the following chart.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12

        This shows the average CO2 growth rate per year has been increasing since 1988 of Hansen’s Scenario A of about 1.5% growth per year.

  36. David Springer

    Wow. What happened to comment throttling? Did it get turned off after a brief flirtation with it a few days ago?

  37. ” communicate technical and nuanced material” -MM

    Well, if there was ever an indictment of Climate Science, there it is. The results should NOT be nuanced, but straight-forward and reliable.

    How I loathe the trite use of that word. Its meaning has morphed into something completely different:

    “The claim/policy/approach doesn’t make sense at all, but that’s only because of nuance. Obviously, if you reject the OPINION we intend to have you adopt, it’s that you don’t understand the nuance that the rest of us smart people do.”

    • I don’t think you’ve understood what they mean by “nuanced”.

      The article says: “science communicators who face the daunting challenge of having to communicate technical and nuanced material to an audience largely unfamiliar with the lexicon of science, sometimes agnostic or even unreceptive to its message, and—in the case of contentious areas like climate change and evolution—already subject to a concerted campaign to misinform and confuse them.”

      Let me give an example of this “daunting challenge science communicators face.”. There is a nuanced distinction between a record showing “no statistically significant warming” and showing “no warming”. When Phil Jones a few years ago was asked whether warming since 1995 was statistically significant he gave the straight-forward answer that no it wasn’t statistically significant.

      But he was speaking to “an audience largely unfamiliar with the lexicon of science” (ie the public) and they largely will not know the important difference between “no statistically significant warming” and “no warming”.

      The “concerted campaign to misinform and confuse” then jumped on Phil Jones answer (in fact it turns out they were responsible for setting the question) and spread word that Phil Jones had said there had been no global warming since 1995. Of course that’s not what he had said, but by quoting his exact words and not explaining to the public what statistical significance was they could get away with it.

      What Phil Jones could have done in hindsight is not answer the question straight-forwardly. He could have refused to directly answer the question with a yes, no answer and instead just state “warming since 1995 is at the 90% significant level” for example. That statement there is true and can’t be misused as easily.

      This lesson alone is an example of why scientists have to be good science communicators. They can’t just naively state things straight-forwardly when people are trying to trap them and twist your words.

      • Let me give an example of this “daunting challenge science communicators face.”. There is a nuanced distinction between a record showing “no statistically significant warming” and showing “no warming”. When Phil Jones a few years ago was asked whether warming since 1995 was statistically significant he gave the straight-forward answer that no it wasn’t statistically significant.

        Let’s start by asking the question. Why would anyone care to ask the question? The question is asked because there may need to be policy implemented that can alter many people’s lives. If you have any doubt about this, read http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2008/0425/p05s01-woam.html

        There are other, more poignant tales, including people eating clay cakes due to increased costs of corn.

        Second, the question is the wrong one. The right question is “What is the certainty that climate change is due to human C02 generating activities, affecting the global temperatures since 1995.” In other words, if it’s not on account of human activities, what can one do?

        The follow on question is “Given the models are so far off from the actual projections, why should I listen to you?”

        The final question is “OK, you have somehow convinced me people are mucking up the climate. Why aren’t you scientists making a carbon neutral energy source that’s cheap enough for the major carbon producers (China, and soon to be India).”

      • “Let’s start by asking the question. Why would anyone care to ask the question?”

        Because they want to fool the public into thinking warming stopped in 1995 and they can misuse the answer to that end.

        And that’s why science communicators are needed who can wade through the nuances and traps that disingenuous questioners will ask.

      • What? That’s a joke, right?

        The current policy being implemented stands to make Al Gore some super mungo rich person (despite his absolute despicable nature), the cost to implement the current ideas is in the Trillions, not to mention all the geo-political implications, and that’s the best you can do?

      • David Springer

        “An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.” ~Ernest Rutherford, The Father of Nuclear Physics

        “Explaining an alleged scientific discovery to a barmaid is a rewarding experience regardless of whether she understands it or not.” ~David Springer, Inventor of the Internet

      • Well, what can I say? I tend to agree with this sentiment. The only difference is I’ve met a rare class of people who can easily see what others cannot, and they can explain concepts in a simple way that does not require all the nuance escape hatch, yet none is lost.

      • Phil Jones's Mum

        Oi Mr CleverClogs lolwot!

        Don’t you go around making out that it’s all my Phil’s fault. He’s a good boy he is! Ever so kind to his dear old Mum…nearly always remembers my birthday if he hasn’t put the card in his filing system and lost it.

        And he was ever so clever at school. Really good at most things that didn’t need lost of sums – and sums can be tricky things can’t they?

        But he’s easily led, my Phil. Fell in to the wrong crowd early on. And he’s such a tender thing that he couldn’t escape from their clutches. There’s Mikey and Keef and Jim and Gavin adn all these clever people with degrees and gowns and things…and they all influence him far too much…..hide this, delete that, say this, shut up…well,, what’s an artistic and sensitive boy to do? He just goes along with it for a quiet life. That Mikey is reeely nasty…rude and arrogant and Phil tries to emulate him.

        I fell reeely reely sorry for him getting into such a mess. Poor Phil. Its the others that should be getting the heat.. He’s just the useful idiot that the others all use.

        That nice Mr Alder (ooh he’s ever so kind and got dishy eyes) tells me I should go for a nice lie down now.

      • Latimer Alder

        @lolwot

        ‘There is a nuanced distinction between a record showing “no statistically significant warming” and showing “no warming”. When Phil Jones a few years ago was asked whether warming since 1995 was statistically significant he gave the straight-forward answer that no it wasn’t statistically significant.

        But he was speaking to “an audience largely unfamiliar with the lexicon of science” (ie the public) and they largely will not know the important difference between “no statistically significant warming” and “no warming”.

        Go on then.

        Please explain the ‘nuanced distinction’ between the two in sufficiently clear terms so that I can relay your wisdom to the barmaid in the Dog and Duck come opening time.

        The floor is yours.

      • Sure,

        Calculate the confidence of a warming trend since 1995:

        If it’s less than eg 5% you can claim there’s been no warming.

        If it’s more than eg 95% you can claim there’s been warming.

        Inbetween is a no mans land. But if the warming is 90% confident, it’s incorrect to claim that because it is below 95% therefore there’s been no warming.

      • Latimer Alder

        @lolwot

        The first question Doris in the D&D asked was

        ‘So the best that we can say is that we don’t know if there has been any warming? Well what’s all the big fuss about? If even clever scientists can’t find it, I don’t see why the rest of us should worry about it at all. There’s far worse things to concern us than global warming that isn’t happening’

        Your reply?

  38. The public debate around climate change is no longer about science—it’s about values, culture, and ideology.

    How can I read such tripe? Immediately, the author jumps into an “Us vs. Them” discussion. Let’s talk about the “Us” for a moment. We received gibberish from Al Gore. Or maybe, self interest from Al Gore. We are getting gibberish from Jerry Brown here in CA. When I say “gibberish,” it’s too polite a term. It means “Because the world is going to die a death of heat exhaustion, we are going to make everyone here pay to implement green technologies that won’t do a damn thing to change the global climate.” That’s assuming the failed models are correct!

    It’s a crisis? In CA, one can look up all state employee salaries. It’s amazing how much more nurses make than the professors. I saw recently a physics professor making $80K, while nurses at UC Davis Medical in the trauma unit are making $170K a year (from $70K – $170K for the nurses). You want to fix things? Put the money into researching thorium based reactors. At home, bundle up nuclear breeder reactors, if anyone is concerned about the US C02 footprint, which has declined to pre 2000 levels.

    Don’t have Obama say he is going to tax energy usage to subsidize poor people’s use of energy. How does it help to increase energy usage? Isn’t that the goal?

    Stop fracking around with fracking. Natural gas is a great way to reduce carbon-dioxide. And Forget about carbon sequestration for coal, a political concern. Can’t upset those union coal miners.

    And do NOT tell us how it is possible to have an “All Electric Fleet” in ten years, five years ago.

    Simply put, if this is such a crisis, and the goal is NOT some “uncomfortable new world order,” then put the money where it counts, into things that will actually make a difference, instead of adding layers of control and government. That means for now, massive methane production, and perhaps cheap nuclear if it can be figured out.

    And in general, it is my view that in a crisis of increased temperatures, sulfates can be used to buy time. Like volcanoes that cool the earth. That’s a heck of a lot better than the expensive alternatives fools are pushing on people.

    • David Springer

      Huh? Just for grins I looked up Curry’s salary in Georgia putblic records and her cohort on the BEST project’s salary Richard Mueller of UC Berkely. Both of them make in excess of $220,000 per year. Nurses don’t earn half that. And you wonder why kids are running around today with college loans that are bigger and longer than most home mortgage payments.

      I’m not excusing the medical industry for milking the cow for all its worth but at least the medical industry in the US is delivering a world class product. Meanwhile US education is mediocre at best. Not to mention at BEST.

      • David Springer

        Both situations are in fact the product of cheap easy money and associated legal statutes from the US government. Few people gave a rat’s ass about the cost of health care or a college education because they didn’t have to directly pay the money for either of them. At least not right away. The bill for the excesses of the past few decades is just now coming due. Health insurance including very generous policies for government employees, generous and generally unquestioning payment plans for Medicare and Medicaid, divorced most people from the cost of medical care. Had an unexplained dizzy spell? No problem. An MRI that will get billed to some insurance company for $2500 is included with the $20 co-pay for the office visit to your primary physician who orders it. UNLIKE Canada or the UK you can get your MRI the same day the doctor orders it. No lines. No questions. No immeidate or direct cost to you. When the actual cost of medicine is divorced from the person receiving it then excesses happen. People use the service more frequently and the provider raises the price to whatever level the market will bear. Low interest student loans from the government to anyone asking for one drove up the cost of education to ridiculous levels where tenured professors responsible for a teaching a few classes 9 months out of the year have no other responsibilities or performance obligations and are paid lavish salaries just below (what a coincidence) the $250,000/year level that former professor Barack Obama classifies as rich people who should have their tax burden increased. Anyone here really think Curry does five times the amount of work as the janitor who sweeps and mops and polishes the floors in the classrooms she uses a few times a week? She couldn’t do his job any more than he could do hers. His job however is the more demanding and his is the job that can be terminated for poor performance.

      • Anyone here really think Curry does five times the amount of work as the janitor who sweeps and mops and polishes the floors in the classrooms she uses a few times a week?

        She couldn’t do his job any more than he could do hers.

        Perhaps you meant five times the effort? I doubt JC would have much trouble learning how to be effective at mopping floors. The other way around? Well, who knows. Why don’t you express the chances of that.

        Second, I think you completely misunderstand the nature of academics. They are modern day monks. Their currency isn’t necessarily in $, but in other things. This whole Climate Science BS has confused what that is.

        Academics are caretakers of human progress. That’s what angers me most about the crap that flows from these people. They have elected to become Moses, coming down from the mountain with a book written in a language only they can understand, and demanding the world accept it, and bow to their decisions.

      • “They are modern day monks.”

        You mean they WISH they were modern day monks. I know some modern day monks and they are men with an unselfish dedication to the spiritual life. In contrast, the behavior I see in academics these days makes me think academics are petty freeloaders with big mouths and a sense of entitlement akin to welfare dependents.

        Andrew

      • Mark B (number 2)

        According to the Bible, Moses had the Arc of the Covenant built to house the Stone Tablets (with the commandments written on them), along with a pot of manna and Aaron’s Rod. Ordinary people weren’t even allowed to set eyes upon the Arc. In fact, very few people would have seen it at all.

        It seems to me that Mann and Jones would have liked to keep the raw data hidden away from the people in the same way. I suppose that we are supposed to just have “faith” in the authenticity of the “data”.

      • To be fair, most academics are more intelligent and understand the subject better than you or me. Lets not become too arrogant and egotistical in our own inferior abilities.

      • David Springer

        She is unlikely to have the physical strength to excel at the job nor the mental makeup to be content pushing broom, buffing floors, and emptying trash cans. Perhaps those attributes could be aquired over time but so might the janitor, over time, be able acquire skills to teach science classes. I just have a hard time justifying why the science teacher’s value is five times that of the janitor. I’m not blaming her for this state of affairs, certainly, but given her compensation is a direct concern to taxpayers footing the bill for low interest government college loans her compensation and, in general, the operating cost structure of state schools, becomes my business. Professor Obama and the liberals are talking about dismissing obligations to repay student loans in some cases and this will only make the situation worse with regard to soaring costs. When the cost of an education becomes divorced from the concern of both students and public institutions and taxpayers are the ones left holding bag for it then Houston, we have a problem.

      • Dave Springer writes “UNLIKE Canada or the UK you can get your MRI the same day the doctor orders it.”

        I always bristle when I see this sort of comment about our Canadian medical system. I am sure there are occasions when you can get an MRI in Canada on the same day that a doctor orders it. IF there is an urgent medical requirement to have an MRI immediately. The priority for medical treatment in Canada is driven almost exclusively by the urgency which a patient’s medical condition dictates. If the medical condition of the patient is urgent enough, virtually anything can happen. It is just that the money that the patient has, has very little effect on what treatment the patient gets.

      • David Springer

        Bristle all you want but this is encyclopedic knowledge and your delicate feelings about your health care system are not a concern to me. With nationalized health care comes rationing of services. There is no rationing in the US for any insured person and no rationing of emergency services for the uninsured. Those most vulnerable (elderly, disabled) have public insurance. Those least vulnerable (young, healthy) can forego insurance and risk no more than financial loss. No one is turned away from emergency care and there are safety nets for the destitute.

        You see Jim, in this country a majority of us believe that adults should be free to decide what kinds of personal risk/reward they’re willing to undertake. America is the land of guaranteed opportunity not guranteed outcomes. If you like a nanny state that’s your business and I’m glad you like what you have.

      • All heathcare systems, including ours, ration care.

        Most, like Canada’s, direct care towards the people who need it most.

        The US system rations on the basis of ability to pay. There is an irrational, inconsistent, wasteful “safety net” which throws away hundreds of billions of dollars and leaves huge, gaping holes in the care.

        Its a failing system, and much like the climate system, Dave lacks a rudimentary understanding of how it operates.

      • David, you write “No one is turned away from emergency care and there are safety nets for the destitute.”

        What a warped view of how a medical system is supposed to work. For once, I agree with Robert. The object of medicine should be to PREVENT patients from ever getting sick; not to have to treat them when they become sick. The bulk of the medical care provided in Canada is done at the least cost; the routine visits to family doctors, who do the preventitive medicine such as keeping up immunization shots. This is where systems like that in the USA fail miserably.

      • Lookup Florentino Martinez, at the following site:
        http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/
        Name:
        Florentino Martinez
        Department:
        UC Davis
        Year:
        2010

        you will see: Job Title: NURSE, CLINICAL III
        Total Pay: $194,005.45

        And don’t get excited by the overtime. I’m sure Muller (who doesn’t show up) puts in more.

        Now, I know saving the world isn’t as important as saving indigent Americans, but still.

      • David Springer

        UC Davis. So the nurses employed by state universities are grossly overpaid as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

        Bureau of Labor Statistic in the U.S. average salary of registered nurses is $67,270. You are not in my debating league, Barbar. Give it up now or look even more foolish.

      • David Springer

        http://www.registerednursern.com/registered-nurse-rn-salary-pay-wages-and-income-of-registered-nurses/

        Registered Nurse Average Salary: Mean Salaries for RNs

        According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics lastest data, the average salary of a registered nurse in the United States is $67,720. The average hourly wage of a registered nurse is $32.56. Keep in mind that these are only averages, and that a registered nurse may make more or less than these amounts based on location, experience, and other factors.

        Compare with:

        http://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?SurveyID=3

        Every category of professor has a median income higher than that of registered nurses. Given the light workload over only 9-months of the year the disparity becomes more notable.

        In any case I was absolutely, unequivocably right to protest the erroneous statement that started this which was that physics professors get paid less than nurses. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.

      • You claimed nurses don’t make half what Curry does. That claim was shown to be completely false; you completely failed to make that argument.

        You tried to recover the situation by comparing the average nursing salary with Curry’s. But of course, that’s an utterly meaningless comparison because Curry doesn’t make anything like the average academic’s salary.

        If you compare an average nurse to an average instructor, there is nothing like a 2:1 disparity. If you compare a high-paid academic with a high-paid nurse, there is nothing like a 2:1 disparity. Either way, as usual, you fail on the facts.

      • Latimer Alder

        @robert

        I;d be more convinced by your dismissal of Dave Springer’s figures if your post showed the correct ones. You haven’t shown any at all.

        Why should I believe your interpretation over anybody else’s?

      • I’ve shown why Davy is wrong: he made a fundamental error in logic (or he simply lied ;).

        The correct figures are just a brief Google away. Don’t let me keep you.

      • Latimer Alder

        @robert

        I’m sure that I am not alone in immediately assuming that anybody whose answer to a challenge is ‘use Google’ does not have a solid grasp of the subject in question.

        You beautifully illustrate why.

    • > How can I read such tripe?

      Incredible, isn’t it?

  39. David Springer

    re; civil discourse

    Sometimes I’m sorry I invented the internet. Even though those times are very rare and I feel the loss of civility is vastly outweighed by information at your fingertips I nonetheless offer my sincere apology to all you whining maggots.

      • David Springer

        Oh my, such big letters you have. You must be a very powerful important person to own and control such large letters.

      • Thank you, David Springer.

        Coming from the Tim Berners-Lee of the Climate Denizens (go team!), it means a lot to me.

        Since I don’t own guns and dogs, I try to compensate, perhaps.

        I don’t own the letters, btw, I only limited rights.

      • David Springer

        willard (@nevaudit) | August 26, 2012 at 11:54 am | Reply

        “Since I don’t own guns and dogs, I try to compensate, perhaps.”

        Good luck with that. Entry level guns for the casual owner are not expensive and require no maintenance or other continuing cost of ownership. You might not live in a free country with a constitutionally guaranteed to right to own of course. Dogs can require substantial ongoing commitments that I don’t recommend everyone undertake but for many it’s a very rewarding experience and the right dog, or even the wrong dog as long as it can bark, reduces the practical need of gun ownership for home defense. The dog won’t help much though against a population disarmed and vulnerable to the whims of domestic police forces.

      • Thank you, David Springer.

        Next time a clown tries to invite himself to my house, I’ll think about what you’re saying.

    • Love it. :)

      • David Springer

        Do you think it was insufficiently over the top so that I could reasonably presume it needed no /sarc or other explicit tongue-in-cheek marker?

        It can be a difficult call to make but I thought starting out with an Al Gorish claim to having invented the internet and ending with the stereotypical Marine Drill Sergeant term “maggots” would require a dedicated dullard to miss the comedic intent.

      • Never use any marker, David Springer.

        How could you ever be over the top anyway?

      • David, I laughed and laughed at the comment. So I got it. I can’t imagine anyone didn’t

      • I certainly can imagine someone who imagined people who did not.

  40. Once a crook does something in an unguarded moment which more or less opens the cell door for the state, the other evidence doesn’t really matter, mainly as nearly all criminals by now would have made a full confession, negating the need for a trial and raising all the other complex evidence. Now I’m not saying this shtick alone could derail AGW, if only this was true, but every single warmista I’ve flung this in the face of has skated over it and reverted to generalities ‘you want to kill my unborn grandchildren’ for instance. They can’t defend the data, why not? Because it’s indefensible. I’ve spent over 10 years investigating it and now published my findings. If the general public could see my material in large numbers they would lynch the IPCC and its lackeys around the world’s once esteemed scientific institutions. But this MWP excision is not a smoking gun, it’s a fingerprint. A whacking great one on the murder weapon. And one I’ve never seen a single excuse for despite many attempts to ask for one. Anthony, over to you, please highlight this phenomenon as it’s a biggie.

    http://bit.ly/Oh3GoR

  41. While I hate to interrupt such an stimulating discussion, Issac modeling looks like it may be more interesting.

    http://www.weatherbellmodels.com/weather/hwrf.php

    Dr. Ryan Maue has a slick product the WUWT has just linked to. predicting up to a cat 4 landing near Biloxi. Dr. Curry has a weak storm landing a bit to the East. Captdallas2, with a ring side seat, is looking at the weather we just had in the Straights and thinking fizzle near the ‘Glades.

  42. David Springer

    Should I feel bad about putting poor little loltwat’s dick in the dirt despite the appearance of him begging for it and liking it?

  43. The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

    Regarding this years summer Arctic sea ice melt. The season overall weather-wise was not as favorable to melting as 2007 was overall, but 2012 is set to smash pretty much every significant record set in 2007.

    Why? Much less sea ice volume than in 2007 (i.e. much thinner ice) overall. This was a rather non-eventful summer that wasn’t particularly exciting in terms of melt potential from weather, but it really just goes to show you what the long-term thinning of the ice means in terms of melt potential. Pretty much all the ice that could have melted in the non-Arctic Basin areas did melt, and so, the Arctic Sea ice volume by the end is pretty much all (80% or more) contained in the Arctic Basin.

    The big Arctic Cyclone in early August was a rare event, but it chewed up the ice only because that ice was so thin and fractured already. We could see a “recovery” next year (like we saw in 2008-2009 after the 2007 very low minimum), or we could see another year much like this year.

    One lesson we did learn (and which I did comment about in March and April) was that late-winter bumps up in sea ice extent after the whole winter is running low really don’t mean much as those late season bumps up mean the ice is very thin and will melt rapidly in the ensuing summer.

    Expect all the ice by 2020 to be first year ice each melt season in the Arctic if you get my meaning.

  44. The only thing MM has going for him is the usual – the web of mutual back-scritchin’ and whitewashing by beneficiaries of the CAGW raid on the public purse.

    It may suffice.

  45. “Well I haven’t read the book (don’t intend to), but it sounds like lessons in propaganda to me.” – JC

    …..so let me make rash statements about it.

    Ah, the smell of ‘skepticism’ in the morning!

  46. For comparison; the National Review (Online’s) past — including very recent — stance on defamation.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313422/adelson-files-60-million-libel-suit-against-democratic-group-nathaniel-botwinick

    But is libelous speech a fundamental right?

    http://cmcevoy.public.dev.nationalreview.com/corner/152482/libel-tourist/stanley-kurtz

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257438/wrong-rauf-andrew-c-mccarthy

    Libel, of course, is a legally actionable defamation, entitling the wronged party to sue for money damages against the alleged slanderer. That’s serious business. In fact, to conclude that a public figure like Rauf has been libeled is to maintain that the purported slanderer made her baseless accusation either knowing it was untrue or in reckless disregard of its falsity.

    And for further comparison, what legal scholars opine:

    http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2012/07/articles/attorney/hockey-stick-graph/

    Of course, if the Court doesn’t grant the motion to dismiss, then Steyn and Simberg might have a bit of a problem on their hands, and that’s where the Sandusky comment comes into play. Assuming their remarks aren’t protected opinion, and they can’t prove their accusations are actually true, then Mann can likely convince a Middle District of Pennsylvania or District of Columbia jury that the accusations were made with “actual malice” — just consider the Sandusky analogy.

    And a blast from the (holocaust) denialist past of NR, and its attitude toward that stain on its record:

    http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/irving.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=irving

    ..and columnist Joseph Sobran, a former senior editor at the National Review deemed “obsessed on the subject of Israel” by Review editor, William F. Buckley, who “disassociate[d]” the magazine from the “obstinate tendentiousness” of Sobran’s columns.

    NR has fallen a long, long way since those days.

    • David Springer

      Bart R | August 26, 2012 at 2:58 am | Reply

      “And for further comparison, what legal scholars opine:”

      http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2012/07/articles/attorney/hockey-stick-graph/

      I was interested in that legal opinion long enough to find out it began with a bogus climate science lesson by a lawyer who doesn’t know a mole from a mule.

    • My prayer for this Sunday:

      Please Lord, let Michael Mann file suit against National Review and Mark Steyn. Let him be subject to discovery of all his emails, memos, notes, drafts and every other single paper relating to hiding the decline, screwy statistics, upside down Tiljander, lost or hidden data and code, etc. And let him not understand that by filing, he opens up to subpoena and deposition every other member of the team, and the institutions they work for, that corresponded with him. Not to mention those who participated in the previous Tom Sawyeresque “inquiries.” (You know, the scene with the white wash…the fence…the gullible dupes who believed everything he said.)

      And Lord, let the case go to trial with Mann on the witness stand, under oath, subject to cross examination by a lawyer who knows what he is doing.

      You’re a funny guy BartR. Touching in your naive belief in everything you have been told to believe. Unfortunately for those of us who live in the real world, some of the CAGW activists also have lawyers who actually know what they are doing. So we are going to have to settle for letters with meaningless, widely publicized threats, but no actual law suits.

      Rats!

      • GaryM | August 26, 2012 at 12:00 pm |

        Interesting to know you pray to a God of hate and deception.

        Is Satan your Lord?

      • OK, I was wrong. You’re not funny at all. Sad, yes. Funny, no.

      • Bart R,

        Are IPCC reports your church’s encyclicals?

        Andrew

      • Bad Andrew | August 26, 2012 at 2:14 pm |

        Well, BA, as you’re a self-professed Catholic, they’re certainly yours. Or don’t you pay attention to your Pope?

        You know, his stance on Climate Change is pretty definitively of the GHE is settled, CAGW is real and devastating, and anyone not acting against carbon emission is committing a Mortal Sin thing? That Catholic Pope?

        Remember him?

      • Bart R,

        You didn’t answer my question. Let me rephrase: Are IPCC reports the encyclicals of the Church of Global Warming? Are you allowed to disagree with them in your church? Or are they dogmatic?

        Andrew

      • BartR knows almost as much about the Catholic Church as he does about economics.

      • Bad Andrew | August 26, 2012 at 2:58 pm |

        I’m not sure it’s physically possible to answer your question.

        You see, for you, there’s apparently no difference between religious faith and logical conclusion. If logic comes up with something you don’t believe in, it’s fine for you to dismiss logic as easily as you dismiss the beliefs of people who were raised differently from you.

        However, for a Catholic, brought up in the teachings of the Catholic saints like Thomas Aquinas, that’s an apostate and sinful position. To a Catholic, where logical inference, where Science, disagrees even with a position of Canon, then logic wins. It’s an article of Catholic doctrine, a dogmatic belief taught every Jesuit and endorsed by a lineage of popes. Look it up.

        But it’s the position you take, in Mortal Error. (That means your immortal soul will burn in Purgation for Eternity, according to your Pope. Which is none of my business, so long as you’re reconciled to taking a stance at odds with the Pope and the saints, and by article of Catholic doctrine, God.)

        What is my issue is trying to explain logic to someone who rejects it. A surprising stance, considering you claim to be a computer programmer. Do you just pray your subroutines calls will return with the right answer? That your pointer references will be valid? Is it faith, or binary logic, that makes a computer process? Is it belief, or compilation of code into machine instructions?

        The IPCC reports are just Policy papers drawn up to advise Policy makers by collating, summing and surveying some of the extant relevant work and doing some Policy-related analyses to explain in layman’s terms the state of the body of knowledge of Climate at any given time. For a Catholic like yourself, they’re like missals or church newsletters.

        If you want to know the Encyclicals of my Church, check out Newton’s Principia; Russel & Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica is also a good starting point, too. Oh, and the writings of St. Augustine about St.Peter in Corinth to Proba, for your own sake.

      • “I’m not sure it’s physically possible to answer your question.”

        You could just comment a yes or a no, followed by a brief, but straightforward explanation. Ah, but you’re a Warmer. That’s obviously not your shtick.

        Andrew

  47. And let’s look at who Dr. Mirus is aiming his remarks at in the Catholic Church: http://www.news.va/en/news/durban-climate-change-conference-underway

    But where did the Pope come up with such ideas?

    http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2011/05/scientist-says-listen-pope-climate-change

    He’s got advisors. In this case, the advisors sift through evidence Dr. Mirus claims doesn’t exist, to come to the opposite conclusion of Mirus’ argument from ignorance. Quite unexpected.

    That’s right. Dr. Mirus is calling the Pope imprudent after due consultation with and among his policy and science advisors. Directly. Publicly.

    Good luck with that, Doc.

  48. Phil Jone’s mum, while appreciatin’ yer loyalty never the less lol

  49. I imagine that CEI would relish a lawsuit and all the info they could obtain on discovery.

    I would like to find out he meant by the following:

    I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!

    http://bit.ly/SDBmS0

  50. David Springer

    Please bookmark the following link for the projection of the Met Office (the original had disappeared from its webiste):

    2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004
    http://bit.ly/P7k2jo

    Only two years left for the verification!

    This is real science. Projection followed by verification.

    Now comes the moment of verification and truth: testing the theory back against protocol experience to establish its validity. If it is not a trivial theory, it suggests the existence of unknown facts which can be verified by further experiment. An expedition may go to Africa to watch an eclipse and find out if starlight really does end relatively as it passes the edge of the sun. After a Maxwell and his theory of electro-magnetism come a Hertz looking for radio waves and a Marconi building a radio set. If the theoretical predictions do not fit in with observable facts, then the theorist has to forget his disappointment and start all over again. This is the stern discipline which keeps science sound and rigorously honest.

    The Scientist
    Life Science Library
    By Henry Margenau, David Bergamini
    And the Editors of LIFE
    1966

  51. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    BREAKING NEWS: BIGGEST HOCKEY-STICK EVER  From Nevin’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog, by way of Neven’s guest column this week on SkepticalScience titled “Why Arctic sea ice shouldn’t leave anyone cold”, comes the mightiest climate-change hockey-stick ever seen!  :cry:   :?:   :!:   :?:   :cry:

    One thing that the discourse here on Climate Etc teaches is that climate change denialism originates very largely in economic and political dogmatism.

    That is the simple reason why freemarket /libertarian dogmatists deny the reality of climate-change with the same fervor that fundamentalist /Marxist dogmatists deny the reality of Darwinian evolution.

    In the end “Nature cannot be fooled”, and that is why the rational reality of evolution and climate-change both are taught in science classes today.

    ————–
    Conclusion  At the end of the day, religious & political dogmas adapt to scientific realities … not the other way around … and this is of course the essence of the Enlightenment upon whose principles the American nation was founded.   :lol:   :!:   :lol:
    ————–

    Appreciation is extended to Climate Etc, as a forum where the principles of the Enlightenment, and the practical necessity of these principles, both are plainly evident!

    Thank you Climate Etc!.   :lol:   :!:   :lol:

    • Fan, you have in the past mentioned that Arctic Sea Ice is melting faster even that predicted in the climate models. Why’s that? Could it be that the amplitude and frequencies of the internal oscillations are not well understood?

      While the increase in Antarctic sea ice is inconsequential, it is an indication that Antarctic climate is changing in the opposite of the model projections. That just means the is likely more to the situation than the “sensitivity” focused on in the models.

      Wrong is still wrong which should be expected of models. The trick is to learn from the mistakes that modelers should know are likely.

      • Cap’n –

        While the increase in Antarctic sea ice is inconsequential, it is an indication that Antarctic climate is changing in the opposite of the model projections.

        Is that a fully considered statement – particularly if you consider mass as well as extent? For example, if I’m not mistaken our dear Judith has was co-authored a paper that uses climate models to reach a different conclusion. A quick Google tells me that others say that the models don’t have enough data to make predictions about the dynamics affecting antarctic ice variations (and so use statistical methods to make projections).

      • Joshua, yep, pretty much fully considered. Ice mass is more a function of precipitation. Colder in the Antarctic would mean more snow on the sea ice which would be less likely to last more than one season. A warmer Antarctic should actually increase ice mass.

      • Cap’n –

        I don’t see how your answer follows from my question.

        I am questioning whether your observation of divergence between patterns of change and model predictions is accurate – not asking about your confidence that you understand what might be causal in variations.

      • IMO, yes, then opinions are like buttholes :) To me, without understanding the more of the natural variations which have relevant periods of 5 to 14,000 years with a peculiar 1470 +/- 500 year oscillation that is due, any divergence of observation from the models is important.

        So I tend to look for the most stable region, the oceans specifically 44-64S latitude, to predict as much as possible, what are the more important things to watch. Antarctic sea ice, ~ 64S is a pretty important indication of the change in heat capacity. Sea ice change is a pretty fair measure of changes in the thermodynamics.

        And Fan, if we can’t determine the hemispherical energy imbalance, predicting a global energy imbalance is like pissing yourself in a dark suit :)

      • ???

        Cap’n. I seem to be missing my mark. Let me try one more time, then I’m off to fry some bacon.

        When you say that observations are different than climate model predictions w/r/t Antarctic sea ice – which climate model predictions are you referring to?

        For your consideration, I offer this link – which refers to a a paper co-authored by Judith. How do you see observations as different than the “predictions” Judith made in her paper based on climate models? (the article has some careless editing errors, which suggest that it may not present an accurate summary of Judith’s study.)

        http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/antarctic-ice-future/

        And this link lays out an argument that not enough is known about the dynamics for climate models to predict variations in Antarctic sea ice – which presumably does not preclude validity in those models’ ability to predict larger scale climate change.

        http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/projects/sea_ice.html

        Now these links I provide came from a very basic use of The Google, and while Judith is a noted expert I have no idea of the qualifications of the scientists who wrote the blurb from Columbia. Still, each article in its own way suggests that your statement about what the models predict for variation in Antarctic sea ice may be in error.

      • Joshua, Antarctic sea ice extent change is an observation. Antarctic Ice Mass is a separate issue. Check out the projected warming by latitude. I have a slow connection thanks to Issac, but look at where observations deviate most from projections, that is what I am referring to as modeled projections.

        Now there is one minor issue interpreting the model versus observations. That is because the accuracy of the Antarctic temperature data is totally screwed up. Warming in the Arctic is greater than projected and less than projected in the tropics. Only the mid-latitudes actually agree well with projections.

        Since I am using the temperature projections versus all observations. Doesn’t Antarctic sea ice extent increasing while temperatures are supposedly increasing sound odd to you? Doesn’t southern ocean cooling differ slightly from projections?

        So since Antarctic Ice Mass change is not predicted because it is complicated, why would I compare that to a model not predicting Antarctic Ice Mass change. I am looking at the modeled temperature changes.

        If that is confusing, sorry

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        captdallas asks  “Arctic Sea Ice is melting faster even that predicted in the climate models. Why’s that?”

        That is a great question, Captdallas!  :)   :)   :)

        On Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog, there is no shortage of detailed explanations offered — see for example comments by “Old Leatherneck” (who apparently is Dave Springer’s USMC alter ego :) ) — and detailed numerical models similarly provide explanations, and yet regrettably, in both cases the explanations are so intricate as to be relatively uninstructive.

        A less specific, but perhaps more satisfying, global explanation is simply that:

        (1)  CO2 increase is secular, monotonic, and accelerating, and so

        (2)  earth’s energy imbalance is secular, monotonic, and accelerating, and so

        (3)  climate-change is secular, monotonic, and accelerating.

        It’s not complicated, Captdallas!

        Here “secular” is a term from mathematical dynamics meaning (roughly) “changing not as a cycle that averages to zero, but as a cumulative trend having a nonzero long-term average” … “monotonic” meaning “the trend has just one sign” … “accelerating” meaning “the rate-of-change itself is increasing.”

        Statistical/cyclical analyses aren’t good at predicting these secular /accelerating changes … that’s why folks who rely overmuch on statistics & cycles are surprised over-and-over again by “Black Swan” events like this year’s Arctic ice-melt.

        Hopefully the preceding is useful to you, Captdallas!   :)   :)   :)

      • Fan, Accelerating appears to be wrong. The Northern Hemisphere is a complicated indicator of global energy imbalance. Warming in the NH due to CO2 or land use has little short term impact on ocean heat capacity. Cooling due to volcanic aerosols has a greater impact. That tends to imply that most of the NH energy is supplied by the southern hemisphere pretty much like every thing suggests.

        So imagine this, while the Earth has an Equator, it would have a different thermal equator. In NH winter, the Solar TSI is much larger than is NH summer. The Southern hemisphere oceans control the thermostat. So attempting to model “global” climate based on predominately northern hemisphere land, is friggin’ hilarious, much like you devotion to repetition of failing theories.:)

    • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

      “One thing that the discourse here on Climate Etc teaches is that climate change denialism originates very largely in economic and political dogmatism.”

      ——–
      That seems quite self-evident as it sure isn’t based on looking objectively at all the data.

    • Fan

      Source please of that Hockey stick reconstructed arctic ice graph which extraordinarily appears to show the Vikings were sailing round in ice bound seas whilst the Little Ice Age apparently succeeded in melting the arctic ice.
      tonyb

  52. Judith:

    There are even predictions of an ice free Arctic Ocean by the end of Sept.

    I’m hoping that reposting will catch your eye (assuming that you don’t reflexively ignore all of my comments).

    You demonstrated in an earlier post that you have a commitment to exploring as much of the literature on Arctic sea ice as you can, within reason.

    I assume that means that when you make a statement like that I quoted above in this comment, it comes from your knowledge of the literature. Would you mind linking to the multiple occasions where this predication has been made?

    • You need to be a not-IPCC ditto-head to get noticed……

      • David Springer

        Or at least a recognizable person in the real world. That’s not necessarily someone using a real name we can see but at least an email address she can see that reveals a person she recognizes.

    • Go over to Watts place. The prediction that the arctic could be ice free in 5 years was made in 2007 by Jay Zwally of NASA.

      Watts has a ‘countdown calender’ running. It’s always fun to ‘pretend’ to take predictions that are obviously not going to come true seriously.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/the-arctic-ocean-could-be-nearly-ice-free-at-the-end-of-summer-by-2012/

      Here’s Jay Zwally’s bio…
      http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/directory/eospso_members/h_zwally.php
      He has had over 100 referred publications in glaciology, polar research, climate science, and physics.

      • Notice the use of the present tense in JC’s statement. Someone, somewhere (possibly plural) is predicting an ice-free Arctic by the end of September.

      • Harry –

        It’s always fun to ‘pretend’ to take predictions that are obviously not going to come true seriously.

        I would have thought this kind of nonsense to be beneath you.

        As has been noted above – Watts changed “could” to “will”

        Watts also ignores that Zwally’s “prediction” of what “could” was specifically contingent on the trends of 2007 continuing.

        Unfortunately, the type of motivated analysis we see in Watts’ input on this issue is very characteristic of Watt’s input more generally.

        What becomes particularly unfortunate is that seemingly large numbers of “skeptics” either ignore of just fail to notice his bias-confirming ways. Neither ignoring or not noticing what Watts is doing here is consistent with skepticism. Both ignoring and failing to notice Watt’s behaviors are consistent with “skepticism.”

      • Well this is why I call them climate deniers.

        People just questioning things wouldn’t put so much effort into finding ways to deny the measured decline in arctic sea ice.

      • There is no reason to “deny” the decline in Arctic sea ice. It is a regional phenomenon. You can see from AMSU that, globally, this year’s temp is pretty much in the middle of the last 10. There is nothing to see here. Move on.

        http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

      • “There is no reason to “deny” the decline in Arctic sea ice.”

        No honest reason anyway.

      • I’m having a Doomsday party on 21 December 2012.

        I’m well aware Dr Zwally used the qualifier could as I am also well aware that the entire IPCC report is loaded with could’s and may’s and possibly’s.

        I passed ‘critical reading’ long ago with a solid A.

        The first thing one should do when reading a document is line thru every statement that has a ‘could’ or ‘may’ type qualifier in it. This separates facts from opinion.

        Of course those who have an agenda line thru the coulds and mays and present them as facts.

        Here is the abstract from one of Hansen’s latest papers…
        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha05510d.html
        as usual it’s filled statements like this Satellite gravity data, though too brief to be conclusive, but also has statements like this Thus goals to limit human-made warming to 2°C are not sufficient — they are prescriptions for disaster. and from the full text Fig. 1 shows estimated global deep ocean temperature in the Cenozoic, the past 65.5 million years. and my favorite
        The fact that CO2 is the dominant cause of long-term Cenozoic climate trends is obvious

        Of course a lot has changed in the last 65 million years…like the Himalayan mountain range didn’t exist 65 million years ago.

        Of course we can go ask some geologists what they think

        http://fsu.edu/news/2008/06/12/tibetan.fossils/
        Establishing an accurate history of tectonic and associated elevation changes in the region is important because uplift of the Tibetan Plateau has been suggested as a major driving mechanism of global climate change over the past 50-60 million years

        Hansen’s ‘obvious’ statement ignores the Tibetan Uplift as a possible driver of ‘global climate change’ over the last 50-60 million years. He notes the collision of India and Asia but then ignores the massive change in elevation of Tibet that continues to this day.

        I can either laugh or cry at the level of implied certainty when so much is uncertain.

        If a scientist says something ‘could’ happen without a numerical qualification as to probability then the scientist is implying that the ‘could’ is a ‘will’.

        I’ve also managed to pass ‘persuasive writing 101’.

        Saying there is a 1% chance of rain tomorrow is not the same as saying it could rain tomorrow.

      • Yes…the nested comments can get lost.

        But your point that everyone that reads Watts reads it without a ‘critical eye’ is probably lost on me.

        I noticed he dropped the could, I also notice an awful lot of ‘alarmist’ stuff drops ‘could as well’.

        Standard ‘persuasive writing’ is to imply a level of certainty without actually stating the level certainty. You use the biases of your readers in order to ‘fill in blanks’ that were never actually stated.

        I would think you would be schooled on the differences between white propaganda, grey propaganda and black propaganda as a communications professional.

        White is truthful and doesn’t lead the reader to a false conclusion
        Grey is truthful but presented in a manner that leads the reader to conclusion not supported by the facts presented.
        Black is outright falsehood.

        You would be hard pressed to find ‘pure white’ anywhere in the climate debate.

        Somebody at NASA makes a somewhat ‘alarmist’ ‘could’ prediction. Now Watts is making fun of it.

        I’m on record that coal consumption is going to peak around 8 billion tons. If it hits 9 or 10 billion tons then plenty of folks will be laughing at me. If it peaks at 8 billion tons then I’ll get to laugh at all the alarmists that claimed it would never peak.

      • “Somebody at NASA makes a somewhat ‘alarmist’ ‘could’ prediction. Now Watts is making fun of it.”

        If skeptics want to make fun of wrong predictions why not start with their own? Since the 2007 minimum skeptic blogs have been playing the line of “nothing to see here” and pushing the idea of a “recovery” of arctic sea ice. A new record minimum in 2012 is exactly the opposite of what they’ve led everyone to believe would happen.

        But of course skeptics won’t want to admit this, so perhaps instead they will make fun of the mainstream scientific predictions of arctic sea ice decline that could now be criticized as not being alarmist enough?

        Of course not, if skeptics made fun of *those* predictions it would weaken their desired narrative of “alarmist scientists” and “nothing to see here”.

        So what they’ve gone for is framing the lowest prediction they can find as “The Definite Prediction Of IPCC Scientists” and this is all that allows them to retain a figment of their “Nothing To See Here”, “alarmist scientists” narrative.

        Also note that while skeptics are happy to describe Zwally’s prediction as alarmist now, you can be sure that if it does come to pass they will be the first ones to claim the changes aren’t in any way alarming. In fact I can well imagine that a few years back some of the arctic sea ice projections that predicted ice free conditions by 2050 would have been described as “alarmist” by skeptics.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        From Neven’s weblog:

        “As part of Watts’ readers poll, he did give the option of voting for ‘Zwally’s ice free forecast (less than 1M).’ I would have thought that this is an unlikely outright winner; but its chances of being the most accurate (below 2.45 would be closer than Wang’s 3.9) are gaining ground.”

        Verdict  Subsequent Arctic ice-melts have validated Dr. Zwally’s 2007 remarks as being startlingly accurate, eh?   :)   :)   :)

      • Actually – in responding to Watt’s inaccurate claims of a “prediction,” you are just wandering down a rabbit hole.

        It wasn’t a “prediction”: It was a statement of what “could” happen if trends continued as they were in 2007.

        This (Watt’s inaccuracies and responses to his inaccuracies) is all a bunch of nonsense. It is point-scoring, and it has nothing to do with the science.

  53. peterdavies252

    “In any case, it will take far more study, with far more accurate and universally respected results, over a much longer period of time before our limited human comprehension can form a true picture of what is happening, why it is happening, whether it is a source of long-term concern, and whether there is anything particular to be done about it.”

    I agree with this statement, quoted by Judith, as originating from the catholic culture blog, 100%. Climate science needs to garner a much greater understanding of the impact of natural variability on climate, given that the system itself is vastly complex and non-linear. Until this is done, there’s no way whatsoever that the effect of human activity can be ascertained to any degree of statistical probity.

  54. I would like to take up again the issue of the measurement of total climate sensitivity; a discussion I have had recently with lolwot and other proponents of CAGW. The impression that lolwot wants to give about the measurement of total climate sensitivity, is that it is merely a minor issue with respect to CAGW. I would argue that it is not a minor issue, but a unique, and very major issue.

    IF, and it is a very big IF, but IF total climate sensitivity can actually be measured, then the value obtained will, for all time, settle the issue of whether CAGW is real or not. If the actual meausrement shows that total climate sensitivity has the large value that the proponents of CAGW speculate it has, then this will silence their critics for ever. No longer will any of us denier/skeptics, be able to claim that CAGW is a hoax.

    If, however, and as I expect, the value of measured total climate sensitivity turns out to be indistinguishable from zero, then the case for CAGW collapses. I wonder why lolwot is so insistent that the case for the measurement of total climate sensitivity is only a very minor and unimportant issue.

    • David Springer

      14 years with no warming

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

      despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/plot/none

      What does this imply to the unbiased observer, Jim?

      I would infer it to mean that there are other factors involved with the earth’s average temperature where those factors, either natural or manmade or both, are sufficient to negate and reverse, at least for 14 years, the warming effect of anthropogenic CO2.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        David Springer asks  “What does [denialist cherry-picking] imply to the unbiased observer, Jim?”

        The Unbiased Answer  Unbiased observers conclude that climate-change denialists habitually cherry-pick the weakest observations of the earth’s smallest and most variable thermal reservoirs!   :)   :)   :)

        And all the while, denialists absurdly ignore the mightiest climate-change hockey-sticks ever seen!   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

        Dave Springer, you might take a example from Old LeatherNeck, who serves as your non-denialist “good twin” on Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog!   :)   :)   :)

      • Dave you write “What does this imply to the unbiased observer, Jim?”

        I agree with what you are saying and implying. That is why I believe that, if and when total climate sensitivity is ever acutally measured, it’s value will be found to be indistinguishable from zero. But that is not the issue. The point is that what you have stated does not actually MEASURE total climate sensitivity.

        What I am trying to find out is why the proponents of CAGW are so against any sort of attempt to actaully MEASURE total climate sensitivcity. That is where I hope someone can help me.

      • The only way to measure sensititivity is thru ocean heat content.

        Unfortunately, the sailors quip that ‘Below 40 degrees south there is no law,Below 50 degrees there is no god.’ pretty much means there isn’t any good long term data below 40 degrees south because sailors avoided sailing below 40 degrees south.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Jim Cripwell asks  “Why are the proponents of CAGW are so against any sort of attempt to actaully MEASURE total climate sensitivity? That is where I hope someone can help me.”

        Jim Cripwell, it is a pleasure to answer your question!   :)   :)   :)

        The answer you seek is stated plainly in James Hansen et al. Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications (2011):

        Section 13.6.2: Measuring the cause of Earth’s energy imbalance

        We also must quantify the causes of changes of Earth’s energy imbalance. The two dominant causes are changes of greenhouse gases, which are measured very precisely, and changes of atmospheric aerosols. It is remarkable and untenable that the second largest forcing that drives global climate change remains unmeasured. We refer to the direct and indirect effects of human-made aerosols.

        The large aerosol forcing derived in our present study implies that the aerosol indirect climate forcing exceeds the direct aerosol forcing, possibly by a large amount. There is no simple relationship between direct and indirect forcings, which each strongly dependent on aerosol composition.

        Understanding of the aerosol indirect forcing will require a combination of global observations, field measurements, and a range of modeling and analysis studies. Global observations to determine the aerosol direct and indirect climate forcings will need to include simultaneous measurements of reflected solar and emitted thermal radiation fields as described above. The instruments measuring these two radiation fields must look at the same area at essentially the same time.

        Answer  Careful measurements of climate-sensitivity are essential to the simple long-term strategy of climate-change science for achieving the total victory of Enlightenment science over denialism.

        What is your next question Jim Cripwell?   :)   :)   :)

      • Fan, Sidles, whatever your name is, you write “Answer Careful measurements of climate-sensitivity are essential to the simple long-term strategy of climate-change science.”

        I swore I would ignore you, and I am sure I will regret this posting, but you do write the most complete and utter non-scientific drivel. I am talking about the measurement of total climate sensitivity. You are talking about forcings. They have completely different Dimensions, and are barely related.

        When you can say something sensible to say about measuring total climate sensitivity, it might be interesting, but I doubt it. I sure wish you would stop abusing this wonderful blog that our hostess has provided.

      • Since 1998, every year, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased by 1.94 ppm per year from 365 to 393 ppm as shown.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/to:2012/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/to:2012/trend

        For this increase in CO2 concentration, the global mean temperature trend decreased as shown.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2012/trend

        From this data, since 1998, the global mean temperature trend has been flat.

        CONCLUSION=> CO2 emission does not cause global warming!

        Analogy=> Potatoes contain arsenic does not mean that eating it will kill you.

        CO2 is a heat trapping gas in the closed flask of the laboratory does not mean that it behaves the same way on the open and windy surface of the earth.

      • lolwot, you write “The warming trend since the beginning of the satellite record has increased since 1998:”

        So what. You along with Fan, are completely ingoring my question. It is impossible to measure total climate sensitivity from the figures you quote, because it is impossible to prove how much of any warming is caused by additional CO2 in the atmosphere. You proponents of CAGW are wonderful at providing all sorts of red herrings on this blog, doubtless in an effort to make it look like you are writing something sensible, while all the time just repeating a lot of progaganda.

        How is this related to the measurement of total climate sensitivity?

      • Red herrings Jim?

        That’ll be all the claims of “no warming since 1998”. Those are the red herrings. Those are the distractions. Why would I talk about climate sensitivity when climate skeptics can’t even get right that the world continued warming past 1998?

        Some of them even question whether the CO2 rise is caused by man!

        These are the red herrings.

      • If we look at 1999 instead (so to cover the 98 el nino), we see the trend continues as-is:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:2012/trend

        Or to look at it another way, lets cast our minds back to 1999. A big El Nino is just winding down and the trend since 1979 is 0.15C/decade, meaning the world has warmed 0.3C in 20 years.

        If global warming had then stopped we’d still be only 0.3C higher than 1979 today. 0.3C warming over the period 1979-2012 works out at 0.09C/decade.

        Yet the trend since 1979 is actually 0.15C/decade. The same as the trend was from 1979-1999. Ie the trend hasn’t changed, the warming hasn’t stopped.

      • Of course it can be simplified further.

        Warming from 1979 to 1999: 0.3C
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1999/trend

        Warming from 1979 to 2012: 0.5C
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:2012/trend

        That’s an extra 0.2C warming. That means warming didn’t stop in 1999. It’s that simple.

      • Do they give classes at CAGW school in how to construct graphs to obscure any trend that doesn’t suit the talking point of the day?

      • Well answer me this GaryM,

        Warming from 1979 to 1999: 0.3C
        Warming from 1979 to 2012: 0.5C
        If warming stopped in 1999, where did that extra 0.2C come from?

      • Lolwot,

        I’m the wrong guy to ask. I don’t believe we can measure global average temperature to within tenths of a degree now, let alone when the instrumentation was even more scare and more inaccurate. I was just commenting on your, and your CAGW colleagues’. use of graphs as propaganda.

        Now I understand why those who take the temp record at face value might prefer to cherry pick one year over another. On either side. But y’all are just so quick in your response time to create competing graphs that make a stark visual contrast by emphasizing certain data, or time frames, over others.

        Usually CAGW graphs are colored in dark, menacing red or heavy black to emphasize the talking point at issue. But cherry picking a date, of extending or contracting the frame of reference, works too.

        Either way, you are all getting better at it. The ham handed Mannian deletion of inconvenient data seems to be declasse…for now.

        I just wonder whether it was a seminar, or a full semester course?

      • Oh so you don’t have any problem with David Springer and Girma’s use of graphs then GaryM? Thanks for revealing your partisanship. Go team skeptic!

      • Dave, what happens when you change 1998 to 1997 or 1999?

        Why is that and how does that affect your low-hanging fruit-cake arguments?

      • What happens if you use 2000? 2001? 2002? 2003? But if you start in 2008….

        Cherry picking is fun.

        Even if you eliminate the 1998 el nino, the graph shows a rise in temps until about 2002. Since then, a decline. Unless you start again in 2008….

        It’s all phrenology, tea leaves, astrology at best. What happened last year did not prove or disprove CAGW. What happens this year, and the next, and the next, will not prove or disprove CAGW.

        The only graph that matters will be the graph of the election results in the U.S. in November of this year. If conservatives win the presidency and both houses of congress, the CAGW money train is going to get derailed.

        If progressives win, Kyoto and Copenhagen won’t matter. Decarbonization will begin in earnest in the U.S. And it won’t stop until the economy crashes enough to cure people of their addiction to “free” goodies from the government.

      • Signal to noise ratio anyone?

        The zombies need 13 seats in the big house to start eating brains. Odds are heavily against.

      • Some of you CAGWers suck at math, dontcha?

        The GOP holds 47 seats in the Senate. By my advanced mathematical calculations, that means they need 4 to take outright control. (If I remember correctly, 51 is a majority of 100, unless you have Mann doing the statistics.) If Romney wins, they only need three, because Paul Ryan will be the tie breaker.

      • GaryM, my math is fine, it takes 60 zombie votes to unilaterally defund the climate express freight train. Filibuster anyone?

      • bob droge,

        You apparently don’t know any more about Senate rules than you do how to subtract.

        If the Dems could pass Obamacare using reconciliation, the GOP can use it to defund the EPA’s attempts to nationalize the energy economy. They pass a budget that simply zeros out funding for the CO2 regs.

        Oh, and the filibuster is also a creation of the Senate, and can be discarded by a majority vote. If that is what it takes to keep the energy economy away from the CAGW fanatics at EPA, let alone stop the Obamacare leviathan, that’s what will happen.

      • Cloture is 60 votes, or a 3/5ths majority to end a filibuster.

        Check the Senate rules and get back to me.

      • David Springer

        @bob drooge

        Obamacare was passed with a 51% majority in the senate. It can be unpassed in the same manner. Unless you understand how it was passed without a super-majority you will not understand how it can be unpassed without a super-majority.

        Actually unpassing it is easier. The House of Representatives controls the purse strings. They can simply refuse to fund it. They can do the same thing to the EPA. They can’t vote to fund something that doesn’t exist. Passing legislation that creates a new agency requires approval of both houses of congress plus a POTUS signature. POTUS can be overruled by a super majority in congress though. However, what requires no cooporation by either the president or the senate is funding. This was dramatically illustrated recently by a Republican simple majority in the House holding the full faith and credit of the United States Treasury hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling limit. Without approval to raise the debt ceiling the United States would not have been able to pay the vigorish on US Treasury notes and the US would have gone into default on its loans. That was a VERY BIG deal and it was done solely through the ability of a simple majority in the House to refuse to authorize spending.

        Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

      • Dave Springer, notice I took care to correctly spell your name,
        You obviously don’t know what the word unilaterally means.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        GaryM, everyone remembers how Ronald Reagan wisely appreciated that “Nature cannot be fooled” … and so we hope that today’s politicians — of all political parties of all nations … cultivate a wise appreciation like Reagan’s that Arctic sea ice shouldn’t leave anyone cold.”

        Appreciation is extended to Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog for explaining the science so clearly!   :)   :)   :)

      • fan,

        You seem to have a case of sea ice Tourette’s. I think they have meds now that could help you control your condition.

      • David Springer

        The first step in self-help is always acknowledging to yourself that you need help. I’m afraid John Sidles is not capable of that first step. Perhaps an intervention by his family, if he hasn’t alienated them all by now, would be in order.

      • David Springer

        bob droege | August 26, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Reply

        “Dave, what happens when you change 1998 to 1997 or 1999?
        Why is that and how does that affect your low-hanging fruit-cake arguments?”

        The fruit-cake is entirely yours and you perhaps should have changed the year and seen for yourself before opening your mouth and putting your foot in it.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

        Beginning in 1997 the rate of decline is nearly flat but still in decline.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/plot/rss/from:1999/trend

        Beginning in 1999 there is a 0.03C/decade warming trend which is a factor of 10 less than the IPCC prediction.

        Beginning in 2000 the trend is flat and beginning in 2001 or any year after that the trend is negative.

        Since 2002 the trend is 0.10C/decade cooling.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/trend

        Is there something about how the trend taken in increments of a sine wave that confuses you? It’s a bit noisy but not all that much. 1998 was the peak of the positive portion of a sine wave with an approximate 60-year periodicity. This sine wave rides atop a longer period cycle measured in centuries that includes the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. We have been on the warming side of that cycle since the Little Ice Age. Historians of the future will call our time perhaps The Industrial Warm Period. If history repeats, and it usually does, then the cooling trend we observerd beginning circa 1998 and which had accelerated to 0.10C/decade cooling by 2002 will continue until we’re in a repeat of the Little Ice Age once again.

      • “Beginning in 2000 the trend is flat and beginning in 2001 or any year after that the trend is negative.”

        says Dave Springer, but

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend

        and he also compares trends to IPCC estimates but fails to provide an analysis of the error bounds and whether the trends identified actually exclude the IPCC trends or not.

        And with RSS you have to go back to 1989 or so before you get a trend that is statistically valid.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

        And if you are seeing sine wave in all this data, my only conclusion is that you are the one ingesting psychotropic substances, or else that the zombies have already engested your brains, but I think that has already been established.

  55. CFAN’s latest forecast on Isaac:

    Tropical Storm Isaac – Currently moving through the Florida Straits, Issac is gaining organization and is likely to become a hurricane later today as it enters the Gulf of Mexico. Since Saturday, the CFAN forecast for Isaac has shifted westward in agreement with the latest model consensus. well west of this morning’s forecast from the National Hurricane Center. Landfall is now expected near New Orleans, LA by Tuesday evening or in the early overnight hours, and the cone of uncertainty has narrowed and is now bound to the west by Marsh Island, LA and to the east by Panama City, FL. The risk of movement through the Production Region has increased today and remains high (60%+). We expect Isaac to be a strong category 2 storm at landfall and the risk of it becoming a major hurricane continues to increase but is just within the upper moderate range (30-60%). At this time, risk of reaching category four or five intensity has increased but remains low (10-30%). In addition to tropical storm force winds, the risk of hurricane force winds in the Production Region is also now high (60%). Tropical storm force winds for the Production Region are likely to begin late Monday morning and last until early Wednesday afternoon. Finally, based on the latest size forecasts from the European model guidance, Isaac is forecast to become the sixth largest landfalling Gulf TC since 1920. This large horizontal size coupled with his fast forward motion should lead to substantial wave setup leading up to landfall. Significant wave heights are expected to reach 30-35 ft, individual weight heights may reach 50-60 ft, and swell heights will likely reach 10-15 ft.

    • The up to 30% figure is interesting…


      POST-31 JULY PROBABILITIES FOR AT LEAST ONE MAJOR (CATEGORY 3-4-5) HURRICANE LANDFALL ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING UNITED STATES COASTAL AREAS:

      1) Entire U.S. coastline – 48% (full-season average for last century is 52%)
      2) U.S. East Coast Including Peninsula Florida – 28% (full-season average for last century is 31%)
      3) Gulf Coast from the Florida Panhandle westward to Brownsville – 28% (full-season average for last century is 30%)

      (from a paper updated 3 August 2012 that was coauthored by Dr. Bill Gray)

      • FORECAST OF ATLANTIC SEASONAL HURRICANE ACTIVITY AND LANDFALL STRIKE PROBABILITY FOR 2012
        We anticipate a slightly-below average remainder of the hurricane season this year due to an anticipated weak El Niño event and a tropical Atlantic that is less favorable than in the past two years. This forecast is a slight increase from activity predicted in early June, due to a slower-than-anticipated onset of El Niño and a somewhat more favorable tropical Atlantic than observed earlier this year. We expect a slightly below-average probability of United States and Caribbean major hurricane landfall.
        (as of 3 August 2012)
        By Philip J. Klotzbach1 and William M. Gray2

      • Time to prepare:

        1. Until we know exactly where the hurricane is going to make landfall, and exactly what its top wind speed will be at that time, no one should prepare. Until we know exactly what kind of danger the storm poses, we should treat it as posing no danger at all.

        2. People should not stockpile food, fuel, or water, or prepare their homes for high winds. In the unlikely event that this storm, which we don’t really know anything about, shatters your windows, blowing the glass inward, human ingenuity will allow you to adapt to the shards of broken glass flying towards you and your family.

        3. The government should play no part in preparing for the storm (which is not necessary anyway). In fact “hurricane” is just an alarmist word for a windy day, probably invented by the government as a pretext for using the National Guard to impose martial law. That’s why “hurricanes” always target the freedom-loving South.

      • Maybe if they made a hockey stick-shaped drawings of the hurricane, we’d be better prepared. Or maybe if we can just get Pres. Obama to stop the seas from rising again, some damage could be avoided. Or maybe we can build coastal co2 sequestration facilities real quick we can store the Bad Weather causing demons safely, like they did in Ghostbusters.

        Andrew

      • 1. The entire Gulf Coast should be evacuated. The damage from this potentially catastrophic storm could be….worse than we thought.

        2. The government should impose an immediate 100% tax on food stuffs, to be invested in Al Gore’s new alternative food company. We must wean ourselves from the addiction to proteins, carbohydrates and fats.

        3. The government should appoint neighborhood life “coaches,” with the power to send to jail anyone who does not comply with the experts’ “recommendations” regarding how to reduce their contribution to globalclimatewarmingchange, which caused this hurricane in the first place.

      • Or… just park the buses on high ground and blame Bush if there’s a disaster.

    • This is going to be interesting. There are clearly very different predictions as to what Isaac is gong to do. The next 48 hours or so will be well worthwhile, following what Isaac actually does.

    • If Isaac trashes New Orleans like Katrina did, how much should we all chip in to re-re-build it?

      And will it be Bushes’ fault?

      • The whole point of the post Katrina response was to ‘not rebuild it’.

        The population of NOLA in 2005 was about 445,000, 2010 census has it at 343,000. So only about 1/2 the evacuee’s went back.

      • I lived in NOLA in 1980, and then visited it again in ’09. Didn’t look that different. By ’09, there wasn’t anything there that would indicate that there was a major disaster. The place always was kind of seedy, but the city sure didn’t look like any kind of depopulation had happened.

      • Probably depends on what neighborhoods you visited. I have a friend that owned an Art Gallery in the French Quarter. Took him about two weeks to open back up.

        The Army Corp of Engineers recommended not rebuilding anything that ended up under 14 feet or more of water.

        http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/la/coast/lacpr/FinalReport/Vol%20I/Real%20Estate.pdf

      • David Springer

        Take a gander at Six Flags if you want to see some of Katrina’s lasting legacy. I visited Six Flags, New Orleans in 2006. It was surreal. Eeerie. Dead. Ghostly. Surrounded by tall trees with no small limbs or leaves. Like the grim reaper came through and sucked the life out of everything.

        https://www.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4LENN_enUS461US461&q=new+orleans+six+flags

      • Kinda depends on whether or not the Bush Army Corps was able to make them build the levees right this time. People forget that Katrina didn’t do that much damage until the defective levee failed.

    • David Springer

      Pray with me that it grows in intensity and makes landfall at the far western boundary. We need rain, and lots of it, in south central Texas. Hurricane rain bands are badly needed and usually our best shot at a drought-buster this time of year.

  56. Nice to see the church quoting Frank Zappa (unattributed) – after trying so hard to ban his words and jail him while he was alive.

  57. Mark B (number 2)

    Here is another prediction made in 2004, which may end up being proved wrong. (Looks like the academics where getting carried away with alarmist predictions in that year!)
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html
    “we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’……
    To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).”

    I don’t think I’ll bother.

    • Yes 2004 a year of alarmist predictions…

      oh wait..

      “Arctic summer sea ice is projected to decline by at least 50 percent by the end of this century with some models showing near-complete disappearance of summer sea ice.”
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108213307.htm

      “One model projects an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer by mid-century.”
      http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/human-access-arctic.shtml

      Don’t expect skeptics to cite these mainstream predictions though. They don’t fit the narrative of “Alarmist Scientists!” that skeptics want to push.

      • It’s 2050? Or 2099? Man did I over sleep.

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        lolwot: They don’t fit the narrative of “Alarmist Scientists!” that skeptics want to push.

        Some scientists are alarmist and some are not. Now if we could only get some sort of consensus that the science, taken as a whole, does not provide cause for the alarmism of the alarmists. Perhaps the next report of the IPCC can say “THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR ALARM!”

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        MattState and GaryM, in her 5-minute video Why are climate scientists so conservative?, historian Naomi Oreskes explains why politicians should have a “Plan B” prepared, in the event that IPCC prove to underestimate the accelerating pace of climate change.

        Because history shows plainly that politicians who assert “No ‘Plan B’ is needed” are bad leaders, eh?   :)   :)   :)

        Having a “Plan B” is essential for one over-riding common-sense reason, that every foresighted statesman appreciates:

        Naomi Oreskes says  “Climate change isn’t just about fear and anxiety, it’s about protecting the things we love. “

        MattState and GaryM, hopefully this information will be illuminating for you!   :)   :)   :)

      • fan,

        But we do have a Plan B already.

        Plan A is: put an enormous drag on the economy by sucking out hundreds of billions MORE in taxes at a time of high unemployment, to fund unworkable technology and the growth of massive progressive bureaucracies to micromanage the energy economy.

        Plan B is: Don’t do Plan A.

      • There’s that alarmism problem of yours rearing its ugly head again.

        Where’s your evidence that a carbon tax will be an “enormous drag” on the economy? Any proof?

      • Only a proto-Marxist CAGW progressive would ask for proof that a massive tax would be a massive drag on the economy, particularly when slowing the economy is one of the expressed purposes of the tax.

        But the funny thing about this country is, on a political issue like CAGW, I don’t have to prove, I get to vote. And so does every other eligible voter.

        See you in November.

      • Only a proto-Marxist CAGW progressive would ask for proof . . .

        Nice ad hom . . . if you could stop peeing yourself with fear, could you provide some evidence for your claims?

        Or are you going to lose this argument like you lost WWII and lost the segregation fight. ;)

      • Sorry Bob, I gotta take my son to see “2012 – Obama’s America.”

        I’ll explain why you’re a proto-Marxist CAGW progressive when I get back.

      • David Springer

        To be fair, Gary, highest marginal tax rate in Eisenhower/Kennedy days was a whopping 90% and it was equal to or north of 70% for many good years. I’m a financial conservative but I’m also a student of fact and the fact is that marginal tax rates are not correlated with economic malaise. In fact with a couple of decades of the lowest marginal tax rates in this century we find ourselves in a deep and lasting recession not exceeded for 80 years. So if there is any correlation at all it argues against low marginal tax rates driving economic expansion.

      • David Springer,

        If you think the “economic malaise” is a result of too little being paid in taxes, rather than the explosion in government spending, I’m not sure why you consider yourself an “economic conservative?”

        The tax rates in 2003, 2005, 2005, 206, and 2007 were all the same as they were in 2008, and are now. Look how the level of revenue increased until the crash in 2007-8. (If you really wanted to, you could even look as far back as the Reagan tax cuts, which dropped the top rate from 70%, and the decades of prosperity, and increasing tax revenues, that resulted.)

        Then look at the huge jump in spending beginning in 2008, from which there is no sign of retreat.

        It is the lack of economic activity that has killed revenues, and higher marginal tax rates will result in even less economic activity. If you don’t believe THAT, then you are not an economic conservative. Even Obama admitted that last year.

        Not sure where you are getting your “facts,” but you might want to re-check them.

      • Oops, left out the link.

      • Plan A is good to have. Plan B is also good to have, but it can’t be “not plan A”.

        Once upon a time, in a territory governed by Hedly Lemar, was a town called Rock Ridge. Hedly was a diabolical sort, and sprung a character out of jail and sent him to Rock Ridge to be the new Sheriff. The town had a plan A. Plan A was to welcome the Sheriff. Then they saw the Sheriff. They didn’t have a plan B.

        This is the problem with all this planning. It can’t take into account unknown unknowns, such as a Governor who wants to destroy the town. So when the old coot in the belltower yells “the the Sheriff is near” (or something like that), they’re waiting with the wrong plan.

        In the end, none of it mattered.

      • P.E. said

        Once upon a time, in a territory governed by Hedly Lemar, was a town called Rock Ridge.

        Once upon a time there was a legendary Hollywood actress named Hedy Lamarr. She had some amazing math talents and was the inventor of the precursor to the spread spectrum technology used widely in wireless communications. Look it up.
        She also apparently sued the producers of Blazing Saddles for mocking her name and settled out of court.

        Truth is stranger than fiction, something that skeptics never seem to be able to comprehend. They live in some fantasy land of beliefs and desires, never addressing the real science.

      • Oh no you don’t take the name of Mel Brooks in vain. Heathen.

      • Fan

        Surely Naomi is involved in the history of science and as such is not a ‘historian’ in the way you perhaps mean? She is of course much cited by people on the warmist side such as Al Gore

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

        I’d however agree with the need for a Plan B. All our attention is focused on Warming when cooling would be more detrimental. Is that what you mean by a Plan B Fan, in which case I agree with your far sightedeness of the perils of cooling.
        tonyb

      • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

        A fan of *MORE* discourse: “Why are climate scientists so conservative?“

        So now you are pushing alarmism.

      • Hmm…. Speaking of Naomi Oreske, I was reading about her over at Jo Nova’s a week or so ago. Never really heard of her before that. Seems she has some sort of a figurative trans-gender “hard-on” for old, white guys. Calls ’em “weirdos” and that sort of thing. Even does a little Miss Shrink-wannabee analysis of their loneliness and attention-seeking needs–you know, the typical, phony, hive-psych agit-prop deal. And all this, mind you, from some eco-biggie who is supposed to be a highly-credentialed mover-and-shaker a-strut on the world stage and all (but I guess that’s the sort of thing you have to expect when the empowered man-haters kick all the white-boys out of the IPCC and replace them with gal-pals).

        But what most struck me most about Naomi Oreske was the picture of her that accompanied Jo Nova’s article. I mean, like, check out the totally improbable Naomi’s even more improbable hair-do! I mean, like, –don’cha agree?–Naomi doesn’t so much sport a hair-do as she has constructed on the top of her head a do-it-yourself, wilderness habitat, perfect for nesting black-widow spiders! Jeez.

        So is there anyone out there who would trust someone like Naomi, with her “weirdo” sense of hair-style, and all, to be their make-a-buck/make-a-gulag Philosopher-Queen and Cull-Mistress? I mean, like, is there anyone out there that so completely dorked-up?

        P. S. Check out some of the 50’s era GUM mail-order catalogs. See any five-year-plan-make-quota-babushka-head-scarf super-models in the catalogs that remind you of someone? I mean, like, I’m just asking.

  58. That language is interesting–e.g., “we predict, on the basis of the current level of unionized government workers, that Western civilization will be ‘committed to extinction’……

  59. David Springer

    “I am trying to figure out what Mann is trying to accomplish with these lawsuits.”

    Name recognition is my guess. By now he’s surely realized he’s not going to become the Alexander Fleming of Climate Maladies and will take his fame wherever and however he can find it.

    • Latimer Alder

      He’s trying to achieve the same as any other inadequate loser who decides to kill himself very publicly (eg suicide by cop) ‘so that I’ll be famous when I’m dead’.

      Mann’s idea is to make himself a laughing stock rather than a corpse..but at least a famous one.

      One truly confident in his own abilities and his work would just rise above the jibes and prove his worth by publishing great science. That he chooses to concentrate on the law not on climatology says it all.

      • Latimer,

        Mann is a highly productive researcher. He has authored or co-authored almost 130 papers in his scientific field, including 7 papers so far in 2012. I am providing a list of his papers, but it is very lengthy, so I will understand if a moderator deletes it.

        Kozar, M.E., Mann, M.E., Camargo, S.J., Kossin, J.P., Evans, J.L., Stratified statistical models of North Atlantic basin-wide and regional tropical cyclone counts, J. Geophys. Res. (in press).
        Ning, L., Mann, M.E., Crane, R., Wagener, T., Najjar, R.G., Singh, R., Probabilistic Projections of Anthropogenic Climate Change Impacts on Precipitation for the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States, J. Climate, 25, 5273-5291, 2012.
        Steinman, B.A., Abbott, M.B., Mann, M.E., Stansell, N.D., Finney, B.P, 1500 year quantitative reconstruction of winter precipitation in the Pacific Northwest, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., doi: 10.1073/ pnas.1201083109 (online publication), 2012.
        Fan, F., Mann, M.E., Lee., S, Evans, J.L., Future Changes in the South Asian Summer Monsoon: An Analysis of the CMIP3 Multi-Model Projections, J. Climate, 25, 3909-3928, 2012.
        Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S., Underestimation of Volcanic Cooling in Tree-Ring Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric Temperatures, Nature Geoscience, 5, 202–205, 2012.
        Goosse, H., Crespin, E., Dubinkina, S., Loutre, M., Mann, M.E., Renssen, H., Sallaz-Damaz, Y., Shindell, D., The role of forcing and internal dynamics in explaining the “Medieval Climate Anomaly”, Climate Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1297-0 (online publication), 2012.
        Goosse, H., Crespin, E., Dubinkina, S., Loutre, M., Mann, M.E., Renssen, H., Sallaz-Damaz, Y., Shindell, D., The medieval climate anomaly in Europe: Comparison of the summer and annual mean signals in two reconstructions and in simulations with data assimilation, Global and Planetary Change, 84-85, 35-47, 2012.
        Ning, L., Mann, M.E., Crane, R., Wagener, T., Probabilistic Projections of Climate Change for the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States – Validation of Precipitation Downscaling During the Historical Era, J. Climate, 25, 509-526, 2012.
        Singh, R., Wagener, T., Van Werkhoven, K., Mann, M.E., Crane, R., A trading-space-for-time approach to probabilistic continuous streamflow predictions in a changing climate – accounting for changing watershed behavior, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 1-13, 2011.
        Diaz, H.F., Trigo, R., Hughes, M.K., Mann, M.E., Xoplaki, E., Barriopedro, D., Spatial and temporal characteristics of climate in medieval times revisited,, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 92, 1487-1500 2011.
        Katz, B., Najjar, R.G., Cronin, T., Rayburn, J., Mann, M.E., Constraints on Lake Agassiz discharge through the late-glacial Champlain Sea (St. Lawrence Lowlands, Canada) using salinity proxies and an estuarine circulation model, Quat. Sci. Rev., 30, 3248-3257, 2011.
        Kemp, A.C., Horton, B.P., Donnelly, J.P., Mann, M.E., Vermeer, M., Rahmstorf, S., Reply to Grinsted et al.: Estimating land subsidence in North Carolina, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108, E783, 2011.
        Mann, M.E., On long range dependence in global surface temperature series: An editorial comment, Climatic Change, 107, 267–276, 2011.
        Kemp, A.C., Horton, B.P., Donnelly, J.P., Mann, M.E., Vermeer, M., Rahmstorf, S., Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108, 11017-11022, 2011.
        Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S.D., A comment on “A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?” by McShane and Wyner, Ann. Appl. Stat., 5, 65–70, 2011.
        Bowman, T.E., Maibach, E., Mann, M.E., Somerville, R.C.J., Seltser, B.J., Fischhoff, B., Gardiner, S.M., Gould, R.J., Leiserowitz, A., Yohe, G., Time to Take Action on Climate Communication, Science, 330, 1044, 2010.
        Sriver, R.L., Goes, M., Mann, M.E., Keller, K., Climate response to tropical cyclone‐induced ocean mixing in an Earth system model of intermediate complexity, J. Geophys. Res., 115, C10042, doi:10.1029/2010JC006106, 2010.
        Fan, F., Mann, M.E., Lee., S, Evans, J.L., Observed and Modeled Changes in the South Asian Summer Monsoon over the Historical Period, J. Climate, 23, 5193-5205, 2010.
        Rutherford, S.D, Mann, M.E., Wahl, E.R., Ammann, C.M., Comment on: “Erroneous Model Field Representations in Multiple Pseudoproxy Studies: Corrections and Implications” by Jason E. Smerdon, Alexey Kaplan and Daniel E. Amrhein., J. Climate (submitted), 2010.
        Rutherford, S.D, Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Wahl, E.R., Comment on: “A surrogate ensemble study of climate reconstruction methods: Stochasticity and robustness” by Christiansen, Schmith and Thejll., J. Climate, 23, 2832-2838, 2010.
        Foster, G., Annan, J.D., Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Mullan, B., Renwick, J., Salinger, J., Schmidt, G.A., Trenberth, K.E., Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter., J. Geophys. Res., 115, D09110, doi:10.1029/2009JD012960, 2010.
        Goosse, H., Crespin, E., de Montety, A., Mann, M.E., Renssen, H., Timmermann, A., Reconstructing surface temperature changes over the past 600 years using climate model simulations with data assimilation, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D09108, doi:10.1029/2009JD012737, 2010.
        Mann, M.E., Zhang, Z., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Shindell, D., Ammann, C., Faluvegi, G., Ni, F., Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly, Science, 326, 1256-1260, 2009.
        Mann, M.E., Woodruff, J.D., Donnelly, J.P., Zhang, Z., Atlantic hurricanes and climate over the past 1,500 years, Nature, 460, 880-883, 2009.
        Crespin, E., Goosse, H., Fichefet, T., Mann, M.E., The 15th century Arctic warming in coupled model simulations with data assimilation, Climate of the Past, 5, 389-405, 2009.
        Bowman, T.E., Maibach, E., Mann, M.E., Moser, S.C., Somerville, R.C.J., Creating a common climate language, Science, 324, 37, 2009.
        Mann, M.E., Do Global Warming and Climate Change Represent a Serious Threat to our Welfare and Environment, Social Philosophy and Policy, 26, 389-405, 2009.
        Malone, R.W., Meek, D.W., Hatfield, J.L., Mann, M.E., Jaquis, R.J., Ma, L., Quasi-Biennial Corn Yield Cycles in Iowa, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 149, 1087-1094, 2009.
        Fan, F., Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Understanding Changes in the Asian Summer Monsoon over the Past Millennium: Insights From a Long-Term Coupled Model Simulation, J. Climate, 22, 1736-1748, 2009.
        Mann, M.E., Schmidt, G.A., Miller, S.K., LeGrande, A.N., Potential biases in inferring Holocene temperature trends from long-term borehole information, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05708, doi:10.1029/2008GL036354, 2009.
        Mann, M.E., Defining Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, 4065-4066, 2009.
        Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, E11, 2009.
        Steig, E.J., Schneider, D.P. Rutherford, S.D., Mann, M.E., Comiso, J.C., Shindell, D.T., Warming of the Antarctic ice sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year, Nature, 1457, 459-463, 2009.
        [Corrigendum (Steig et al, 2009)]
        Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Osborn, T.J., Lough, J.M., van Ommen, T.D., Vinther, B.M., Luterbacher, J., Wahl, E.R., Zwiers, F.W., Mann, M.E., Schmidt, G.A., Ammann, C.M., Buckley, B.M., Cobb, K.M., Esper, J., Goosse, H., Graham, N., Jansen, E., Kiefer, T, Kull, C., Kuttel, M., Mosely-Thompson, E., Overpeck, J.T., Riedwyl, N., Schulz, M., Tudhope, A.W., Villalba, R., Wanner, H., Wolff, E., Xoplaki, E.,High-resolution paleoclimatology of the last millennium: a review of current status and future prospects, Holocene, 19, 3-49, 2009.
        Wei, F., Xie, Y., Mann, M.E. Probabilistic trend of anomalous summer rainfall in Beijing: Role of interdecadal variability, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D20106, doi:10.1029/2008JD010111, 2008.
        Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Reply to: “Comment on ‘Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods’, by Mann et al.”, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D18107, doi:10.1029/2008JD009964, 2008.
        Mann, M.E., Zhang, Z., Hughes, M.K., Bradley, R.S., Miller, S.K., Rutherford, S., Proxy-Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric and Global Surface Temperature Variations over the Past Two Millennia, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 105, 13252-13257, 2008.
        Mann, M.E., Smoothing of Climate Time Series Revisited, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L16708, doi:10.1029/2008GL034716, 2008.
        Foster, G., Annan, J.D., Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Comment on “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System” by S. E. Schwartz, J. Geophys. Res., 113, L22707, D15102, doi: 10.1029/2007JD009373, 2008.
        Mann, M.E., Sabbatelli, T.A., Neu, U., Evidence for a Modest Undercount Bias in Early Historical Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Counts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L22707, doi:10.1029/2007GL031781, 2007.
        Delworth, T.L., Zhang, R., Mann, M.E., Decadal to Centennial Variability of the Atlantic from Observations and Models, in Past and Future Changes of the Oceans Meridional Overturning Circulation: Mechanisms and Impacts, A. Schmittner, J. C. H. Chiang, and S.R. Hemming (eds), Geophysical Monograph Series 173, American Geophysical Union, 131-148, 2007.
        Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Reply to Comments on ìTesting the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-based Reconstructions of Past Climateî by Smerdon and Kaplan, J. Climate, 20, 5671-5674, 2007.
        Sabbatelli, T.A., Mann, M.E., The Influence of Climate State Variables on Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Occurrence Rates, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D17114, doi: 10.1029/2007JD008385, 2007.
        Mann, M.E., Emanuel, K.A., Holland, G.J., Webster, P.J., Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Revisited, Eos, 88, 36, p. 349-350, 2007.
        Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Reply to Comments on ìTesting the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-based Reconstructions of Past Climateî by Zorita et al, J. Climate, 20, 3699-3703, 2007.
        Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Robustness of Proxy-Based Climate Field Reconstruction Methods, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D12109, doi: 10.1029/2006JD008272, 2007.
        Mann, M.E., Climate Over the Past Two Millennia, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35, 111-136, 2007.
        [electronic reprint in html or pdf format (personal use only)]
        Mann, M.E., Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Kiefer, T., Kull, C., Wanner, H., Past Millennia Climate Variability, Eos, 87, 526-527, 2006.
        Goosse, H., Arzel, O., Luterbacher, J., Mann, M.E., Renssen, H., Riedwyl, N., Timmermann, A., Xoplaki, E., Wanner, H., The origin of the European “Medieval Warm Period”, Climate of the Past, 2, 99-113, 2006.
        Goosse, H., Renssen, H., Timmermann, A., Bradley, R.S., Mann, M.E., Using paleoclimate proxy-data to select optimal realisations in an ensemble of simulations of the climate of the past millennium, Climate Dynamics, 27, 165-184, 2006.
        Mann, M.E., Emanuel, K.A., Atlantic Hurricane Trends linked to Climate Change, Eos, 87, 24, p 233, 238, 241, 2006.
        Mann, M.E., Climate Changes Over the Past Millennium: Relationships with Mediterranean Climates, Nuovo Cimento C, 29, 73-80, 2006.
        Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-based Reconstructions of Past Climate, Journal of Climate, 18, 4097-4107, 2005.
        Knight, J.R., Allan, R.J., Folland, C.K., Vellinga, M., Mann, M.E., A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L20708, doi:10.1029/2005GL024233, 2005.
        Cronin, T.M., Thunell, R., Dwyer, G.S., Saenger, C., Mann, M.E., Vann, C., Seal, R.R. II Multiproxy evidence of Holocene climate variability from estuarine sediments, eastern North America, Paleoceanography, 20, PA4006, doi: 10.1029/2005PA001145, 2005.
        Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, 18, 2308-2329, 2005.
        Cook, B.I., Smith, T.M., Mann, M.E., The North Atlantic Oscillation and regional phenology prediction over Europe, Global Change Biology, 11, 919-926, 2005.
        Frauenfeld, O.W., Davis, R.E., Mann, M.E., A Distinctly Interdecadal Signal of Pacific Ocean–Atmosphere Interaction, Journal of Climate, 18, 1709-1718, 2005.
        Mann, M.E., Cane, M.A., Zebiak, S.E., Clement, A., Volcanic and Solar Forcing of the Tropical Pacific Over the Past 1000 Years, Journal of Climate, 18, 447-456, 2005.
        D’Arrigo, R.D., Cook, E.R., Wilson, R.J., Allan, R., Mann, M.E., On the Variability of ENSO Over the Past Six Centuries, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L03711, doi: 10.1029/2004GL022055, 2005.
        Zhang, Z., Mann, M.E., Coupled Patterns of Spatiotemporal Variability in Northern Hemisphere Sea Level Pressure and Conterminous U.S. Drought, Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, D03108, doi: 10.1029/2004JD004896, 2005.
        Schmidt, G.A., Shindell, D.T., Miller, R.L., Mann, M.E., Rind, D., General Circulation Modeling of Holocene climate variability, Quaternary Science Reviews, 23, 2167-2181, 2004.
        Cook, B.I., Mann, M.E., D’Odorico, P., Smith, T.M., Statistical Simulation of the Influence of the NAO on European Winter Surface Temperatures: Applications to Phenological Modeling, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D16106, doi: 10.1029/2003JD004305, 2004.
        Zhang, Z., Mann, M.E., Cook, E.R., Alternative methods of proxy-based climate field reconstruction: application to summer drought over the conterminous United States back to AD 1700 from tree-ring data, The Holocene, 14, 502-516, 2004.
        Andronova, N.G., Schlesinger, M.E., Mann, M.E., Are Reconstructed Pre-Instrumental Hemispheric Temperatures Consistent With Instrumental Hemispheric Temperatures?, Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L12202, doi: 10.1029/2004GL019658, 2004.
        Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
        Mann, M.E., On Smoothing Potentially Non-Stationary Climate Time Series, Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L07214, doi: 10.1029/2004GL019569, 2004.
        Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Reply to comment on ëëGround vs. surface air temperature trends: Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructionsíí by D. Chapman et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L07206, doi: 10.1029/2003GL0119144, 2004.
        L’Heureux, M.L., Mann, M.E., Cook B.I., Gleason, B.E., Vose, R.S., Atmospheric Circulation Influences on Seasonal PrecipitationPatterns in Alaska during the latter 20th Century, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D06106, doi:10.1029/2003JD003845, 2004.
        Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Faluvegi, G., Dynamic winter climate response to large tropical volcanic eruptions since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D05104, doi: 10.1029/2003JD004151, 2004.
        Adams, J.B., Mann, M.E., D’Hondt, S., The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction: Modeling carbon flux and ecological response, Paleoceanography, 19, PA1002, doi: 10.1029/2002PA000849, 2004.
        Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Miller, R.L., Mann, M.E., Volcanic and Solar Forcing of Climate Change during the Preindustrial Era, Journal of Climate, 16, 4094-4107, 2003.
        Adams, J.B., Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Proxy Evidence for an El Nino-like Response to Volcanic Forcing, Nature, 426, 274-278, 2003.
        Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J. T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., Response to Comment on ‘On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth’, Eos, 84, 473, 2003.
        Mann, M.E., Paleoclimate, Global Change, and the Future (book review), Eos, 84, 419-420, 2003.
        Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global surface temperature over the past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003.
        Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth,Eos, 84, 256-258, 2003.
        Mann, M.E., Schmidt, G.A., Ground vs. Surface Air Temperature Trends: Implications for Borehole Surface Temperature Reconstructions,Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (12), 1607, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017170, 2003.
        Andrews, J.T., Hardadottir, J., Stoner, J.S., Mann, M.E., Kristjansdottir, G.B., Koc, N., Decadal to Millennial-scale periodicities in North Iceland shelf sediments over the last 12,000 cal yrs: long-term North Atlantic oceanographic variability and Solar Forcing, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 210, 453-465, 2003.
        D’Arrigo, R.D., Cook, E.R., Mann, M.E., Jacoby, G.C., Tree-ring reconstructions of temperature and sea-level pressure variability associated with the warm-season Arctic Oscillation since AD 1650, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (11), 1549, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017250, 2003.
        Covey, C., AchutaRao, K.M., Cubasch, U., Jones, P.D., Lambert, S.J., Mann, M.E., Philips, T.J., Taylor, K.E., An overview of results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Global and Planetary Change, 37, 103-133, 2003.
        Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., Optimal Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.
        [Correction(Rutherford and Mann, 2004)]
        Braganza, K., Karoly, D.J., Hirst, A.C., Mann, M.E., Stott, P, Stouffer, R.J., Tett, S.F.B., Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I – variability and correlation structure, Climate Dynamics, 20, 491-502, 2003.
        Gerber, S., Joos, F., Bruegger, P.P., Stocker, T.F., Mann, M.E., Sitch, S., Constraining Temperature Variations over the last Millennium by Comparing Simulated and Observed Atmospheric CO2, Climate Dynamics, 20, 281-299, 2003.
        Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Delworth, T.L., Stouffer, R., Climate Field Reconstruction Under Stationary and Nonstationary Forcing, Journal of Climate, 16, 462-479, 2003.
        Druckenbrod, D., Mann, M.E., Stahle, D.W., Cleaveland, M.K., Therrell, M.D., Shugart, H.H., Late 18th Century Precipitation Reconstructions from James Madisonís Montpelier Plantation, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 57-71, 2003.
        Ribera, P., Mann, M.E., ENSO related variability in the Southern Hemisphere, 1948–2000, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (1), 1006, doi: 10.1029/2002GL015818, 2003.
        Ghil, M., Allen, M.R., Dettinger, M.D., Ide, K., Kondrashov, D., Mann, M.E., Robertson, A.W., Tian, Y., Varadi, F., Yiou, P., Advanced Spectral Methods for Climatic Time Series, Reviews of Geophysics, 40 (1), 1003, doi: 10.1029/2000RG000092, 2002.
        Mann, M.E. Large-Scale Climate Variability and Connections With the Middle East in Past Centuries, Climatic Change, 55, 287-314, 2002.
        Mann, M.E. , The Value of Multiple Proxies, Science, 297, 1481-1482, 2002.
        Cook, E.R., D’Arrigo, R.D., Mann, M.E., A Well-Verified, Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of the Winter North Atlantic Oscillation Since AD 1400, J. Climate, 15, 1754-1765, 2002.
        Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Climate Reconstruction Using ‘Pseudoproxies’, Geophysical Research Letters, 29 (10), 1501, doi: 10.1029/2001GL014554, 2002.
        Ribera, P., Mann, M.E., Interannual variability in the NCEP Reanalysis 1948-1999, Geophysical Research Letters, 29 (10), 1494, doi: 10.1029/2001GL013905, 2002.
        Mann, M.E., Hughes, M.K., Tree-Ring Chronologies and Climate Variability, Science, 296, 848, 2002.
        Waple, A., Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Long-term Patterns of Solar Irradiance Forcing in Model Experiments and Proxy-based Surface Temperature Reconstructions, Climate Dynamics, 18, 563-578, 2002.
        Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Cole, J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, J.M., Overpeck, J.T., von Storch, H., Wanner, H., Weber, S.L., Widmann, M., Reconstructing the Climate of the Late Holocene, Eos, 82, 553, 2001.
        Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E.,Mann, M.E. Medieval Climatic Optimum, Encylopedia of Global Environmental Change,John Wiley and Sons Ltd, London, UK, pp. 514-516, 2001.
        Mann, M.E. Little Ice Age, Encylopedia of Global Environmental Change, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, London, UK, pp. 504-509, 2001.
        Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Rind, D., Waple, A., Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum, Science, 7, 2149-2152, 2001.
        Mann, M.E., Large-scale Temperature Patterns in Past Centuries: Implications for North American Climate Change , Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7, 1247-1254, 2001.
        Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Scope of Medieval Warming, Science, 292, 2011-2012, 2001.
        Mann, M.E. Climate During the Past Millennium, Weather (invited contribution), 56, 91-101, 2001.
        Folland, C.K., Karl, T.R., Christy, J.R., Clarke, R. A., Gruza, G.V., Jouzel, J., Mann, M.E., Oerlemans, J., Salinger, M.J., Wang, S.-W., Observed Climate Variability and Change, in 2001 Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 99-181, 2001.
        Cullen, H., D’Arrigo, R., Cook, E., and Mann, M.E., Multiproxy-based reconstructions of the North Atlantic Oscillation over the past three centuries, Paleoceanography, 15, 27-39, 2001.
        Mann, M.E., Gille, E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Overpeck, J.T., Keimig, F.T., Gross, W. , Global Temperature Patterns in Past Centuries: An interactive presentation, Earth Interactions, 4-4, 1-29,2000.
        Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Mann, M.E., Comments on ‘Detection and Attribution of Recent Climate Change: A Status Report’,, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 81, 2987-2990, 2000.
        Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Long-term variability in the El Nino Southern Oscillation and associated teleconnections, , Diaz, H.F. and Markgraf, V. (eds) El Nino and the Southern Oscillation: Multiscale Variability and its Impacts on Natural Ecosystems and Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 357-412, 2000.
        Delworth, T.L., and Mann, M.E., Observed and Simulated Multidecadal Variability in the Northern Hemisphere, Climate Dynamics, 16, 661-676, 2000.
        Mann, M.E. , Lessons For a New Millennium, Science, 289, 253-254, 2000.
        Rittenour, T., Brigham-Grette, J., Mann, M.E., El Nino-like Climate Teleconnections in North America During the Late Pleistocene: Insights From a New England Glacial Varve Chronology, Science, 288, 1039-1042, 2000.
        Park, J., Mann, M.E.Interannual Temperature Events and Shifts in Global Temperature: A Multiple Wavelet Correlation Approach, Earth Interactions, 4-001,1-36, 2000.
        Mann, M.E., Park, J, Oscillatory Spatiotemporal Signal Detection in Climate Studies: A Multiple-Taper Spectral Domain Approach , Advances in Geophysics, 41, 1-131, 1999. (click here for version w/ color figures)
        Jain, S., Lall, U., Mann, M.E., Seasonality and Interannual Variations of Variations of Northern Hemisphere Temperature: Equator-to-Pole Gradient and Land-Ocean Contrast, Journal of Climate, 12, 1086-1100, 1999.
        Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K., Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762, 1999.
        Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K. and Jones, P.D., , Global Temperature Patterns, Science, 280, 2029-2030, 1998.
        Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K.Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998.
        [Corrigendum (Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, 2004)]
        Rajagopalan, B., Mann, M.E., and Lall, U., A Multivariate Frequency-Domain Approach to Long-Lead Climatic Forecasting, Weather and Forecasting, 13, 58-74, 1998.
        Beniston, M., Pielke, R.A., Arpe, K., Keuler, K., Laprise, R., Mann, M.E., Rinke, A., Parker, D.E., Climate Modelers Meet in Switzerland, Eos, 78, 383, 1997.
        Mann, M.E., Park, J., Joint Spatio-Temporal Modes of Surface Temperature and Sea Level Pressure Variability in the Northern Hemisphere During the Last Century, Journal of Climate, 9, 2137-2162, 1996.
        Mann, M.E., Lees. J., Robust Estimation of Background Noise and Signal Detection in Climatic Time Series , Climatic Change, 33, 409-445, 1996.
        Koch, D., Mann, M.E., Spatial and Temporal Variability of 7Be Surface Concentrations, Tellus, 48B, 387-396, 1996.
        Abarbanel, H., Lall, U., Moon, Y.I., Mann, M.E., Sangoyomi, T., Nonlinear dynamics and the Great Salt Lake: A Predictable Indicator of Regional Climate, Energy, 21, 655-665, 1996.
        Mann, M.E., Park, J., Greenhouse Warming and Changes in the Seasonal Cycle of Temperature: Model Versus Observations, Geophysical Research Letters, 23, 1111-1114, 1996.
        Mann, M.E., Park, J., Bradley, R.S., Global Interdecadal and Century-Scale Climate Oscillations During the Past Five Centuries, Nature, 378, 266-270, 1995.
        Lall, U., Mann, M.E., The Great Salt Lake: A Barometer of Low-Frequency Climatic Variability, 31,2503-2515, 1995.
        Mann, M.E., Lall, U., Saltzman, B., Decadal-to-century scale climate variability: Insights into the Rise and Fall of the Great Salt Lake, Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 937-940, 1995.
        Mann, M.E., Park, J., Global scale modes of surface temperature variability on interannual to century time scales, Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, 25819-25833, 1994.
        Mann, M.E., Park, J., Spatial Correlations of Interdecadal Variation in Global Surface Temperatures,Geophysical Research Letters, 20, 1055-1058, 1993.

      • I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!

        http://bit.ly/SDBmS0

      • Productive as in you can paper a room with them? Does quality count?

      • Latimer Alder

        @Max_OK

        I suggested that he should produce ‘great science’. You however showed that his name is on a lot of papers.

        If there is a link between these two positions, it is not an obvious one. Which would you nominate as ‘great science’? And how can we isolate Mann’s individual contribution to the multi-author papers?

      • Mann has been good for the junk science filing cabinet business.

      • Latimer Alder

        Lower league soccer in UK has lots of ‘journeymen’ players who have played in excess of 500 professional games for lots of different clubs.

        A journeyman is one who is paid by the day (OF ‘journee’ = a day) but is not considered to be a master craftsman. Turns up, does an adequate job, moves on.

        Your citations of Mann’s oeuvre seems to suggest that he is just a journeyman rather than being the great scientist of his imagination.

      • Latimer, earlier this year Mann was awarded the prestigious Hans Oeschger Medal for “Significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.”

        I don’t know if the Oeschger Medal means Mann’s work is great, but I think it would be fair to say it means his work is pretty good. Those medals aren’t handed out to everyone. .

        I am not qualified to judge Mann’s papers. I don’t have a degree in science, have never published, a scientific work, and needless to say, have never been awarded a medal for contributions to science. Perhaps you are a scientists who has published and have won awards for your contributions. If so, I would like to hear about your achievements.

      • Latimer Alder

        @max_OK

        H’mm

        ‘Significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions’

        Looks to me that he got it for his hockey stick (*). Which is hardly surprising since (according to his wiki entry) said Hans Oeschger was gagging for somebody to find something like it.

        Interestingly they gave it to his hockey stick copublisher Raymond Bradley in 2007 for much the same stuff

        ‘Contribution[s] to paleoclimate reconstruction from continental archives and for being instrumental in the multi-proxy approach leading to the quantification of climate change over the last millennium’

        Seems to me that teh HO medal coudl be renamed the Hockey Stick medal. And I absolutely agree that Mann is very well qualified to receive it.

        But ‘great science’? I’m not convinced. Great science is Nobel Prizes, not tinpot EGU awards for climate alarmism..

        (*) The full citation is not available on the interweb at this time…503 Service Unavailable error

      • Latimer Alder

        @Max_OK

        I did a little more research.

        The European Geosciences Union gives four top awards each year. Mann has not received any of these.

        And each year each research ‘subdivision’ gives out a gong or two. There are 27 available in total. The Hans Oeschger Medal is one of two gongs for the ‘Climate, Past Present and Future’ subdivision.

        ‘http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/awards-and-medals/

        I imagine that this is a bit like being awarded Player of the Year at a League 2 football club. Nice to get and shows a decent and/or industrious professional record. But it does not of itself signify an elevation to the greats of football like Pele or Best or Cruyff or McGregor.

      • Latimer, I don’t know if Mann’s science is great or not.
        You think it’s not, and believe he should concentrate on achieving greatness as a scientists instead of suing NR for calling his science fraudulent.

        To quote you, “One truly confident in his own abilities and his work would just rise above the jibes and prove his worth by publishing great science. That he chooses to concentrate on the law not on climatology says it all.”

        It says to me Mann is confident he can work and sue too. It says to me he is not willing to take abuse lying down. It says to me he will fight for what’s right. I respect a man who will take up for himself when attacked.

        Latimer, maybe you would just turn the other cheek if you were in Mann’s shoes. I wouldn’t criticize you for choosing to not retaliate if you were being smeared.

      • Latimer Alder

        @Max_OK

        Fine. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

        What you see as ‘standing up for what is right’ appear to me as being a thin-skinned egotistical prat who loves to dish it out to others but can’t take it himself. Like the man says ‘if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen’

        Let’s see how the cases play out in court. Gonna be fun! Ciao

      • David Springer

        Pal review.

        ‘Nuff said.

  60. Sorry about the run-ons, but there are about 130 papers by my count.

    • “about 130 papers”

      It’s like cable TV. 130 channels and nothing to see.

      Andrew

      • Probably not for the layperson. That could be said of science papers in general.

        I agree about cable TV. I pay for it, but we only watch TV about 20 hours per month. Poor value.

      • MaxOk

        Dr Mann writes good lucid papers unlike some of his peers whose paper writing skills are poor. That doesnt mean to say I agree with Dr Mann’s findings, but many scientists and researchers could take a lesson from him in setting out the information clearly

        tonyb

      • David Springer

        My cable service is bundled with broadband internet and in my primary residence with telephone service too so the household has one common number in addition to everyone’s individual cell phone numbers. The increase in cost to add cable TV to the service is not large at all. For the price seeing a single movie for the whole family each month at a theater we get a great many hours of not just movies but all sorts of news, learning channels, and other things as well. It’s a very good deal. Generally any form of entertainment in the home that displaces entertainment outside the home is more economical to say nothing of being far more convenient.

      • It’s not a good value for us because we don’t watch TV much . I subscribe to Netflix so we can stream movies and watch movies on DVD”s.

      • David Springer

        We watch news and educational channels more than anything else. Some reality TV like Deadliest Catch and Gold Rush as well which are both entertaining and educational. I realize you can get essentially the same information from a personal device with a broadband connection but it’s not the same as a large flat screen in the family room where everyone can watch and talk about it at the same time.

  61. “It’s not the heat, it’s the humility. Quote of the week”

    So go to Mass, say three ‘Hail Marys’ with bowed head and the world will be ok. That’s one way of dealing with the problem, the other? Do a degree in physics.

  62. Crime and Punishment.

    The journey of Mann …
    Rage rage by fraud war
    Be come uppance fraught.

  63. Lord Monckton on arctic sea ice:
    “Just fine. Steady for a decade.”

    Whoops.

  64. Okay, PE, if classical is what yer want …

    The journey of Mann
    Rage rage ( Who dares claim fraud?)
    Be come uppance fraught.

  65. Welcome back Mike. Hmm … Naome …

    Oracle Oreske
    Platonist top down planning,
    Plan B … then plan C.

    • Or, rather, the effect of global mean temperature on CO2 concentration for the last 52 years.

      The data clearly indicate that CO2 tracks a natural equilibrium level, dictated foremost by temperatures. An analogous simplified system description is

      dCO2/dt = (CO2eq – CO2)/tau1 + a*H

      dCO2eq/dt = -CO2eq/tau2 + k*(T – To)

      CO2 = atmospheric CO2 concentration
      CO2eq = equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentration
      H = human inputs
      a = atmospheric fraction of human releases after relatively rapid partition with the oceans
      T = temperature
      To = equivalent temperature equilibrium level (which is itself slowly time varying)
      tau1 = short time constant
      tau2 = long time constant

      Because tau1 is short, human inputs are rapidly sequestered and have little effect overall. Because tau2 is long, the equilibrium level effectively integrates the temperature anomaly over relatively short timelines. The actual system is much more complicated, but this model faithfully captures the qualitative aspects.

      I’m sure some who are unskilled will balk at the description, but it really cannot be gainsaid. The data show that the CO2 derivative is effectively proportional to temperature anomaly from a particular baseline. To get CO2 levels since 1958, all one needs is the temperature record, and the starting value. Human inputs are insignificant, and need not even be considered. The CO2 derivative matches as near perfectly as possible the scaled temperature anomaly in the fine detail (all the bumps and squiggles) with zero phase lag, which means the integrated CO2 level lags temperature. Temperature is therefore the cause, and CO2 is the effect.

      This whole bloody contretemps is a complete and utter fiasco on the most basic level. It’s really an embarrassment, and will be a huge black eye which will leave its mark across every scientific discipline when it becomes widely known and accepted. As it must, because it is the truth, and the truth will out. The damage will take at least decades to undo.

      • I agree.

      • Pekka Pirilä | August 27, 2012 at 5:28 am |

        2 ) Additional CO2 warms the Earth. The rate of increase in the CO2 concentration is caused by increased anthropogenic releases.

        How much longer do we have to listen to these fictional memes? Where is the science? Where is the falsifiable hypothesis? You can’t even get your stories co-ordinated!

        You’re not scientists.

        You’re, generic, happy to use fraudulent data and impossible physics on which to base your claims – where is the show and tell for your claims that additional carbon dioxide warms the Earth?

        You have no way of knowing how much carbon dioxide is anthropogenic, you have deliberately used faked volcanic numbers to downplay natural sources. The list goes on and on and on.

        3 ) Anthropogenic releases are the reason.

        A fib repeated does not make it true.

        http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

        “The estimation of worldwide volcanic CO2 emission is undermined by a severe shortage of data. To make matters worse, the reported output of any individual volcano is itself an estimate based on limited rather than complete measurement. One may reasonably assume that in each case, such estimates are based on a representative and statistically significant quantity of empirical measurements. Then we read statements, such as this one courtesy of the USGS (2010):

        “Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

        “In point of fact, the total worldwide estimate of roughly 55 MtCpa is by one researcher, rather than “scientists” in general. More importantly, this estimate by Gerlach (1991) is based on emission measurements taken from only seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. Yet the USGS glibly claims that Gerlach’s estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes in roughly equal amounts. Given the more than 3 million volcanoes worldwide indicated by the work of Hillier & Watts (2007), one might be prone to wonder about the statistical significance of Gerlach’s seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. If the statement of the USGS concerning volcanic CO2 is any indication of the reliability of expert consensus, it would seem that verifiable facts are eminently more trustworthy than professional opinion.”

        These are science facts contradicting your base premises. Doesn’t this bother any of you warmists?

        Nobody has been able to propose any plausible alternative explanation, while the main stream science has a full success in explaining the main features. There remain gaps in the details but that’s by no means a reason to doubt the explanation.

        Your basic claims have been shown time and time again to be faked.

        You have not shown that there is anything out of the ordinary happening.

        Show the full success of the main features.. Repeating ad nauseum that it exists is not science until it is fetched. None of you ever fetch this – why not? Can’t you find it?

        Take up the challenge from Rhoda, all you here claiming that this is well proven.

        http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/1923523

        It should be easy enough for you to fetch, you’ve had long enough to co-ordinate a proper physics proof to show us.

      • Not only is Myrhhhhhhhh supposedly an expert in radiation physics, now he is an authority of emission sources. You are burning both ends of the candle, way over your head. You are completely immersed in crackpot land.

        I should add that the urge must be so tempting to anti-agree with one aspect of the science, and then getting egged on by your fellow team-mates, like Edim, to start spouting off nonsense on another area that you have no expertise in. Peer pressure is awfully strong in the land of agendas. Perhaps it derives from the same immature impulse as little kids in a schoolyard taunting a couple of kids to start a fight. That’s why you get called fake skeptics and poseur contrarians, as there is no substance, only bluster.

      • There are three main points to notice in that graph:

        1 ) There are clearly correlations in the variability an a scale of a few years.

        2 ) Both curves have a overall positive linear trend.

        3 ) The derivative of the CO2 concentration is positive over the whole period.

        The present main stream science explains each of them:

        1 ) Variability of climate and in particular that related to ENSO affects strongly the vegetation (more trough effects on precipitation, but to a part through temperature). That effect is strong enough to explain most, if not all, of the variability in the rate of increase of CO2 concentration. Because ENSO leads to variability also in the global temperature we have the correlation.

        2 ) Additional CO2 warms the Earth. The rate of increase in the CO2 concentration is caused by increased anthropogenic releases.

        3 ) Anthropogenic releases are the reason.

        Nobody has been able to propose any plausible alternative explanation, while the main stream science has a full success in explaining the main features. There remain gaps in the details but that’s by no means a reason to doubt the explanation.

      • So what? What is the cost/benefit of global warming?

        If it is so important (or dangerous, or catastrophic or whatever), why do those people why advocate urgent action to cut global CO2 emissions:

        1. continue to oppose economically rational solutions – such as allowing us to get low cost nuclear power?

        2. continue to advocate economically irrational solutions – such as carbon pricing, renewable energy, more regulation, more taxes, more bureaucracy, world government …?

        Can’t they see that advocating economically irrational policies, which are totally unacceptable to all but the wealthy elites, are not going to get anywhere?

      • Peter, just a suggestion, but when someone says something stupid like “1+1=3” and then someone spends time to correct that and point that 1+1 actually equals 2, it’s not very helpful to attack the correcter by screaming “WHATS THAT GOT TO DO WITH CALCULUS???”.

        It only makes it look like you are trying to defend the original stupid claim through obfuscation and changing the subject.

      • Lolowot,

        I suspect you are referring to the argument with WHT (or perhaps the earlier argument with Vaughan Pratt [note that they and you are all CAGW Alarmists so you share a religious like belief and use scaremongering of catastrophes as tactics to get your way]).

        But you are attacking the wrong person. You should be directing your remark at WHT (and/or Vaughan Pratt). Clearly you didn’t understand the argument in either case but, given your ideological perspective and lack of objectivity, you decided to side with those who say what you like to hear, right?

        The argument with WHT is about, either misunderstanding, or intentionally misleading other readers (such as you), about the 20,000 and 2 million factor in this comment: https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/17/learning-from-the-octopus/#comment-230741.

        WHT is wrong but isn’t man enough to admit it – presumably because that is the accepted culture amongst the CAGW Alarmist; i.e. Never admit an error, just deny it and deny it and deny it and, if it all get to hard, take the accusers to court.

      • You missed: 4) the scaling factor which matches the “variability an a scale of a few years” also precisely matches the slopes. That slope integrates precisely into the curvature seen in the CO2 graph, and there is no more room to add in human components, because that would add additional curvature beyond what is needed for a match.

        Anthropogenic releases cannot be “the reason”. The rate of emissions graph does not match the variability in the CO2 rate of change. The temperature does, and accounts for the curvature in the output as well. If you descale the temperature dependent term to reduce the curvature, opening up room for anthropogenic inputs, you no longer match the variability, the fine detail in the derivative. Ergo, anthropogenic inputs are insignificant – they are rapidly dealt with by sequestration feedback.

      • This other Bart character. Nice fake math, but you have not actually analyzed the transient dynamics. The CO2 fluctuations obviously follow the seasonal variations in temperature (due to natural outgassing) but it fails miserably at predicting the overall increase. I can see how much of a phony you are, as you only present the equations and don’t show the residual when plotted against the actual data.

        BTW, here is a better way to plot the agreement in the seasonal fluctuations:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/isolate:60/derivative/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/from:1958/mean:12

        The rate of CO2 increase is sensitive to significant short-term temperature rise (and fall), but the long-term temperature rise in comparison is pretty slow, while the long term CO2 response is large. You can’t have it both ways, and the outgassing only explains a fraction of this rise.

        Sorry, you lose. If you actually try to plot your analysis, you will be very embarrassed. You probably know this and so are trying your hand at bluffing.

      • “The CO2 fluctuations obviously follow the seasonal variations in temperature (due to natural outgassing) but it fails miserably at predicting the overall increase. “

        WRONG.

      • Amazing…and utterly lame, as I predicted. You accuse me of “fake math”, but you don’t even understand that the integral of a derivative is the original function, plus or minus an arbitrary constant. That is so elementary, you should be banned from ever posting to a technical site. Sheesh.

      • Nice one. Webby won’t like it.

      • Better demo.

        The plot linked previously to show you were risibly wrong was from an exercise when challenged by Ferdinand Englebeen as to whether the relationship held with proxy CO2 data. I made the points that:

        A) the proxy data is highly uncertain and unverifiable

        B) matching it only requires making To tame varying, as it should be. I successfully demonstrated that by putting in a step change in 1945.

        Fundamentally, based on the best and only truly reliable data we have since 1958, the relationship holds. As that is the interval over which most of the CO2 rise occurred, temperature, and not humankind, is definitely responsible for the lion’s share of the rise. A reasonable skilled analyst would expect that temperature is the dominant factor at all times.

      • Hey banning-boy. You can’t be coming into my house and be putting in fake offsets and constants to make the co2 match to temperature rise. You be failed for throwing down that stuff.

        Maybe you have some DSP skilz but you ain’t got no physical insight. What kind of activation energy that can take a 1C change and gen up 40% rise in partial pressure of co2?

        Your math be fake and your science is whack.

      • “What kind of activation energy that can take a 1C change and gen up 40% rise in partial pressure of co2?”

        It’s not the change in temperature which has driven the largest portion of the rise. It is the effective equilibrium level of the temperature relative to the current.

        My personal hypothesis is that it is due to deep ocean upwelling, and the effective temperature differential between the currently upwelling water at the time it downwelled centuries ago, and now. And, by “effective” I mean temperature and all the other factors which can influence relative concentration which can be expressed equivalently as the result of a temperature differential.

      • You have a fudge factor of 0.4 in the temperature adjustment. It is only there so you can create an apparent agreement through an integration step. It sickens me.

        The actual fluctuations are of the ocean breathing on seasonal and multiseasonal cycles. The derivative is a high pass filter that allows this variation to be more clearly observed.

        When you perform an isolate on the data, the long term change is removed and the seasonal variation shows up starkly, with no bias needed to fudge the data.
        The activation energy for this is reasonably less than 0.5 eV, not the outrageously high and unphysical number that you would require for your model to work.

      • A derivative is not a high pass filter, at least not in any conventional sense. It’s gain is not unity in the pass band, and its phase response is a constant 90 degrees. For the gain and phase to match so closely, it is clear that the relationship is real and useful for predicting system evolution.

        This is how typical natural systems work, governed by a set of differential equations which prescribe how the rates of change relate to the input variables. There is nothing extraordinary or questionable about what I have done, and for you to question it in this vein merely suggests you haven’t had much practical experience.

        Removing the long term change, when it is precisely the right amount to produce the observed curvature in the measured CO2 record, is simply arbitrarily arranging the data to your liking because it is telling you things you do not want to hear.

      • Some more details/clarification, in case my initial reply is not clear:

        For the magnitude and phase of the CO2 derivative and the temperature anomaly to match so closely, it is clear that the relationship is real and useful for predicting system evolution. As I have demonstrated, I can reproduce the entire CO2 record to high fidelity from 1958 using only the initial starting point, and the temperatures since. Clearly, human inputs are rapidly sequestered and have minor impact.

        Removing the long term change, and keying your dynamics off the residual, is performing an artificial operation which nature cannot replicate. Nature acts on the entire quantity continuously and causally.

      • peterdavies252

        There is certainly a co-relation between temp and CO2 change and it is also clear that CO2 changes occur after Temp changes (not so much when temp falls) but causality is moot. I’m inclined to the view that both variables are being affected by something or somethings else.

      • You have your transfer function bass-ackwards.

        You are not going to like this, but I have analyzed the Mauna Loa data every which way against SST and it matches the equatorial temperatures with a small phase shift.

        Start with this longish blog post, and skip the first part on ice core data if you want to get to the current CO2 and temperature records:
        http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2012/03/co2-outgassing-model.html

        Go to this set of diagrams showing the phase relationship between CO2 and SST:



        and then I plotted your equation the last time you made rounds around here.
        First a Wolfram Alpha model for the phased response of [CO2] from a forcing temperature with gain of 3, and an anthropogenic [CO2] ramp included:

        First-order response: x + (1/30) dx/dt = 3*cos(2*pi*t) + 2*t

        Phase relation from the solution: plot cos(2 pi t) and (675 pi sin(2 pi t)+10125 cos(2 pi t))/(15 (225+pi^2))

        You really have not done any of the work that needs to be done. Your analysis is a pathetic, weak excuse for someone that poses as an engineer.

      • This is really pathetic work. You’re looking at the intra-annual variation, which has a lot more going on than mere temperature. If you want to know the phase relationship between SST and CO2 on an inter-annual basis, you can get it the same way as for the global set simply and directly from the WoodForTrees tool. It’s 90 deg phase shifted, with temperature leading, as expected and as any idiot can see, though I’ll admit, you have demonstrated you aren’t just any idiot. Most people would expect a little more humility from a guy who doesn’t even understand the relationship between derivatives and integrals. Stop being an obnoxious twit, and deal with the reality.

      • I have not worked out the full details because I have other more important technical research to pursue, but it is fairly clear that the simple derivation I worked out in another forum which follows establishes that an integral relationship between CO2 and temperature, such as the data unequivocally show, is reasonably to be expected. This, or something very much like it, is clearly the dominant process in place. Even you might be able to understand it if you free your mind from dogma.

        Suppose we have a closed container which we fill half full of water at ambient temperature T before sealing it. It is at temperature T, and CO2 is partitioned between the air and the water to obey Henry’s Law. If we slightly heat the container, CO2 will outgas from the water and its concentration will increase in the air portion. We can express this relationship as

        CO2 =CO2(0) + h*(T – T(0))

        where CO2(0) is the concentration before the temperature changes from T(0) to T and h a constant. That much should be uncontroversial.

        Now, let’s modify the experiment. At time zero, the concentration of the CO2 in the air portion is CO2(0) and the volume of water is V. We now take a volume dV of cold water at temperature To and exchange it with an equal volume of the warmer water in the container (representing the upwelling of the deep ocean). The cold water will heat up to match the ambient temperature, so it will release CO2 to the air proportional to the temperature change T-To. The CO2 in the air filled portion now becomes

        CO2(1) = CO2(0) + h*(dV/V)*(T-To)

        Now, suppose we do this repeatedly with a uniform time step dt. Then, we can say

        CO2(t+dt) = CO2(t) + (h/V) * dV * (T – To)

        But, at each step, the water in the container is becoming progressively more enriched with CO2, so each succeeding addition is a little less, in proportion to the CO2 in the water, which is proportional to the CO2 in the air. Thus, we actually get

        CO2(t+dt) = CO2(t) + (h/V) * dV * (T – To) – CO2(t)*dt/tau

        where tau is a proportionality constant having units of time. Thus

        (CO2(t+dt) – CO2(t))/dt = -CO2(t)/tau + (h/V) * (dV/dt) * (T – To)

        which is to say

        dCO2/dt = -CO2 / tau + k * (T – To)

        where k = (h/V) * (dV/dt). If tau is relatively large, then approximately

        dCO2/dt := k*(T – To)

        That, I believe, is where the integral relationship comes from. Over a local timeframe, the upwelling water from the deep oceans is acting as a source, pumping CO2 into the air due to the difference between its CO2 concentration, and that which is maintainable at the surface under the current climate state.

        If you have another idea for how the integral relationship emerges, then by all means, share it. But A) nix the bad boy routine – it really is very unbecoming and makes you look foolish and desperate B) deal with the reality, and the constraints of the system which are dictated by the observed temperature-CO2 relationship (yes, that is an SST plot – any of the temperature sets will do, as they are all more or less affinely related).

        I know you have a fetish for “long tail” responses, though you never appear to appreciate the implicit assumptions you make when deriving them. But, such responses can be incorporated into this schema by substituting operators for the various constants. Maybe, if you had a thought to engage constructively instead of jumping up and down and sneering like a kid, you could work out the general form for such representations.

        But, I doubt it. You are a kid, and nothing but thoughtless snark and bile ever emerge from your piehole. It’s probably the main reason I don’t venture to this site very often. Of the shallow trolls who have infested it, you are one of the worst. This explication is mostly for the benefit of others who may be observing. Ah, well, what the hell…. Post Comment.

      • Wilbur Hub Telescope

        @bartemis

        Please don’t say nasty things about our son, Webster. He has told us many times that he is very clever and good at sums. So you’d better believe it.

        If you persist you will be hearing from my wife, Wilma. You will not enjoy that.

      • Like little Latie the sockpuppet, baby Bartemis is too immature to be participating with the big boys.

        The problem with the upwelling idea is that cold water quenches CO2. It quenches intuitively because we all know that cold soda pop fizzes less than warm.

        I just enjoy debunking the climate bozos that keep climbing out of the clown car.

        “I have other more important technical research to pursue”
        No doubt. The science of sock-puppetry is calling.

      • Willard, Kind of interesting but they are looking at digging ambiguous signal patterns out of the noise. This stuff is sitting there staring at you in the face, and Bartemis gets it flat out wrong.

        Yet, Bartemis is probably the smartest and most technically proficient of the 30 climate clowns that post alternate theories here. That’s why I really have to give him the trash talk — it’s professional courtesy you know.

      • “The problem with the upwelling idea is that cold water quenches CO2.”

        Duh, who’da thunk it? And, what happens when that cold water heats up at the surface?

      • Willard – in that thread, I demonstrated that Nick was wrong in his obsession with the supposed anti-causal component – you always get such an artifact, even with “perfect” data. I was right, and I stand by the analysis – the response has a 180 deg phase at relevant frequencies, and hence indicates negative feedback. As I stated earlier on this thread, the whole contretemps about alleged AGW is a fiasco for real science from beginning to end, and it’s going to exact a horrendous price when it becomes apparent to everyone.

      • And what is going to heat that cold upwelling water above the steady state?

        Heat from somewhere else. Nearby surface volumes of the ocean. That will then lose some of its heat and then start to quench excess CO2. It really boils down to Arrhenius activation energies and Clausius-Clayperon model of the partial vapor pressure above a liquid. You yourself mentioned Henry’s law, which is really just an extension of these principles.

        My oh my, do we have a live one here.

        I have had discussions about teaching science with Vaughan Pratt in the past. I mentioned that it is actually more difficult to argue with a person that is way off in the weeds than if he makes a simple mistake. That’s why grading science papers is hard when the student is biting off way more than they can chew. You have to take a machete to all that illogical weed growth sprouting every which way.

      • > Bartemis is probably the smartest and most technically proficient of the 30 climate clowns that post alternate theories here. That’s why I really have to give him the trash talk — it’s professional courtesy you know.

        Perhaps you should concentrate on these kinds of exchanges.

        My point was not to rehearse any old thread, but to let you know that Bartemis can trash talk his way out of many situations.

      • Bartemis,

        Here’s what Carrick says of this exchange:

        > [I]f I may be frank, I think Bart’s problem is he’s hung up on what he knows, and isn’t willing to concede when he doesn’t. This happens to be an area that I’ve spent 20+ years working on, have numerous peer reviewed publications, and collected in the 100s of GB of data on. And even more to the point I’ve discussed this stuff (which I admit is highly nonintuitive) with perhaps a dozen very bright colleagues strategically positioned around the US at some very fine institutes. This isn’t an army of one in this case.

        And just in case you do not realize it, Carrick is supposed to be on your side.

        Perhaps letting go of that ego might help.

        Just sayin’,

        w

      • “We can express this relationship as
        CO2 =CO2(0) + h*(T – T(0))
        where CO2(0) is the concentration before the temperature changes from T(0) to T and h a constant. That much should be uncontroversial.”

        No, what you want is van ‘t Hoff’s relation, which for small temperature variations would simplify to
        [CO2] =[CO2](0)*(1 + h*(T – T(0)))

        The point is that when you write integral relations, your h is not constant but proportional to [CO2].

        But none of this is quantitatively useful when applied to the sea. Henry’s Law will tell you about the relation of free [CO2] in the water just at the surface and partial pressure. But [CO2] is itself the result of an equilibration with the more abundant {HCO3-] and [CO3–], and those equilibria have temperature dependence. Furthermore there is a gradient of [CO2] approaching the surface, and the actual rate of outgassing depends on how fast it can be transported to (and across) the surface.

      • Nick Stocks said, “Furthermore there is a gradient of [CO2] approaching the surface, and the actual rate of outgassing depends on how fast it can be transported to (and across) the surface.”

        Tah dah! Latitudes 44 to 64 south have the smallest surface gradient for both CO2 and temperature. So why not work from south to north? It looks to me like the “thermal” equator is about 20 degrees south of the physical equator. So if you start with a satellite era base line and work back from the “center of thermal mass” , you can reduce a lot of the noise.

      • Web – At the surface of the ocean, there is this thing we call “the Sun”.

        Willard – I have also had numerous peer reviewed publications. I have also spent 20+ years doing this stuff and collected at least 100’s of GB of data and analyzed it successfully, to the point the results were used in finished products which worked exactly as expected. I am also right in the particular instance. Carrick was trying to sidetrack the conversation with allusion to processes rare in nature which were not in evidence. And, Nick was treating the data as if they were deterministic, and the errors in measurement were actually part of the underlying process.

        Nick – Fine, it has some variation. The intent was to show via a simple example how an integral relationship could arise, not to put together a finished theoretical framework accounting for every contributing factor. But, work it through, and you still get the same general result – the upwelling waters are a conveyor belt for new CO2 which downwelled centuries ago. Any net difference in content between what downwelled then, and what is downwelling now, is going to accumulate in the system.

        Don’t ignore the elephant in the room: The data show that there is an integral relationship between CO2 and temperature. And, it leaves no room for significant human influence.

      • Willard said:

        “My point was not to rehearse any old thread, but to let you know that Bartemis can trash talk his way out of many situations.”

        Now I have Bartemis pegged. He knows enough signal processing to look proficient. But he has very little intuition on natural systems. He acts like he is a very important person, suggesting that he has very important research to do, and this stuff is getting in the way. That’s why he only makes the occasional appearances — it is of course the great Bartemis, hear ye, hear ye.

        So he goes ballistic in trying to bluster and bull-rush his way through arguments. He does this because like many of the skeptics here, he hates any kind of progressive action. He will do anything to raise FUD, even going so far as to fabricate a mathematical artifice that a gullible fool (like Edim) might get sucked in to.

        He is so sure that he is right, that he might burst a blood vessel

        Contrast that to what normal curious scientific observers usually try to do. They read the literature, put the pieces of the puzzle together, and look for simplifying assumptions. They look for patterns in nature and try to match those patterns to mathematical patterns. If they can analogize to other natural patterns and archetypes, that often helps a lot. Above all, they have learned from their physics professors the power of using first-order principles as sanity checks. For every complicated physical phenomena, there are simplifying assumptions that can reduce the mechanism to a basic approximation.

        So my little jive rap trash-talk is that Bartemis is a fool if he can’t figure out that less than a 1 degree C rise in ocean temperature is not going to lead to a 40% rise in atmospheric CO2.

        Play around with the Arrhenius rate law:
        Wolfram Alpha calculator
        for a 0.4 eV activation energy, a 1C change will increase a partial pressure by about 5%.

        Now put the activation energy up to 4 eV, which is a much stronger molecular action:
        Wolfram Alpha calculator
        That will raise it by 70%.

        But that is not the whole story. The activation energy is essentially an energy barrier, and when that barrier is high, it takes a high temperature to reach a situation where the energized states start to get populated. Numbers like 4 eV are getting close to the H-H bonding energy.

        By the way, if you think that elevated CO2 is being caused by upwelling or whatever, then why are we not seeing the same thing with Argon or some of the other rather inert molecules that are soluble in water with a similar temperature sensitivity? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?

        This is the phase relationship for Ar (and N2 superimposed)

        A student Keeling’s by the name of Blaine has written on this topic for a recent PhD thesis. He suggested Ar concentration would make a good temperature proxy, if you could get it out of the noise.

        But I guess none of that matters to you, Bartemis. Unlike you, I am just interested in the science, not some phony agenda behind a poseur facade.

      • Bartemis,

        If you had

        > numerous peer reviewed publications and spent 20+ years doing this stuff and collected at least 100′s of GB of data and analyzed it successfully, to the point the results were used in finished products which worked exactly as expected,

        then why the hell do you act like a prick?

      • Bartemis,
        “Don’t ignore the elephant in the room: The data show that there is an integral relationship between CO2 and temperature.”

        That’s weird. You show a formula relating equilibrium [CO2] linearly to temperature. Then you show a graph in which the time derivative of [CO2] appears to correlate to SST. But on your formula it should correlate to dSST/dt, and it certainly doesn’t.

        But you say there is no room for human influence. Your graph shows that influence very clearly. The variations in d[CO2]/dt may track SST variations reasonably, but d[CO2]/dt is everywhere positive. That positive offset is the stuff that we burn.

      • Right Nick, Moreover if it is an integral relationship as he says, the [CO2] has to keep rising as long as there is a temperature anomaly. And he introduced a large offset so that temperature has to decrease quite a bit for this inertia to stop.
        Another degree of sustained warming and the [CO2] will really go through the roof.

        But that is the artifice that Bartemis has set up. He now has to defend the consequences.

        Bartemis does not like the sunlight though, so he may have gone into hibernation, as is his nature.

      • Web – “So my little jive rap trash-talk is that Bartemis is a fool if he can’t figure out that less than a 1 degree C rise in ocean temperature is not going to lead to a 40% rise in atmospheric CO2.”

        Showing once again that you haven’t either read, or understood, or both what I have been saying. Really, Web… haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough on this thread?

        Willard – “…then why the hell do you act like a prick?” I merely respond in kind to people who will do anything to misdirect the conversation from the matter at hand, and in the rudest manner possible. Look back up this thread and see who turned nasty first. Web came out of the gate accusing me of “fake math”. The fact that he was totally pwned on that assertion, as well as every subsequent numbskull attempt to browbeat and ridicule me into submission, has not served to moderate his tone in the least. I put up with it, and tried to argue sensibly for some time, as the record shows. But, a person can only take so much before the jeering first grader has to be spanked a little.

        Nick – “You show a formula relating equilibrium [CO2] linearly to temperature.” Look again. The formula relates the derivative of CO2 affinely to temperature, just as the plot shows.

        When you integrate that equation, delta-CO2 becomes proportional to the integral of that affine relationship. Because the curvature of the graph of delta-CO2 matches the curvature of the graph of the integrated affine relationship, there is no room to add in human induced CO2, because that would add additional curvature for which there is no room.

        Web – another stupid and ignorant comment. Haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough on this thread?

        Guys – Don’t ignore the elephant in the room: The data show that there is an integral relationship between CO2 and temperature. And, it leaves no room for significant human influence.

      • Nick – here is the relationship. The temperature dependence of the CO2 derivative accounts entirely for the level we measure. All you need to predict to high fidelity the level of current CO2 atmospheric concentration is the starting point, the affine parameters relating the derivative to temperature, and the temperature set – any of the major sets will do, as they are all more or less affinely related.

        Human inputs are not needed. When you choose the affine parameters to match the variation, you find the scale factor so chosen precisely matches the slopes of dCO2/dt and temperature as well. As the rate of human inputs itself has a linear trend, there is no room to add them in. They are superfluous, and have no significant impact. It is clear that human inputs are being sequestered handily by the Earth, and CO2 is maintained at a level dictated by the current climate state. See originating comment here for more.

      • Conversation continues here.

      • David Springer

        webby webby webby

        No need for a change in temperature when a change in pressure will do.

        Did you know that droplets of liquid CO2 have recently been discovered in oceanic rift zones?

        Of course you didn’t know. Because if you did know then that would make you stupid or dishonest or both.

        So you knew, right? lol

      • Bartemis,
        “The formula relates the derivative of CO2 affinely to temperature, just as the plot shows.”

        No, your first formula, though it isn’t quite van ‘t Hoff, is a reasonable approx saying that at equilibrium [CO2] change is proportional to temperature change.

        Your later formula is for a highly artificial thought experiment in which there is a constant influx of cold water bearing CO2, which somehow is heated to the raised SST temp. The CO2 production is then proportional to that imagined flux rate. But there is no reason to believe that anything like that happens in the real ocean. There can be regions of cold water upwelling, but then the SST is cold, not warm (eg Humboldt current). And there are regions of downwelling too.

        But you have no answer to the question that you were asked earlier – if the post-1850 CO2 increase of about 200 Gtons C is due to natural output from the sea, what happened to the 350 Gtons C that we burnt? Where did it go? Into the sea? If so how, when the sea is a source?

        350 Gtons C is a lot. It’s at least half of total biomass. And why did a natural sink suddenly open up to receive it?

      • “…your first formula…”

        Is a lead-in for the derivation which follows after it.

        “But there is no reason to believe that anything like that happens in the real ocean.”

        There is no reason not to believe it. And, it is consistent with the data.

        “And there are regions of downwelling too.”

        And, if more CO2 for surface level equilibrium conditions is upwelling than downwelling, what happens to the surface reservoir? The flows we are talking about are immense – much larger than anthropogenic inputs. It doesn’t take much variation to swamp that input out.

        “Where did it go? Into the sea? If so how, when the sea is a source? “

        Partly into the sea. Partly into the land reservoir. The key word you need to insert somewhere is “net”. The oceans are a net source under my hypothesis.

        If you want to discuss further, start a new thread at the bottom. I doubt I will look back up here again. I have appreciated your input, though I’d like to ask that perhaps you try considering how what I am proposing might be right, with appropriate tweaks, rather than how it might be wrong.

  66. willard earlier (under)appreciated my advice about legal advice. Thus encouraged, I offer more freely, as someone who knows nothing about the law and has no qualifications whatsoever to speak about it.

    If you have a lawyer, their loyalties are always divided between you and at least their own interests, their duty to the court and to the law, their obligations to the bar they are a member of, and to whomever is paying them. You can’t do anything about the bar, the court, the law, or their own interests; however, it is never in your best interest for your lawyer to be paid for by someone other than you yourself, whether that is a partner, spouse, parent, employer, association or patron.

    You risk the problems that come up when the interests of you and the person paying come into conflict. That’s never good. And no matter what any lawyer you’re not paying says to you, their obligations to you are immensely higher when you are the one paying than when you are not. The sole exception is pro bono work.

    If you are a lawyer, then don’t be your own lawyer. That’s just plain stupid.

    If you aren’t a lawyer, then really don’t be your own lawyer. That’s worse than stupid.

    If you don’t have a lawyer, then you’re a lucky, lucky person. Keep it that way, to maintain your happiness. Just don’t get involved in legal entanglements without one.

    If you choose to disregard any or all of the above, there’s still hope you’ll walk away from legal messes satisfied with the outcome. On the day that you do, buy a lottery ticket, because it is your lucky day. Just don’t count on being the one person who ends up that way.

    In the long run, where you need a lawyer, lawyers will walk away with substantial wages, and everyone else will be diminished. Courtroom proceedings are a nasty and inefficient way to settle anything.

    • Somebody lost a law suit, and never got over it.

      You know when BartR starts a comment with an admission that he knows nothing about a topic, he is about to spend 20 minutes typing a treatise confirming that very proposition.

      • GaryM | August 27, 2012 at 1:49 am |

        It’s so nice to have a webstalker who’s so persistently wrong in his guesses and surmises. It lowers the expectation of danger.

    • Latimer Alder

      @bart r

      You’re right on this one.

      I’ve never met a destitute lawyer or a poor bookmaker.

      I’ve met plenty of poor litigants and broke gamblers.

      This is not new news. See, for example, ‘Bleak House’, by Charles Dickens (pub 1852).

      Mann should just turn the other cheek. Alternatively he could explain publicly why he thinks his hokey stick is right, And answer the many objections to it. A public debate with McIntyre would be enlightening. AFAIK he just dismisses all criticism as ‘a well-funded denier conspiracy’ or other such paranoid childish tosh.

    • David Springer

      “If you aren’t a lawyer, then really don’t be your own lawyer. That’s worse than stupid.”

      Not always. In frivolous suits the object is usually to make you roll over because you can’t afford the legal costs of defending yourself. It’s a bluff and it’s easy & inexpensive to call the bluff without damaging the case should you decide to hire a lawyer later. The first answer is a simple boilerplate. Deny each and every allegation and accompany that with a counter suit just for good measure. The nearest law library has all the proper forms and will assist you in finding a response from a similar suit and you basically have to do no more than change the names and pay your $15 to the county clerk to file it.

      Note that an individual who is not an attorney cannot represent anyone but themselves. Even a sole proprietorship must be represented by an attorney. So if you’re thinking of suing someone just to get them to roll over without answering in court it’s best to, as Mann’s lawyer did, sue both the individuals and any associated legal entities.

      **** I am not an attorney and you should consult an attorney before taking my advice. LOL

    • BartR,

      Thank you for your elaboration.

      I believe we could characterize the Law Game as an asymetric zero-sum game between Lawyers and Non-Lawyers, where what is lost by the latter is won by the former.

      The Investor Game, more or less, but on acid.

  67. I forget there are other Barts who post here. Address any lame contrary responses to Bartemis, those of you who never miss an opportunity to do so. The relationship leaves no room for human inputs, as the only assumed variable is To, and the integral only adds an additional arbitrary constant to the overall CO2 level. So, the only unaccounted for, allowable additional input must have the form of a bias plus ramp, and the integrated human input is at least quadratic. That is to say, Integrating the human inputs adds additional curvature to the overall CO2 graph which is already accounted for by the temperature relationship. Hence, it cannot be having a significant effect.

    • This post refers to Bart | August 27, 2012 at 1:32 am.

    • deniers will deny.

      • David Springer

        Do you deny this?

        14 years of global cooling since 1998

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

        14 years of rising CO2 since 1998

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998

        Can you connect the dots?

        Well, can you?

      • Temperature trends over a decade are affected by the CO2 rise, by ENSO and by the solar cycle. See Foster and Rahmstorf 2011

      • Junk science. The true relationship is obvious.

      • Here’s the real cause of the increase in CO2 level:

        That’s why CO2 rise has sped up over time. CO2 levels are now higher than they’ve been for over 800,000 years.

        Multiple lines of evidence point to the extra carbon as coming from fossil fuels. The numbers match, the fingerprints match, the proxies match. You have to deny them all.

      • You have to deny them all.”

        I don’t have to do anything but look at what the best data directly measure.

      • Yes I see it. The excellent CRU Temperature data authored by Dr Phil Jones shows that global temperature has risen. Meanwhile the excellent atmospheric CO2 data measured at Mauna Loa show that CO2 rise has accelerated.

        This data is exactly what scientists expect from man-made emissions of CO2 which have caused an acceleration in CO2 rise and are the only solid explanation for the rise in global tempeature observed.

      • “This data is exactly what scientists expect from man-made emissions of CO2 which have caused an acceleration in CO2 rise and are the only solid explanation for the rise in global tempeature observed.”

        This is a circular argument.

      • “The excellent CRU Temperature data authored by Dr Phil Jones shows that global temperature has risen. Meanwhile the excellent atmospheric CO2 data measured at Mauna Loa show that CO2 rise has accelerated.”

        And, because it is the derivative of CO2 which matches the temperature, the arrow of causation is in the direction of temperature to CO2. When you integrate to total CO2, it lags the temperature by a characteristic frequency dependent interval.

      • The oceans are absorbing CO2 (acidifying). The biosphere is absorbing CO2 (greening). The only plausible explanation for the sharp rise in CO2 is human emissions.

        This is one reason why the CO2 rise is known to be human caused. CO2 is also a strong greenhouse gas so it is known that much of the warming is due to it.

        Therefore yes I can conclude the CO2 rise is due to man and much of the warming is due to the CO2 rise. Some of the CO2 rise is due to warming, but as ice cores indicate the sensitivity is about 10ppm per 1C temperature increase. We’ve seen over 100ppm.

      • If CAGW science is so easy to prove, what’s with all the money being wasted on research? I want my taxes back.

      • “The oceans are absorbing CO2 (acidifying). The biosphere is absorbing CO2 (greening). “

        The CO2 has to go somewhere. I certainly never said it disappears. But, the atmospheric concentration is governed primarily by temperature. That is what the data show.

        “CO2 is also a strong greenhouse gas so it is known that much of the warming is due to it.”

        It is a weak greenhouse gas, and if it were dominant in producing warming, we would not have had the current decade+ hiatus.

      • The skeptics make the common engineering mistake of upon finding a transfer function, they invert the direction of the transfer function and make a complete mess of the situation.

        It’s comical that Bartemis has in this case reversed the direction of causality by suggesting a ~1C change in temperature will change the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, and thus has violated all sorts of laws of thermodynamics.

        Go Team, time to jump on the clown car! Wheee!

      • WebHubTelescope | August 27, 2012 at 10:18 pm |

        You’re an imbecile. You haven’t even read anything I wrote in response. The relationship is so simple, even you could understand it if you put your limited mind to it.

      • You don’t even know what you are implying.

        The point is that if there were climate scientists that desperately wanted to see CAGW — as you right-wing nutjobs seem to believe — the first thing they would seek is a mechanism and evidence for a positive feedback outgassing of CO2 (and H2O and CH4) with temperature.

        Then with a strong feedback, it would reinforce the greenhouse effect and it would be off to the races.

        So with your mechanism of a 40% change due to a 1C change in ocean temperature, what would happen with a 2C change? With your mechanism, it would double the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 to 560 ppm.

        What if the temperature changed by 5C, which might have occurred between ice ages? With your theory, that would have changed the [CO2] by a factor of 5.5.

        What this means is that your theory is the closest we have yet to a catastrophic global warming scenario. Not even those supposedly desperate climate scientists will dare go where you are heading towards. Like me, they must all realize that it is just bad science, and fortuitous math trendology that any controls engineer worth his salt would laugh off.

      • “So with your mechanism of a 40% change due to a 1C change in ocean temperature…”

        If you had paid attention, and read what I have written, you would know this is a strawman.

      • Indeed, they will. But, who is who? The relationship is elementary, and staring you in the face, and you deny your own eyesight.

      • You are having to deny the ice core CO2 records.

        You are coming in here stating that multiple different parts of science are wrong. Sounds like a hopeless position.

      • Hopeless… you may be right. People see what they want to see, even when contradictory evidence is laid out right before their eyes.

        The ice cores have never been independently verified. Indeed, there are no means to do so. The best, most modern, and direct measurements should be preferred.

      • Your graph is compatible with an increasing rate of CO2 rise caused by increasing CO2 emissions with ENSO variation over the top.

        Your argument that global temperature causes the CO2 rise is basically just a correlation = causation argument, nothing more.

      • Oh and ice cores have been independently verified. You are only denying them because they don’t fit your correlation=causation based argument.

      • There are no means to verify the ice cores fidelity over the long term. None. I challenge you to provide them.

        The best, most modern measurements show the relationship which has held since at least 1958.

        “Your graph is compatible with an increasing rate of CO2 rise caused by increasing CO2 emissions with ENSO variation over the top.”

        Isn’t. It accounts for all the CO2 variation resulting from temperature. The CO2 is the lagging variable, hence the arrow of causation flies from temperature to CO2.

        “Your argument that global temperature causes the CO2 rise is basically just a correlation = causation argument, nothing more.”

        So is yours, at the root. But, your correlation is merely the flip of a coin – emissions have risen (come up heads) at the same time concentration has risen (heads).

        My correlation embodies all of the fluctuations in the CO2 derivative graph, as well as the long term trend. The odds that it is happenstance are infinitesimal.

      • “There are no means to verify the ice cores fidelity over the long term.”

        If the air can’t leak from the ice cores then the air in the ice is the air from the past and so contains the CO2 concentration from back then ready to be measured. You require the ice cores to be off by almost 2x.

        Fixed your graph, you had the scaling wrong. Notably the 1998 El Nino was too small in yours. The correct alignment is a little problematic for you.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/offset:-0.15/scale:0.5

      • “If the air can’t leak…”

        That is an assumption. As I stated, you have no means of verification.

        “Fixed your graph, you had the scaling wrong.”

        So, you arbitrarily banish the agreement with the long term trend, which is very nearly perfect, and substitute your own prejudicial interpretation. You are in denial.

      • I must go work for a living. Will check back later as time permits.

      • “Fixed your graph, you had the scaling wrong.”

        About your graph: yes, it is true that there is a little play with the slope allowable within the confines of reasonably fitting the variations in the data. However, the problem with your graph is that, you have now increased the slope of the temperature part, and that will result in increased curvature of the integral output.

        If the CO2 derivative is proportional to the temperature anomaly you show, offset in whatever appropriate manner, plus the anthropogenic rate of input term, then the anthropogenic term must have a negative slope to offset the increased slope of the temperature dependent term in order to integrate into the appropriate curvature. But, we know it does not. The anthropogenic input has been accelerating, not decelerating.

  68. Quick, someone write a paper blaming this on globalclimatewarmingchange.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/swarm-quakes-rattle-california-arizona-usgs-221806620.html

  69. Sun Tzu’s reminder ter Michael Mann on the art of war:

    ‘The Skilful Warrior
    Takes his stand
    On ::invulnerable:: ground;
    He lets slip no chance
    Of defeating the enemy.’

    Ahem … Sun Tzu’s advice on the art of war ter Mann’s skilful opponent;

    ‘The warrior skilled
    At stirring the enemy
    Provides a visible form,
    And the enemy is sure
    To take it.
    He causes the enemy
    To make a move
    And waits for him
    With full force.’
    )

  70. OK. Let’s look at “the week”:

    M^2 is in court, trying to “defend his image”.

    Then there’s the quote:

    It’s not the heat, it’s the humility.

    Looks like M^2 lacks the latter and can’t take the former.

    Max

  71. Well Max,he should jest get out of the kitchen then …

  72. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    BREAKING NEWS  From weather historian Chris Burt:
    “Unprecedented snow melt and heat in the European Alps“.

    Climatereason, the data in Burt’s historical review will be of substantial interest to you. For example, the Matterhorn is ice-free this year  … for the first time ever.   :!:   :!:   :!:

    Regarding which, see also multiple thoughtful comments on Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog.

    Conclusion  Europe’s ever-lengthening Alpine “hockey-stick” blade provides striking new evidence that AGW is real, serious, and accelerating.   :cry:   :cry:   :cry:

    Question  Does this mean that “rational climate-change skepticism” has become an oxymoron?   :?:   :?:   :?:

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Whoops … try this link: “From weather historian Chris Burt:
      Unprecedented snow melt and heat in the European Alps.”

      • Fan

        My word you are excitable aren’t you

        Here is a link to the Matterhorn webcam clearly showing snow on its north side. From there you can look at the summer skiing that is open.

        I know Zermatt very well.It gets VERY hot. The records of most alpine peaks go back 75 years some, as the story confirms, go back 15 years.

        This is all akin to believing that satellite picture from 1979 represent anything more than a snap shot. As I have said before Fan we seem to be able to trace a warming trend back 400 years or so with huge natural variability around that. Glaciers have been melting since 1730. Why would it have been warming for so long with CO2 at a constant 280ppm Fan?

        tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Climatereason, the Swiss see plainly with their own eyes that Alpine glacial mass-loss is real, serious, and accelerating.   :eek:   :eek:   :eek:

        And not just in Switzerland, but all around the world.   :sad:   :shock:   :sad:

        That is why climate-change denialism is futile, eh?

        Because “Nature cannot be fooled”.   :!:   :!:   :!:

      • Fools feel they must speak for Nature?:o)

      • Fan

        Indeed – Nature cannot be fooled.

        But maybe you can.

        Take a longer-time look at alpine glaciers, and you will see that physical evidence shows they have been much smaller than they are today, many times over the past 10,000 years.

        A study of the Swiss Alps shows that they reached an all-time high extent for the past 10,000 years around 1850, around the same time as modern measurements started.

        http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,357366,00.html

        The Alpine glaciers are shrinking, that much we know. But new research suggests that in the time of the Roman Empire, they were smaller than today. And 7,000 years ago they probably weren’t around at all. A group of climatologists have come up with a controversial new theory on how the Alps must have looked over the ages.

        The glaciers, according to the new hypothesis, have shrunk down to almost nothing at least ten times since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. “At the time of the Roman Empire, for example, the glacier tongue was about 300 meters higher than today,” says Joerin. Indeed, Hannibal probably never saw a single big chunk of ice when he was crossing the Alps with his army.

        The most dramatic change in the landscape occurred some 7,000 years ago. At the time, the entire mountain range was practically glacier-free — and probably not due to a lack of snow, but because the sun melted the ice. The timber line was higher then as well.
        The scientists’ conclusion puts the vanishing glaciers of the past 150 years into an entirely new context: “Over of the past 10,000 years, fifty percent of the time, the glaciers were smaller than today,” Joerin states in an essay written together with his doctoral advisor Christian Schluechter. They call it the “Green Alps” theory.

        Joerin admits his theory goes against conventional wisdom. “It is hard to imagine that the glaciers, as we know them, were not the norm in past millennia, but rather an exception,” he says while he and his companions dig out the tree trunk with shovels, axes and bare hands.

        Carbon-dated remains of trees and other vegetation plus, more rarely, signs of civilization, such as remnants of old alpine gold/silver mines, etc. provide physical evidence that the glaciers were, indeed, smaller than they are today.

        Similar studies from the Austrian Alps have come to the same conclusion.

        Rejoice! You are not doomed!

        Max

      • David Springer

        I’m glad you agree climate change denialism is futile. It’s been cooling for almost a generation now!

        14 years of global cooling since 1998

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

        14 years of rising CO2 since 1998

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998

        Can you connect the dots?

        Well, can you?

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        David Springer:

        Why do you persist in spewing forth such nonsense and incorrect statements as:

        “14 years of global cooling since 1998.”

        People ask me why I doubt what you say…and here’s a perfect example of why.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        LOL  manacker, did you read all the way to the *conclusion* of the popular article that you linked?   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

        Ulrich Joerin concludes  “Our findings so far [regarding Alpine glacier mass-loss] could also be seen as giving the exact opposite of a climatic all-clear. If we can prove that there were ancient forests where the glaciers are today, it means one thing in particular: that the climate can change more suddenly than we thought.”

        Hmmm … solar insolation due to orbital wobbles alters earth’s energy budget slowly … is there any factor, known to affect earth’s energy budget, that is known to have changed suddenly and dramatically? That could account for the sudden dramatic ice-loss that the Swiss — and everyone else in the world :shock:  — now are seeing?   :eek:   :shock:   :eek:

        What do *you* think, manacker?   :?:   :?:   :?:

      • Latimer Alder

        @A Fan

        I followed your link.

        It showed that four glaciers have been losing mass since at least 1860 at a constant rate,

        I could not see any acceleration.

        Your claim is false.

      • Fan

        You are doing it again. I cited numerous glacial studies in my artricle here;

        https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

        Glaciers come and go and in this case according to Professor Manley Glaciers havce been melting since 1730 and there were several oter notable peaks in melt for instance around the Roman optimum.

        The snow was still there on the Matterhorn as you saw, the records quoted were shoret and I repeat the question as to how we can experience the huge natural variability around a slowly warming trend that dates back some 400 years at a constant 280ppm? Surely James Hansen must have written an artocle about it?
        tonyb

      • Fan

        Good news! I looked two minutes ago and there is still snow on the Matterhorn

        http://www.zermatt.ch/en/page.cfm/webcam_matterhorn

        I expect you are relieved that the reports you cited are perhaps exaggerated

        tonyb

  73. NSIDC sea ice extent has now broken the 2007 record. It now seems almost guaranteed that 2012 will become the new record minimum year.

  74. At curryja | August 26, 2012 at 10:52 am I find “We expect Isaac to be a strong category 2 storm at landfall “.. The latest data on Isaac, 8 am EDT 27 Aug, is that it has not yet become a hurricane, and is expected to be a Cat 1 when if makes landfall.

  75. With respect to whether there will be a new El Nino, the latest SST map shows little sign of any El NIno developing. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif. There is no sign of any consistent negative values for the SOI also. http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/
    My guess is that we are not going to see an El Niuo during 2012.

  76. The denizens of Climate Etc who are proponents of CAGW seem to be extremely relucatant to enter into a discussion of the actual measurement of total climate sensitivity. I wonder why. Maybe it is because such little empirical data as we have, gives a very strong indication that if and when any such measurement is actually made, it will show that total climate sensitivity is at least an order of magnitude less that the figures the IPCC suggests. So my challenge to discuss what I regard as the key issue in CAGW will not be met.

    • How fared your challenge to your opponents to teach you how to tie your shoes?

      There is extensive research on climate sensitivity. If no one is interested in discussing it with you, it is probably because you do not know enough to ask interesting questions.

      • Robert you write “There is extensive research on climate sensitivity.”

        You are absolutely correct, and what you write is absolutely irrelevant. I am not talking abiut climate sensitivity. I am talking about TOTAL climate sensitivity. It is TOTAL climate sensitivity that none of the proponents of CAGW will talk about.

      • So you’re inventing your own terminology now? Fun.

        I reiterate: you haven’t asked an interesting question. You reject climate science, and assert that climate sensitivity is low. Very well: prove your thesis. Establish a low climate sensitivity. If you do a good job, and formulate something approximatinga reasonable argument, people will engage with you. If you don’t, you’ve failed to formulate an interesting question, and there’s no case to answer.

        Good luck! :)

    • Jim Cripwell

      You are right.

      So far none of the Climate Etc. denizens who support the CAGW hypothesis has stepped up to your challenge.

      And it is highly unlikely that any of them will: even those who have a knack for discussing the theories of climate science, such as Pekka Pirilä or Bart R.

      It appears to me that the reason for this is rather simple.

      There are no empirical scientific data, which support the notion that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would result in a global warming of more than around 1 degree Celsius and, at this level, there is no future threat to humanity or our environment from AGW.

      This notion is supported only by model simulations and hype.

      IOW there is no “C” in “CAGW”.

      Max

      • You are incorrect sir.

        Jim Cripwell’s various “challenges” have been met many times in discourse, where upon scratching the surface they turn out to be mere tricks and shams, sophistry and misdirection.

        The reason people stop engaging him is there’s nothing to engage.

        Do some research next time, before supporting a claim unsubstantiated.

        It’s what skeptics do.

      • Bart R you write “The reason people stop engaging him is there’s nothing to engage.”

        If that is your opinion, you are entitled to it. If you want to keep it private, I have no objections. But when you put it in public on Climate Etc. it is my concern.

        I suggest you need to put your money where your mouth is. Would you explain why the measurement of total climate sensitivity is a matter where there is “nothing to engage”. Why is the measurement of total climate sensitivity not of vital importance?

        I am not holding my breath, and I dont ecpect a response.

      • A brief list of some people who have responded here in the past two months, some at great length, only for readers to discover you had nothing to back up your assertions, but were never going to change your tune:

        A fan of *MORE* discourse
        Robert
        Ron Manley
        Chief Hydrologist
        David Wojick
        Jim D
        Curious from Cleethorpes
        John Carpenter
        captdallas
        Pekka
        Steven Mosher
        JCH
        WHT
        Rob Starkey
        R. Gates
        Chris Colose

        But hey, Grima Orssengo, stefanthedenier and Peter Lang are in complete agreement with you, so that says something.

        Oh, and my response remains the same as before:

        Your claims are specious and sophistic; you’ve defined your terms so narrowly and idiomatically as to have no objective meaning, so there can be no meeting of the minds. When chased down to definitions and specifics, it turns out what you’re really complaining about is a philosophical angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pinnism with no answer.

        Hence, there’s nothing to engage. You’re wasting people’s time.

      • Bart writes “Your claims are specious and sophistic.”

        Thanks for the response, Bart, but, as expected, it is just hand waving. I made a specific claim that the measurement of total climate sensitivity is an important issue. You seem to claim that the measurement of total climate sensitivity is “specious and sophistic”. But you refuse to exlain why.

        Let me try again. Why is the measreement of total climate sensitivity “specious and sophistic”? I wonder whether I will get a response that actually answers the question.

      • “I made a specific claim that the measurement of total climate sensitivity is an important issue.”

        You haven’t defined your terms or made the case that the question is important.

        Your basic problem, in addition to limited knowledge of science and the scientific method, appears to be sheer laziness, for which y.

      • Robert, youn write “You haven’t defined your terms or made the case that the question is important.”

        Utter and complete garbage. You need to go back to read what I wrote. If total climate sensitivity can be measured, then the case for or against CAGW will be settled for all time. If that does not make the issue important, I have no idea what does.

        As to defining my terms, what is to define? We know what “total climate sensitivity” means, we know what “measurement” means. So we know what the measurement of total climate sensitivity means.

      • Jim Cripwell | August 27, 2012 at 11:03 am |

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but last time we had this exchange, over two month ago, it took some seven thousand words traded back and forth before it came out that your argument was that because there isn’t a direct physical measure called “climate sensitivity” akin to length as in the “centimeter” or volume as in the “litre” or weight as in the “milligram”, then it doesn’t exist and all discussions involving it are moot.

        Oh, wait, I have to retract part of what I said.

        Milligram doesn’t measure weight directly, and weight is only a measure of the attraction of a mass to the mass of Earth in Earth’s Gravity.. which we also can’t directly measure. Which by your lights ought mean we fly off into space, or at the very least we can’t calculate simple projectile motion or discuss mechanics of real objects.

        Likewise, just as we can’t measure heat (temperature measures in the main being measures of change in volume, and temperature has to do with the specific heat of a material, not a direct measure of heat energy anyway), anything temperature-related ought be beyond the pale of discourse too.

        But let’s not lament how infinitely ignorant this approach makes us as if it’s all Jim Cripwell’s fault: Latimer Alder has recently said that just because we know results for some fraction of a sample (I believe it was about a quarter of the total), doesn’t mean we know anything about the whole; while this is strictly true, it’s also strictly false — we know, if the sample is representative that certain rules of central tendency and other statistical verities probably apply. And Judith Curry’s Climate doesn’t bear the process of Simplification, and Tomas thinks any feature of any system that has some element of Chaos (despite convergence) is therefore always completely unparameterizable — a mathematically ludicrous claim given there’s a great deal of Chaos in the world of molecules, but we can rely on quite deterministic behaviors at the scale of direct human perception for many things made of molecules.

        See, this “but I can’t know” mental block is just that; a mental defect of reasoning. Not all of us share it. If you’re affected, the first step is to recognize you have a cognitive disorder.

        Speaking of, who else laughed when they saw http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201208234950/research/what-motivates-rejection-climate-science claim people who “reject climate science” either “strongly supported a free market economy” or are an insane conspiracy theorist who can’t think straight?

        I mean, where I’m from, you either strongly support a free market economy, or you are nutty and/or can’t think straight. That’s pretty much a tautology.

        Still, it did draw a chuckle.

      • I like your argument Bart.
        Crip is the only guy with a counter theory that essentially argues by semantics. Since there is no measure for a derived quantity, that quantity cannot exist.
        The color green is only in our imagination, the color not the wavelength, so therefore it is pointless to continue.

      • Latimer Alder

        @bart r

        I agree with you that ‘if the sample is representative’ then the views of a subset will give a good indication of the view of the whole. That is the whole basis of opinion polling.The key to getting it right is to be very careful in constructing the question and to work very hard at ensuring the sample is representative. If you do these well, you can get people’s view to within about 3%

        But in the case you cite (AMS survey), there were absolutely no steps taken to ensure that the sample was representative. And it was self-selecting for those with a strong interest in the topic.

        Under these circumstances, the idea of ‘a representative sample’ breaks down and the ;subset’ technique fails.

      • Latimer Alder | August 29, 2012 at 2:23 am |

        I can think of nothing that has been argued so strongly among denizens as that there is little more likely to produce a perfectly random outcome than an effort by meteorologists to collect facts.

        So I feel pretty safe that the sampling technique is as close to representative as we can hope.

        ;)

      • Latimer Alder

        @bart r

        Nicely put :-)

        And maybe true in other circumstances.

        But sadly untrue in this case. A self-selecting sample (those who could be arsed to fill in the form) is not a random one. It presupposes an interest in the subject sufficient to get them to do so.

      • Do some research next time, before supporting a claim unsubstantiated.

        Max’s specialty. As is a complete avoidance of accountability when he does make a mistake.

        Just watch.

  77. David Springer

    14 years of global cooling since 1998

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

    14 years of rising CO2 since 1998

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998

    Can you connect the dots?

    Well, can you?

    • People who fail at analysis by cherry-picking their start date are also likely to fail at common courtesy by spamming the same comment over and over?

      • Robert

        You get the same result as David Springer when you start with 1997 (no warming to date) or 2001 (slight cooling to date).

        IOW, it has not warmed over more than a decade.

        Kevin Trenberth acknowledged this fact, calling this “unexplained lack of warming” a “travesty”, and suggested it may have resulted from “clouds acting as a natural thermostat” with the “missing energy being reflected out to space”.

        I’d say his analysis is probably quite good.

        Spencer + Braswell (2007) and Lindzen + Choi (2009,2011) have come to similar conclusions, based on CERES and ERBE satellite observations.

        To ignore this extended period of no warming with the “cherry picking” rationalization is downright silly – it’s “denial” in its most basic form.

        Max

      • “You get the same result as David Springer when you start with 1997 (no warming to date)”

        False. But thanks for playing!

      • “Spammer Springer”

        I like saying Spammer Springer.

  78. Effect of increase in CO2 on the global mean temperature for the last 8 years:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/plot/esrl-co2/from:2004/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2004/normalise

    This observation shows increased CO2 concentration is accompanied by decrease in global mean temperature.

    As a result, how does the AGW camp hold on to its theory when AGW is contradicted by the observation?

    • You just posted the exact same comment in another thread.

      Spamming is bad and you should feel bad.

      • Latimer Alder

        @Robert

        Should I take it that you have no serious answer to Girma’s question?

      • Actually I responded to him when he posted the comment the first time.

      • Latimer Alder

        Link?

      • You illustrate why it is a bad idea to spam the same comment in multiple threads. Perhaps Girma can give you a link to that discussion and anywhere else he may have repeated himself.

      • Robert

        Yeah.

        You responded.

        But Latimer asked you whether you had a “serious answer”.

        The fact is that Girma has shown plots of measurements of the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” (HadCRUT3) and normalized “atmospheric CO2 concentrations” (Mauna Loa) over the past decade or so.

        These two show no apparent correlation.

        I would not go so far as to claim that these measurements represent a “long-term trend”, but they do falsify the IPCC projections of 0.2C warming per decade, and I have seen no satisfactory explanation from you (or anyone else) as to why this should not be so.

        Max

      • You should check out a paper by Foster and Ramstorf from 2011

      • Latimer Alder

        @Robert

        Maybe you did answer Girma, maybe you didn’t.

        But you’re absolutely hopeless at convincing anybody of anyhing.

      • “These two show no apparent correlation.”

        Before there can be an answer, there must be a question.

        What is Girma asking? Why graphs of CO2 concentration and global average temperature are not identical? Why should they be?

        Girma needs to clarify his own ideas. What in his thesis? Is it: “It at any time, for any length of time, the sign of CO2 concentration and the sign of the change in average annual temperatures are different, than AGW is disproved?

        If that is his argument, let him argue that. At the moment he’s put up two graphs which pose no actual problem for the theory and claimed they disprove it. The only serious response possible to that is: What makes you think so?

      • Robert

        Truth must be repeated:

        Observation shows increased CO2 concentration is accompanied by decrease in global mean temperature.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/plot/esrl-co2/from:2004/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2004/normalise

      • “Truth must be repeated”

        That can have no bearing on your case.

        Spamming comments is bad manners and pointless. It’s a propaganda technique — trying to make up in quanitity what you lack in quality.

    • It’s too short of period for the trend to be meaningful. On HadCrut4 two of the years in his sample are tied for being the hottest years in the record. On GisTemp one year in the period tied 1998, and two years exceeded it.

      The period includes the 2nd strongest La Nina in the record.

      • JCH

        Try to find the inconsistency in your response to Girma.

        First, you deride Girma’s use of a decadal record as “too short of period for the trend to be meaningful”, then you toss in the records for single years, And you do this using different record series. Then you side-track to the ENSO record.

        Gimme a break!

        Max

      • What BS Max. His period of alleged global cooling, and he has made the claim here on this blog several times that we are cooling, which we most definitely are not, many times, includes two years hotter than 1998 and one year equal to 1998.

        That, combined with the La Nina dominance, is why there is just way too much noise in the sample for it to have a shred of use for his obvious purpose. But the hottest years do cast extreme doubt on his contention that the period shows no link between temp and CO2.

      • +1 exactly. Here are the facts according to HadCRUT3

        Warming from 1979 to 1999: 0.3C
        Warming from 1979 to 2012: 0.5C

        If warming stopped in 1999, where did that extra 0.2C come from? Girma and Max have not answered this.

    • It isn’t.

      • Nordhaus’s analysis is deeply flawed. I commented in the other thread in response to your other post.

      • “Nordhaus’s analysis is deeply flawed.”

        It must be musn’t it? If he was saying the opposite it would be perfectly OK , wouldn’t it?

  79. Jim Cripwell says:

    ‘The denizens of Climate etc who are proponents of CAGW seem to be reluctant to enter into a discussion of the actual measurement of total climate sensitivity.’

    Hmm … waiting for the empiric evidence is like Waiting for Godot.
    What shall we do to pass the time while we’re waiting?

    • Beth

      What shall we do to pass the time while we’re waiting?

      How ’bout some poetry?

      Max

    • Beth you write “Hmm … waiting for the empiric evidence is like Waiting for Godot.”

      No Beth, we have the empirical data. What we are waiting for is someone to work out how to use the empirical data we have, as a measure of total climate sensitivity. It is the way to measure total climate sensitivity that is missing

  80. Max,
    What about some “idle discourse” quotes from Waiting for Godot? )

    Vladimir:
    That’s man(n) all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet.

    http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2635502-waiting-for-godot

  81. Guess I thought you were referring to the CAGW denizens’ failure ter put forward a falsifiable hypothesis fer their settled science, Jim.

  82. Ah, the perennial return of short trendology.

    Eight year trends? Fourteen year trends?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/every:48/from:1945/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1945/trend

    These short wavelets on a rising tide are not a mystery to even small children, who know there are crests and troughs on a rising tide, and don’t get confused into thinking that because there are troughs their feet aren’t getting wet, and the water isn’t rising up toward their knees.

    That’s why even small children run out of the way of the rising tide.

    Gain the sense of a small child.

  83. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Matt Ridley’s proudly ignorant article shows plainly how denialist cognition sustains itself by cherry-picking data to reinforce preconceptions — the article is thus a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action!

    Mr. Ridley would have done well to read and analyze (in depth) works like the 1955 Fortune Magazine symposium that invited leading statesman and scientists of the 1950s to foresee The Fabulous Future: America in 1980

    Quick Summary  The future *did* arrive very much as 1950s thinkers foresaw — both the beneficial and the apocalyptic aspects of it — these statesman and scientists were *SMART*!   :grin:   :grin:   :grin:

    However, the pace-of-change was only about half as fast as these 1950s thinkers foresaw … only now are problems like climate change (which they foresaw clearly) becoming acute.

    Conclusion  Mr. Ridley’s cherry-picked ignorance of science and of history renders his conclusions suspect. That he is unaware of his ignorance is pathognomonic of denialism and the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

  84. Judith Curry wrote:
    “I guess he [Mann] is hoping to intimidate people into not saying negative things about him?”

    Is “fraudulent” merely negative, or something beyond? Being criticized and being wrong are one thing; being accused of fraud is something very different.

    • I want to take this unprecedented opportunity to agree with David Appell about something.

      There is indeed a big difference between being honestly wrong and making stuff up. In the unlikely event that Mann takes this matter to court, that is the proposition that will be tested.

      Mark Steyn has said that he has never paid much attention to Mann as an individual in the past. This oversight will be thoroughly, comprehensively and entertainingly remedied if Mann persists with his vanity lawsuit.

  85. There are a couple of benefits to the over-the-top litigation approach Mann seems to be adopting. First, it seems likely to generate a counterclaim which may (a) trigger insurance or indemnity agreements which would help pay for the litigation and (b) allow him to conduct intrusive discovery into real or imagined conspiracies. Second, it gives him a forum in which to make all sorts of statements without fear of being sued for defamation, since statements made in a U.S. legal proceeding are usually subject to an absolute privilege. I have to wonder what Mann intends to use as a damages theory, particularly since he’s a tenured professor; but I’m sure his lawyers are sufficiently imaginative to come up with something.

  86. I stumbled upon something that is tangentially related to the climate debate at, of all places, Althouse’s blog.

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/08/there-are-no-conspiracy-theories-about.html

    It’s about the D’Sousa movie, 2016. the relevant paragraph is this:

    D’Souza culls many of his facts from “Dreams.”* The movie mostly organizes and presents information within a template, demonstrating a theory. D’Souza is doing what lawyers do. And as in a legal case, we can’t necessarily ever know the truth for certain, but we do need to make decisions and move forward. And as in law, we combine our opinion about how likely something is to be true with our assessment of the risks of deciding one way or the other, and we decide. The D’Souza movie is like a closing argument, displaying some facts and theories about how the facts fit together, along with pressure to see the huge risks if Obama gets a second term.

    Sounds a lot like the climate conundrum, doesn’t it? So applying the Precautionary Principle, we can’t reelect Obama.

  87. Re: Ocean “acidification” – how much extra Carbon dioxide will it take to bring the ocean to neutral?

    • Latimer Alder

      @myrrh

      As a fishwife once told me when trying to buy a pair of kippers:

      ‘More than you could ever dream of, bonnie lad’

      Unless there are huge unimagined reserves that we have not even an inkling about waiting to be discovered, we could burn all the fossil fuel in the world and it still wouldn’t stop the ocean being weakly alkaline – just as it is today.

      • ..we could burn all the fossil fuel in the world and it still wouldn’t stop the ocean being weakly alkaline – just as it is today.

        Thank you Latimer Alder, nicely put into perspective …

    • sthelensoregon

      What makes you think pH=7.0 is a desirable level for marine life and ocean health?

      • What makes you think pH=7.0 is a desirable level for marine life and ocean health?

        I didn’t say I thought that, and I don’t think it.

        My question is about how much carbon dioxide it would take to get the ocean to neutral, because, we keep being told we’re making the ocean more acidic, but, to get to acidic we’d have to get the ocean to neutral first, so, knowing how much extra carbon dioxide it would take to get the the ocean to neutral will give us some idea how much extra it would take to get it from neutral to acidic.

        I’ve never seen any figures given for the claim that we are making the ocean more acidic, which we can’t be doing anyway because the ocean is not acidic, we could perhaps be making it less alkaline, but I haven’t found any figures for this.

      • There is an enormous amount of information out there about ocean acidification, with all the numbers you are looking for. Do a little research.

      • Latimer Alder

        @david appell

        I did ‘a little research’ a while back on this topic. What I was looking for was some data equivalent to temperature records that showed long term trends in ocean pH from a variety of worldwide stations so that we could see if the pH was actully changing and if so, how fast. The same idea as the climatologists use to estimate the global temperature anomaly.

        I couldn’t find any. Beyond one hundred rather poor and non-contiguous observations/estimates from Hawaii – that are quoted in every article on the subject there seemed to be none.

        It seems however from you remarks that you have found such data (‘with all the numbers you are looking for’) Please guide me to them. I’m interested in seeing exactly how well global pH correlates with atmospheric CO2 concentration.

        To do a decent job I’d imagine there’d need to be at least 500 measuring stations and say fifty years worth of at least weekly observations from each. Say 1 million observations. Just about 10,000 times more than I have been able to find. If there are fewer than this then it probably is impossible to draw any useful information about the global rate of pH change and the local effects (which we know are very big) will swamp any small global changes.

        Links to them would be great. Thanks.

      • Latimer: See the report “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean,” National Research Council (2010), Figure 1.1 p. 17 — it shows estimated ocean pH going back 400,000 years calculated from boron isotopes. I believe all NAS books are now freely available as PDFs on their site.

      • What is the scientific basis for your claim that “500 measuring stations and say fifty years worth of at least weekly observations from each” are needed to discern changes in pH? Discerning a trend is a matter of the uncertainty of each measurement and the statistics of time series. pH can be measured very accurately. See, for example:

        Dore, J. E., R. Lukas, D. W. Sadler, M. J. Church, and D. M. Karl. 2009. Physical and biogeochemical modulation of ocean acidification in the central North Pacific. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 12235-12240.
        http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235

      • Latimer Alder

        @david appell

        Why do I say 500 sites, weekly observations?

        Because that gets us to about the same order of magnitude of number of observations used by climatologists to calculate the GAT anomaly. And we know that pH at any one place varies greatly anyway. So to show a real global trend, you need lots of observations over a long time in lots of geographically dispersed places so local effects can be eliminated.

      • Latimer Alder

        @david appell

        And thank you for the link to Dore et al. I have been pointed to this paper every time I have asked for actual pH measurements, and am very familair with it and mentioned it above (the Hawaii data). I hope you read it too, because it seems to contain the only actual measurements of pH that have been published anywhere.

        To recap for new readers. There are about 100 measurements at a single station in Hawaii taken monthly. But even these are not contiguous. The first set is between 1991 and 1998 then there is a gap until they resume in 2003 until 2008. The authors claim from this limited number to be able to discern a trend of -0.0014 +/- 0.002 pH unit per annum.

        Which is fine and dandy. I’m sure they did a good job with the available data . But its one heck of a stretch from 100 data points in one place off Hawaii to claim to be able to discern global trends caused by CO2 emissions. If I measured the temperature on my back garden once a month for the same period, you would laugh at me for claiming to be able to demonstrate global warming (or not) from such a limited sample.

      • Latimer: The Dore paper is hardly the only data used for calculation of the global pH trend. Again, see the NRC report.

        Argo robotic buoys that roam the oceans are now also measuring pH.

        Gaps in time series, both spatially and temporally, are a fact of life. There is, of course, a large literature devoted to the topic, spawned by attempts to estimate global temperatures on millenial scales.

        I don’t know what “GAT” is or why it applies to pH.

      • Latimer Alder

        @david appell

        Sadly you are wrong about the NAS books being ‘freely available’. They want $32 for the book you mention. And I am reluctant to shell out that amount for a graph that looks at pH over the last 400,000 years. I am really only interested in measurements for, say, the last 100 so that we may look at the correlation with CO2 concentrations.

        The good news is that they do publish a freebie summary booklet which I have downloaded. And it does indeed have a nice graph of some recent pH measurements. But the bad news is that they too are the ubiquitous 100 data points from Hawaii that I discussed earlier and you cited in the Dore paper.

        So wherever I turn i come up aganst a dead end. You say that there is an ‘enormous amount of information about ocean acidificaton with all the numbers you are looking for’, But there is just one thing missing. Actual measured real world data. There’s oodles of stuff that shows that if you suddenly stick a mussel in concentrated hydrochloric in a lab it doesn’t like it very much, as many predictions of the death of all marine life as you can throw a stick at. But very very very limited real world data showing that the feared effect is actually taking place at all

        100 observations in one place is not a sufficient foundation to build the whole edifice of OA panic upon IMO.

      • See the 2010 NRC report I cited earlier, section 6.4 (pp 122-124) for a list of four data repositories for oceanographic data. And section 1.3 (p. 20) contains citations to some of the many reviews on the topic of ocean acidification. The IPCC 4AR WG1 section 5.4 also contains many references to studies.

      • A free PDF of the NAS report is here:
        http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12904&page=R1

        It is also readable online by scrolling through its pages.

      • Latimer Alder

        @david appell

        GAT = Global Average Temperature. From which temperature anomalies are computed leading to estimates of global temperature changes

        ARGO buoys are indeed measuring some oceanic data nowadays. But pH doesn’t seem to be one of the variables according to their website. And, wisely in my view, they counsel

        ‘The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals’

        See http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

        So we are back to the dead end again.

      • You can also read: “Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem,” Scott C. Doney et al, Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2009. 1:169–92
        http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834

        which also lists many studies.

      • Latimer Alder

        @david appell

        Thanks for the link to the free copy of the report. I looked at the graph you cited.

        It is in two parts. Part A seems to show that pH has been quite variable over the previous 400,000 years when we can assume CO2 was constant. The variability is unexplained But there seem to be only 5 or 6 points plotted for the last 20,000 or so. The resolution is not sufficient to pick out any changes at all in the last 100 when CO2 has been increasing. It is also worth noting that the boron isotope technique requires analysis of sediments, which are immobile.So, like the Hawaii measurements, they suffer the disadvantage of giving just a snapshot in a single place. You cannot infer very much at all about pH in say the Irish Sea from measuements in the Pacific or vice versa.

        Part B is just a theoretical extrapolation of what might happen to pH if a particular interpretation of the chemistry is correct.

      • Latimer Alder

        @david appell

        Thanks for all your links to review papers and to studies about the supposed theoretical effects of pH change. Interesting also to know that Argo buoys will be monitoring pH in the future. I had missed that announcement.

        But, unless you know of somewhere else to look or have a time machine to take us to 30 years in the future when ARGO will have built up a suitable baseline dataset, it seems that we are stuck with just those 100 datapoints off Hawaii to be our actual guide about pH change.

        Long time ago I did a Masters in Chemistry. I did some great theoretical work on a particular set of atmospheric reactions. The problem was that the experiments didn’t match the theory. So I am always interested in checking such things, Here, IMO we have a huge corpus of theory, but almost no fundamental observations to give it any credence.

      • Latimer, you are ridiculous. Why would you possibly think atmospheric CO2 was constant over the last 400,000 years? Have you ever heard of the ice ages???

        Clearly you are determined to dismiss ocean acidification, and just as clearly you know very little science, and can’t even do a proper literature survey.

        I don’t see the point in responding further.

      • David Springer

        You mean ocean neutralization. It won’t be acidified in a million years. It’s alkaline and become less alkaline. That’s called neutralization. Try taking a chemistry class or two.

      • The ocean is becoming more acidic. Also, that is the word that colloquially describes the phenomena, and like “greenhouse effect,” anyone who knows anything about it knows what the word means and what the limitations of its label.

      • David Springer

        Appell you’re chemicially illiterate. The ocean is not becoming more acidic. It would have be acid before it could become more acid. The ocean is alkaline and increasing CO2 is lowering the alkalinity. The correct term for that process is neutralization. You’re a yellow journalist and the proper term, neutralization, doesn’t serve your agenda. You’re a cheap hack. Get lost.

      • Latimer Alder

        @david appell

        @david appell

        I am not dismissing the possibility that ocean pH is changing,

        I am just looking for some data to demonstrate that it actually is. I like observational data – which forms the basis of empirical science. And in this case there doesn’t appear to be very much at all. Just 100 data points off Hawaii.

        Contrast that with the number of data points needed to establish that global temperatures were changing. They had several thousand measuring stations, each recording daily maxima and minima for – in some cases – hundreds of years.

        Each observation station produces a minimum of 700 data points per annum. Assuming 3000 stations, running for 50 years, that is 700*3000*50 = 105 million

        So perhaps we can conclude that the experimental evidence for the notion that global temperatures are changing is a million times stronger than it is for similar changes in pH?

      • Latimer: Why are you refusing to consult the sources I’ve cited? All list many studies of ocean pH, and review articles that themselves list many studies.

      • David Springer: If you can’t refrain from personal insults, there’s no point in continuing this discussion.

      • De-alkalinization would be a preferable term, but noooo, it’s got to be acidification, a much scarier term for what is probably a trivial process.
        ==================

      • andrew adams

        Myrrh,

        I think you are getting a bit carried away by the terminology. The point isn’t really about whether the ocean is “acidic”, “neutral” or “alkaline” – there isn’t some great transformation or tipping point which will occur if ocean pH reaches or goes below exactly 7. Ocean pH is falling and the question is can ocean life adapt quickly enough to the changes which are occuring or will the consequences be negative, and if so how bad will they be.
        certain “skeptics” try to change the subject and make it all about semantics because they don’t like the answer.

      • Latimer Alder

        @andrew adams

        Please point Myrrh and me to the observational data to back up your claim that ‘ocean pH is falling’.

  88. Nat gas prices might be down, but shale development continues, just in the more oil-rich plays.

    “OAG360 Comments:

    The market had been expecting QEP to make some sort of deal for the past several quarters, based on management comments earlier in the year to investors on conference calls and at other events. The company’s announcement of expanding its operations in the oil-prone Williston Basin, targeting the Bakken and Three Forks formations, is consistent with the recent industry trend of gas-weighted companies moving into liquids-rich and crude oil plays. Since QEP will operate approximately 90% of the acquired acreage after closing, the assets provide QEP more operational control for increasing the proportion of oil in the company’s production stream.”

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/831381-qep-resources-takes-a-bigger-bite-of-bakken?source=feed

  89. David Springer

    lolwot | August 26, 2012 at 8:12 am |

    “Oh I thought it was because only RSS shows a negative trend since 1998…”

    I wasn’t aware of that. Feel free to average them together. It doesn’t change my point it only changes the magnitude of the cooling since that time.

  90. David Springer

    The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates) | August 28, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

    David Springer:

    Why do you persist in spewing forth such nonsense and incorrect statements as:

    “14 years of global cooling since 1998.”

    —————————————————————————————

    Which part of this graph of RSS satellite data showing a cooling trend for the last 14 years do you not understand?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

  91. You write “Correct me if I’m wrong, but last time we had this exchange, over two month ago, it took some seven thousand words traded back and forth before it came out that your argument was that because there isn’t a direct physical measure called “climate sensitivity” akin to length as in the “centimeter” or volume as in the “litre” or weight as in the “milligram”, then it doesn’t exist and all discussions involving it are moot.”

    Yes, I will correct you, since you are wrong. The concept of total climate sensitiivity makes complete sense, whether or not we can actaully measure it’s value. How much do global temperatures rise if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a given amount? The proponents of CAGW have estimated what the numeric value of total climate sensitivity is, since it is, for the moment, impossible to make any sort of actual meausement. The values obtained indicate that if CO2 levels rise too much, then global temperatures will rise to unacceptable levels, and we need to curb the amount of CO2 we produce.

    All I am pointing out is to me obvious. But I seem to have trouble explaining myself. Until we can actually measure total climate sensitivity, we cannot know for certain what the actual value is. Once we can measure a value, then we can settle for all time whether CAGW is or is not real. Why it is difficult for people to understand this, I have no idea. I cannot think how to explain it any other way.

    I am not claiming that total climate sensitivity does not exist if we cannot measure it. Of course it exists, and it’s value has been estimated. It is simply that the value has never been measured. All I am arguing for is a recognition by the proponents of CAGW that the measurement of total climate sensitivity is a goal we should all be striving for, and not to ignore trying to make this vital measurement.

    • Sorry, I omitted to patst the beginning.

      Let me, once again, start this afreah.
      Bart R | August 29, 2012 at 1:06 am |

      • Cripwell said:

        “But I seem to have trouble explaining myself. “

        You think?

        On the other hand, the climate skeptic team understands your spreading of FUD perfectly well.

        Yet, to admit that you can’t explain something indicates that you show some sincerity and you are seriously trying to come to grips with an understanding.

        In comparison, an agenda-driven skeptic like Wojick would never admit to such a thing. He will teach the lies with utter conviction, showing no doubt in his ability to communicate.

      • Web, I have to disagree. Both Jim and David want laboratory evidence of what climate sensitivity to CO2 is, to some unrealistic tolerance. Most skeptics just want a realistic estimate of an upper limit, not an increasing range of uncertainty.

      • Capt, you write “Web, I have to disagree. Both Jim and David want laboratory evidence of what climate sensitivity to CO2 is, to some unrealistic tolerance. Most skeptics just want a realistic estimate of an upper limit, not an increasing range of uncertainty.”

        As usual, you are putting words into my mouth. I do NOT, repeat NOT, require “laboratory evidence”. That is the very last thing I want. What I want is some sort of real world measurement of total climate sensitivity. The tolerance will be dictated by the nature of how the measurement is made. For the moment, if we could measure total climate sensitivity within a factor of 2 or 3 that would be an enormous advance of what we now have.

        Again, you use the word “estimate” with respect to what “most skeptics” want. This is the issue. I dont want an ESTIMATE. I want a MEASUREMENT. If that differentiates me from most skeptics, then so be it.

        I really wish people would not distort what I write, and try to claim that I say things that I would never dream of saying.

      • Jim said, “I dont want an ESTIMATE. I want a MEASUREMENT.” You will never get a MEASUREMENT that doesn’t require an ESTIMATE or assumption. What I refer to as “most” skeptics realize that and would like a realistic upper limit estimate instead of “OMG! The models are diverging from observation so sensitivity could be much higher than we thought!”. or “See, it is simple diffusion! If I start at a point that I have no frigging clue it is normal, it will warm until it gets to a point that may be frigging impossible because it is Fickian diffusion.” or “Sensitivity is 2.69C because I discovered a 14.5 year lag that I have no clue what caused, but it has to be 2.69C even though I have no clue if I used the correct initial conditions to determine sensitivity.” or “Since the measurements are so coarse, we used a modeled value of 0.9 +/-0.182625Wm-2 for the energy imbalance which would yield a climate sensitivity between 1.5C and infinity. (95% confidence)”

        I other words, most skeptics want a little less BS.

      • Capt, you write “You will never get a MEASUREMENT that doesn’t require an ESTIMATE or assumption.”

        I dont agree.

    • I’m on Jim’s side. It’s a travesty NASA has not deployed devices that can measure total climate sensitivity.

    • Jim,

      I do also agree on what you write with the reservation that I would replace the word “measure” by “determine based on empirically confirmed data”. The difference is that my formulation allows for less direct confirmation which combines empirical data with theories which are in turn also confirmed well enough by empirical data, but this additional data may be of quite different nature and it may have been collected over a very long period of time as is the case for data that supports generally accepted theories of physics.

      The threads that we have had on this site on climate sensitivity have brought up the fact that IPCC reports tell about great uncertainty and that even those limits are subject to legitimate controversies.

      Having a much more accurate and reliable estimate would be worth a lot. What we should do as long as we don’t have that and as long as we are facing also many other major uncertainties is an issue that goes beyond science and on that the denizens of this site have widely differing views.

      • Pekka, you write “Having a much more accurate and reliable estimate would be worth a lot. What we should do as long as we don’t have that and as long as we are facing also many other major uncertainties is an issue that goes beyond science and on that the denizens of this site have widely differing views.”

        Thank you for your contribution. I still like the word “measure”. It means exactly what I want it to mean. We go out, we make some observations, and as a result of these observations we can calculate the value, and therefore, we can measure it.

        But the bit I have quoted is where you start to muddy the waters. We do NOT require a “much more accurate and reliable estimate .” We dont want any sort on “new and improved” estimate. IMHO, the basis on which the current estimate is made is so badly flawed, that it cannot be improved upon. The proponents of CAGW need to recognize is that they have gone as far as possible with their current approach, AND IT DOES NOT WORK.

        What we require is a measurement based on empirical data. The current estimates, IMHO, are not worth the powder to blow them to hell. This is precisely what is wrong, IMHO, with the recent AMS statement. This says, in effect, that the estimates are so good and so accurate that we can take them to be the equivalent of measured data, based on empirical estimates.

        All I am looking for, at this stage of the discussion, is an acknowledgement by the proponents of CAGW that the MEASUREMENT of total climate sensitivity is much more than a highly desirable effort. It is essential if we are to ever resolve the issue of whether CGAW is real or not.

      • Jim,

        Based on earlier comments I’m not surprised that our agreement was limited, even superficial. I just liked that particular comment from you much more than very many others that I have read.

        We have argued earlier as well on what empirical confirmation is about. One point is that practically all measurements are actually meaningless without supporting theory and that the supporting theory is in very many cases non-trivial. Climate science is one of the sciences where these issues are particularly difficult, but I don’t go further into the same arguments I have presented before.

      • Pekka, you write “One point is that practically all measurements are actually meaningless without supporting theory and that the supporting theory is in very many cases non-trivial. Climate science is one of the sciences where these issues are particularly difficult”

        I dont know why you want to make things sound so complicated, when they are extremely simple and straightforward. We have a hypothesis. This hypothesis states that as CO2 levels in the atmopshere rise, this will cause global temperaures to rise. Nothing complicated at all. We observe that in recent years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising. We have also observed that over the last 150 years or so, global temperatures have also risen, and seem to be still rising. If we can prove how much of any observed rise in global temparatures is actually caused by the rising levels of CO2, then we have a clear and straightforward measurement of total climate sensitivity.

        What is complicated?

      • Jim Cripwell

        you say that we can observe a rse in temperatures over the past 150 years. It goes back much furher than that as I demonstrated in this recent article where I set the latest BEST figures to 1753 against the older record of CET to 1660 and my own extended CET to 1538

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
        From that we can reasonably postulate;

        1) that GISS from 1880 was merely a staging post of an existing upward trend not its startng post.

        2) .We can observe several notable temperature increases in the past greater than today

        3) that the 400 year upward trend has lots of wavelets of natural variability contained within the boundaries of the trend

        4) Whilst not included in this article I would observe that the rising trends of the past such as the Minoan, Roman and MWP lasted many hndreds of years, then came suddenly back down to earth before they started rising again.

        5) that these considerable luctuations throughout recorded history all occurred at 280ppm makes me wonder if additional co2 above this concentration has limited additional effect on temperatures.
        tonyb

      • Tony you write “5) that these considerable luctuations throughout recorded history all occurred at 280ppm makes me wonder if additional co2 above this concentration has limited additional effect on temperatures.”.

        Thanks for the lovely summary of the history of recent temperature changes. I note the one I have quoted specifically. I agree with you completely. As I have observed in the past, what little empirical data we have, gives a very strong indication the the total climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero. But we still have not been able to actually measure it.

      • http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/decadal-with-forcing.pdf

        The figure I referred to elsewhere.

        Also viewable with a clear presentation of coffin nails at volcanoes as http://berkeleyearth.org/volcanoes/

        The thing is that this part of the issue isn’t where we disagree. There is the problem of communication, sure, and that’s frustrating but we’re working on that.

        The problem is what policy do we take when the problems of measurement, communication and decision-making come to how do we regard Uncertainty, ambiguity, doubt, and dispute? Normally it’s very suspect when the outcome of “the people doing it don’t know what the consequences will be, but we’re pretty sure it could be bad” is “so we should continue to do it.”

      • David Springer

        Pekka Pirilä | August 29, 2012 at 8:03 am | Reply

        “I do also agree on what you write with the reservation that I would replace the word “measure” by “determine based on empirically confirmed data”.”

        The difference is between the term an honest person uses and what the weasel uses.

    • Jim Cripwell,

      There is a great deal of focus on climate sensitivity but little on another important parameter, the damage function. The damage function is an expression relating global temperature change to the damages that would be caused by warming/cooling. According Nordhaus (2008), Table 7-2, http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf , the damage function is the cause of greater uncertainty in the cost-benefit analyses of mitigation strategies than is the climate sensitivity. For this reason, I suggest more effort should be placed on trying to reduce the uncertainties on the damage function.

      • Peter Lang, You write “The damage function is an expression relating global temperature change to the damages that would be caused by warming/cooling. ”

        I heartedly disagree. Unless CAGW exists, there will be no damage. If all climate changes are natural, as I beleive, and as the empirical data strongly suggests, then there is no need whatsoever to consider ANY damage function.

      • Jim Cripwell,

        I agree with that comment. However, I suggest there is another way of looking at this.

        If the damage function is small, then even if climate sensitivity is high, there is less justification for high cost mitigation policies.

        I suspect it would be much cheaper and easier to significantly reduce the uncertainty of the damage function than to significantly reduce the uncertainty of climate sensitivity.

        Therefore, I urge that research effort currently dedicated to climate sensitivity be redirected to the damage function.

        I suspect it is significantly too high. If it was lowered, the justification for high cost mitigation policies is greatly reduced.

        I suspect the damage function is giving costs that are too high. We have little objective, impartial, high quality estimating data about the cost of, for example, a 0.5 m sea level rise over a period of a century (properly discounted, properly taking into account our ability to adapt and properly taking into account that infrastructure is always being replaced, updated, etc.).

    • What you say about efforts to measure being inadequate makes good sense.

      There’s at least a gap of an order of magnitude between the granularity of current measurements and what would be useful enough to make determinations of whether we can even decide what climate sensitivity might be. Tomas is not totally wrong about this being a complex issue.

      If I were to try to derive climate sensitivity myself, I’d begin with the coffin nails graph from the most recent BEST release, and interpolate the smoothed curve minus the impact of aerosols for the first component of sensitivity. (It’s figure 5, iirc?)

      Peter Lang’s idea about cost/benefit analyses, while not completely baseless either, has far more problems and issues. I doubt there will ever be a very credible way to establish the costs attributable, and most certainly any benefits, more closely than order of magnitude guesstimates.

      • http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/08/baseline-impact.html

        So BEST, a representation of ~30% of the globe is the best indication of global warming or regional warming? Perhaps the thermal reservoir might be a better indication of what to expect globally and BEST best for determining how to deal with things regionally.

      • captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4 | August 29, 2012 at 10:56 am |

        And that’s a swing and a miss.

        You’re talking about temperatures from land-based observation. Which puts you a year out-of-date, and four graphs behind.

        See, I’m not talking about global temperatures, but about correlation of CO2 and volcanoes to changes in global averages.

        BEST represents the baseline of 100% of the CO2 of the globe. BEST represents the volcanoes of 100% of the globe. BEST represents the trends in changes in averages of 100% of the globe.

        Concentrating on what BEST doesn’t do is mere misdirection.

      • It is not misdirection at all. The land only data amplifies the combined forcing signal. If you look at the global data by region, the sensitivity of latitude 44-64S is one fifth the sensitivity of latitude 64-90N, 3/5 that of latitude 44-64N through 24S. BEST is comparing 100% of the CO2 and Volcanic sulfates to 30% of the globe. The sensitivity to CO2 is ~ 50% of what is estimated, 0.8 +0.2-0.4 instead of 1.6. The BEST is approximation is useful if you properly weight the land response to the globe.

        Since the non-linear and non-equilibrium parts of the puzzle seem to baffle most, here is a simple linear regression comparison.

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/08/baseline-impact.html

        Keep your eye on the yellow curve. That should represent over half of the thermal mass of the planet. Amazing how stable that yellow curve is ain’t it?

      • captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4 | August 29, 2012 at 8:33 pm |

        And another hapless and unaware victim falls into the Yule-Simpson trap.

        Yellow line indeed.

      • LOL, we’ll see BartR. The internal ocean oscillations are still a bit of an unfolding mystery. The neat thing about non-linear systems is that they can make anyone look a bit foolish. Since some “real” scientists have noted the dampened response and the equatorial imbalance, I though do feel a bit more confident :)

    • If you assume that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing exponentially — a good approximation — they you can easily estimate the transient climate sensitivity:
      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/better-way-to-calculate-climate.html

      Over the entire Keeling curve, S_transient is about 2.1 +/- 0.1 C for GISS and HadCRUT3, and about 0.1 C bigger for UAH LT and RSS LT. This is lower than the true climate sensitivity, which occurs after the climate comes back to equilibrium, and it ignores GHGs besides CO2.

      If you use the aggregate radiative forcing numbers from:
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

      you find, assuming a linear response from Jan 1979 to Dec 2010, lambda = dT/dF = 0.47 +/- 0.05 K/(W/m2), which gives S_transient = 1.7 +/- 0.2 C.

  92. Nick – On the plot I last directed you to: please do not, as so many others have, latch on to the apparent (but not real) instances when the rate of change of CO2 appears to be leading the temperature slightly as a reason to misdirect the conversation. This is an artifact owing to the CO2 derivative data having been smoothed (running average) over a two year period, and shifted forward to account for the phase lag, making the filter anti-causal. Using a 12 month running averge eliminates the spurious lead.

    The CO2 derivative and the temperature match up in phase precisely, which says that the integrated CO2 lags temperature by 90 deg. Which says that the arrow of causality is from temperature to CO2.

    • I think I’m going to go ahead and tie the conversation off, since there haven’t been any replies, and I’m tired of pointing out the obvious to a resistive audience. These are the key points:

      1) The hard data say that the rate of change of CO2 atmospheric concentration is affinely related to global temperatures – whichever global temperature measure will do, as they are all more or less affinely related. When you choose the affine parameters to match the variations, it also matches the long term trend, so that the integral of the affinely related temperature anomaly faithfully reproduces the delta-CO2 concentration from the starting point.

      2) The CO2 rate of change and the global temperature measures are effectively characterized as linear trends with some variation. The rate of human emissions is also effectively a linear trend. But, since the slope of the affinely related temperature graph is already more or less precisely what is required to reproduce the curvature in the integrated CO2 absolute level, there is no room to add in a significant component from human emissions. The temperature relationship is to be preferred, because it also reproduces all the variations in the CO2 derivative to high fidelity, whereas the variations in the rate of human emissions do not correlate well at all.

      3) The conclusion ineluctably follows that human emissions are rapidly sequestered, and CO2 levels are dictated by the current climate state, the foremost variable being temperature.

      4) The above conclusions are firm, and undeniable to anyone with a brain willing to believe what their eyes can see. Determining how the integral relationship of CO2 to temperature arises is the next step.

      5) My own hypothesis for how the relationship arises is that excess CO2, relative to that of surface water in the current climate state at the surface of the oceans, is continuously upwelling from the depths. If more CO2 is coming up than is currently downwelling, then CO2 will be accumulating at the surface, and it will progressively increase atmospheric concentrations. The effective temperature differential which would be driving the increase to the atmosphere is the difference between current surface temperature, and the equivalent temperature of the upwelling water, with the equivalent temperature being that which would result in equivalent outgassing from the upwelling waters based on the conditions under which it originally downwelled versus those which prevail today, as well as any other changes it might have experienced during its trek through the depths.

      This is why Web is completely off in claiming that the ~1C temperature change over the past century is not enough to drive CO2 to its current levels. It’s not just the temperature difference over the last century, it’s the effective temperature difference between surface temperature now and the effective temperature of the upwelling water when it downwelled. Ocean currents take centuries to reemerge from the depths, and the currently upwelling water can have a vast effective temperature differential compared to current surface conditions.

      6) #5 is merely my hypothesis. Of course, it is ragged around the edges, and may well not be the main force driving things. But, it is consistent with #1,2,3, while the hypothesis of overwhelming human responsibility is decidedly not. If you don’t like my hypothesis, reason out one of your own. But, it must be consistent with #1,2,3, or you have ventured off the path of reality dictated by the empirical evidence.

      Do with that what you will. I have lit up the lantern, it is up to you whether you opt to keep your eyes shut.

      • David Springer

        Bart, the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere each year is pretty reliably half the emission from human industry in the same year. It’s pretty tough to argue that absent the human emission the atmospheric level would not rise. I’m not saying that it is or isn’t anthropogenic but rather saying I think it’s not provable either way except by experiment and we don’t have the ability to turn off CO2 emission to see if it still keeps rising in the atmosphere.

        Given that natural sinks take up half of the constantly increasing amount we throw at them my hypothesis is there’s a natural equilibrium point for CO2 for interglacial periods of 280ppm and the further the atmosphere moves away from equlibrium the harder the sinks run to restore equilibrium. I don’t believe for a New York minute that the out-of-equilibrium CO2 (from whatever cause) will hang around for centuries and absent the source of disturbance it will be removed at the same rate it accumulated.

      • “…the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere each year is pretty reliably half the emission from human industry in the same year.”

        Dave – you can believe that if you like, and the majority of people familiar with the debate do. It probably won’t be possible to make substantial headway against the bias until an obvious and uncomplicated divergence appears.

        But, a negative feedback system generally attenuates disturbances so that they do not influence the output significantly. That is the reason we build feedback controllers. Basically, it comes down to, you are telling me the relationship between emissions and concentration is real, and the relationship between CO2 rate of change and temperature is happenstance. I am telling you it is the reverse.

        What should be the deciding factor is that the CO2 variations match the temperature variations as well, but they don’t match the emissions variations. In other words, a divergence has appeared. Unfortunately, it is too complicated (not really very, but still too much) an argument to unseat the entrenched bias.

      • David Springer

        It’s not a negative feedback system it’s an equilibrium system and these are characterized by the attraction towards equilibrium growing stronger the farther from equilibrium it is forced. This is exactly how we’d expect the earth with an equilibrium point of 280ppm CO2 to react when more and more CO2 emission from anthropogenic sources forces it out of equilibrium. Human emission of CO2 and land use change is the only non-natural thing happening in the carbon cycle and if, given I have no compelling reason to doubt ice core measurements of historic CO2 which indicates an interglaical equilibrium point of 280ppm (vs. a glacial pt. of 200ppm) the null hypothesis must be that the anthropogenic input is throwing the system out of equilibrium. That doesn’t make it true but it makes the assumption until proven otherwise.

      • David Springer

        There is no earthly reason for short term temperature variation to match short term CO2 variation. I saw the attempt someone made to detrend both and show high correlation but the chart I saw had both temperature and CO2 isolated which essentially means we were looking at noise not signal and you can’t draw conclusions from noise since noise can and often is an artifact of measurement as opposed to a valid signal.

      • “There is no earthly reason for short term temperature variation to match short term CO2 variation.”

        But, it does. Or rather, it matches the derivative. That is what this whole thread has been about – the empirical observation that the rate of change of CO2 is affinely related to temperature.

        Just look at it. One rarely finds such close agreement in nature.

      • And, when you integrate it, voila!, there is the reason that CO2 concentration has increased.

      • Interesting, Cap’n. Possibly related to this, which might suggest my hypothesis about deep ocean upwelling is close to the mark.

      • Why isn’t the atmospheric Argon concentration going up?

        No answer.

        The deep ocean upwellling theory is just so ridiculous. If it was heated water that was coming up, that would be one thing, but it’s cold water for cripes sake.

        “6) #5 is merely my hypothesis. Of course, it is ragged around the edges, and may well not be the main force driving things. But, it is consistent with #1,2,3, while the hypothesis of overwhelming human responsibility is decidedly not. If you don’t like my hypothesis, reason out one of your own. But, it must be consistent with #1,2,3, or you have ventured off the path of reality dictated by the empirical evidence.

        Do with that what you will. I have lit up the lantern, it is up to you whether you opt to keep your eyes shut.”

        What a pretentious knucklehead. Reminds me of Miss Elk.

      • Bartemis | August 29, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
        “There is no earthly reason for short term temperature variation to match short term CO2 variation.”
        But, it does. Or rather, it matches the derivative.

        No, it doesn’t. Nothing like it. What you’ve shown is some agreement with the derivative of the moving annual average (same as the mean of the derivative). The derivative itself has a huge annual cycle.

        Now you’ve advanced a hairy physical argument why [CO2] might depend on the integral of global mean SST. But that can’t explain the main features of the [CO2] time series which are:
        1. The trend and
        2. The marked annual variation.

      • Nick is correct.
        FWIW, I did some of the monthly temperature correlations with co2 which I pointed out earlier in the thread. It links to a full blog post with links and charts. Something akin to what the science of doom blog does, but not trying to educate as much. So it is more like Nick’s blog where he dives headfirst into the subject matter. Where is Bartemis hiding his work? Does he really think that a few comments posted to a non-indexed blog site is masterful research?

      • Webster said, “The deep ocean upwellling theory is just so ridiculous. If it was heated water that was coming up, that would be one thing, but it’s cold water for cripes sake.”

        Cold relative to what? The southern oceans have higher than average surface wind velocity and more thorough mixing. There is no uniform temperature gradient, in fact, the surface skin layer temperature varies daily creating more stratification in daylight and calm conditions.

        http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceans/science-focus/modis/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp.shtml

        Heat transfer and CO2 transfer depends on more than just temperature. I have pointed out several times the difference between the northern and southern hemispheres both in temperature response and the CO2 variation, yet you still persist in thinking a geographical equator means something to energy.

      • BTW Webster, on the reduction in variance. If you look at the standard deviation of temperature anomaly by latitude, there is 1/5 the variance in the southern 44-64 band. That is the least sensitive region on Earth. As the internal system approaches a relative equilibrium, the Global variance would decrease. You get the dampen approach curve shown in the SST and stratosphere temperature anomalies due to the 1995 regime shift.

        So if you want to determine what might happen in the future, you need to have an appropriate initial condition or your work is mathturbation.

      • Web – FO, OK? Go read some chicken entrails or do a rain dance, or whatever useless things you do with your time. You have nothing to contribute.

        Nick – 1) it explains the trend 2) you are splitting hairs – this is somewhat akin to those who claim that, because we cannot predict weather, we cannot predict climate. On an intra-annual basis, the periodic greening of the NH may dominate.

        On the other hand, captdallas has pointed out that the correlation is most prominent with SH temperatures, and I directed to a recent paper which argues that the SH is dominant in ocean upwelling. Perhaps you should look into whether the relationship with, say, SH temps holds, at least to some degree, intra-annually. The WoodForTrees site has only annual averages, so I am stymied for now in pursuing things further.

        But, your position is not quite, but nearly, as absurd as my saying “Hey, SH temperatures correlate with NH temperatures, and you responding “Not intra-annually,” and concluding there is no relationship.

      • There is guaranteed to be some latitude at which temperatures are cycling 90 deg ahead of intra-annual CO2 concentration, so that it aligns in phase with the derivative of CO2. Find that latitude, and I suspect you will find high correlation with ocean upwelling.

      • I’d laff if it were the Tropic of Capricorn.
        ============

      • I suspect more likely closer to Antarctica, in line with this.

    • Bartemis,

      Since we’re into who started what territory, here’s what you write in reply to WebHubTelescope’s first comment:

      > Amazing…and utterly lame, as I predicted.

      https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/25/week-in-review-82512/#comment-232857

      This echoes what has been said here:

      > Address any lame contrary responses to Bartemis, those of you who never miss an opportunity to do so.

      https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/25/week-in-review-82512/#comment-232700

      I did not check the timestamps.

      Readers will recognize the “lone gunman facing the militia” narrative.

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/2458383307

      ***

      Nobody makes you act like you do. If you’re a top dog in signal processing, there’s no need to prophesize that people will see what you see when they’ll finally let go of their blinders just makes me cringe. Nor is there any need to call anyone imbeciles.

      If you’re to be taken as a scientist, act like one.

      Your hypothetical mechanism to fit your signal analysis sounds like a nice gambit, btw.

      • David Springer

        willard (@nevaudit) | August 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Reply

        “Nor is there any need to call anyone imbeciles.”

        There’s pretty much always a need for that with CAGW fanatics in the room. The question is whether or not the need should be satisifed.

      • We can make an exception for you, David Springer.

        > Whatever you wanna do in the privacy of your own home, go do it.

        Let’s call it the Chuck Norris rule.

      • Willard – you are assuming I have no prior history with Web, and was not anticipating the response. That would be an invalid assumption.

        If someone repeatedly brings up frivolous objections which get shot down with barely any effort, which could have been avoided if they had taken any time to actually read what you wrote, then it is not entirely illegitimate to use words which accurately describe that behavior, in the hope of bringing the person up short and forcing him to focus.

        Web is obviously a knowledgeable guy, but he’s been trying to refute me on the cheap, without putting any thought into the matter, and I do not appreciate the disrespect. I don’t deserve it. I’ve scaled some pretty daunting heights in my time, and been recognized for it among the peers in my field. I’m not going to suffer fools gladly. I’ve earned that right.

      • Bartemis,

        I would not waste my time telling you what I am telling if I thought you would not be worth the effort.

        On the other hand, my free advices usually are limited time offers, which means I won’t repeat what I said so far, except this: nobody makes you do write what you decide to write. If you can’t stand how WebHubTelescope is coaxing you, reacting in kind won’t help, unless you’re looking for a food fight.

        Be well, do good work, and keep the chin up,

        w

      • “Your hypothetical mechanism to fit your signal analysis sounds like a nice gambit, btw.”

        Thanks for that.

  93. I have just had a practical example of what I am talking about on needing hard, measured data to validate computer models. Here, in Canada, doubtless along with most other western style democracies, we have a problem trying to decide which of our senior citizens should no longer be driving. The law states that once you have received a driver’s licence the only way you can lose it is througn some sort of legal process, or by failing a driving test. But before you can fail a test, you need to be required to take one, and it is impractical to have large numbers of senior citizens taking driving tests on a routine basis.

    So we have a screening process to decide who needs to take a test. The bar needs to be set very high because of the expense of requiring a lot of tests. We are trying to build a driving simulator that can measure driving performance. If we had such a simulator, then it would be practical to have many more seniors drive the simulator, and if they fail the simulator, then they could be required to take a test.

    Thsi morning I spent 2 hours driving the simulator under 4 different scenarios, along with other visual acuity trests. How does this help? Four years ago, my car was fitted with a gizmo, including GPS, which measures how I actually drive. So they have 4 years of data of how I, along with 1100 other seniors, actually drive our cars. They can then compare my simulator performance with what I actually do. In that way, thay can calibrate the simulator.

    There is no substitute for hard, measured data.

    • There is hard measured data on how C02 effects the propagation of radiation through the atmosphere. That hard measured data is used to test and validate predictive physical models. Those models work. They are correct. Those models were used to build devices that you use. And they were used to design aircraft that are stealthy in the IR regime as well as the radar regime. Those models, working calibrated physical models, calculate that doubling c02 will add 3.7Watts of addition energy to the earth system.
      Hard measured data. Measured by the airforce, by industry and by scientists. Physical models. Models that predict, correctly predict, the added forcing. Models so good that our government relies on them to design missiles, sensors, and aircraft. Models so good that skeptics like Spencer and Christy use them.

      So, what you ask for has been done. The marvels of modern technology rely on the physics and science you deny.

      • “Those models, working calibrated physical models, calculate that doubling c02 will add 3.7Watts of addition energy to the earth system.

        You forgot the obligatory “…all things being equal.” Because, there is an implicit assumption in that statement that there will be no offsetting reaction.

      • Steven Mosher

        Actually that not needed for this statement.
        You are confusing a statement about sensitivity with a statement about forcing.

      • Sure, moshe, but so what. We wanna know what 3.7 extra Watts is going to do and that is not in evidence. It’s simply not necessarily going to add heat. Emphasis on the ‘necessarily’.
        =================

      • kim, the negative forcing for the LIA was estimated to be about 0.5 W/m2, for comparison, some say less. Puts in perspective, doesn’t it?

      • If there is a reaction from, say, cloud cover which prevents that energy from ever passing through to be reflected back by the CO2 blanket, then you will not get 3.7W of additional energy.

      • …energy flux. A lot of people make mistakes by mixing up the effects of retained energy and energy flux in time (power transfer), so I try to be precise with the nomenclature.

      • steven, you write “There is hard measured data on how C02 effects the propagation of radiation through the atmosphere.

        You are absolutely correct. There is no doubt that this empirical data proves that when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it changes the radiation balance. Whether doubling causes a change of 3.7 Wm-2 has not been measured, but the value is certainly significant.

        What has NOT been shown is how much this change of forcing changes atmopsheric temperatures. That is the contentious issue from a scientific point of ivew. The estimation as to how much a doublng of CO2 will increase atmospheric temperatures, is based on hypothetical estimations and the output of non-validated models. There is no empirical data that measures total climate sensitivity. And no proponent of CAGW seems to be the slightest bit interested in trying to work out how we could actually MEASURE total climate sensitivity. This complete lack of interest, on the part of the proponents of CAGW, in trying to work out how to measure total climate sensitivity I simply cannot understand.

        What little empirical data we have gives a very strong indication that the actual vlaue total climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero.

  94. David Springer

    Bartemis | August 29, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Reply

    “…the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere each year is pretty reliably half the emission from human industry in the same year.”

    Dave – you can believe that if you like
    ——————————————————————————

    That’s an observation not an opinion so it isn’t really subject to belief or disbelief.

  95. The MMS increased the estimate of undiscovered oil in the Gulf of Mexico from 9 billion barrels in 1987 to the current 45 billion barrels because we discovered a helluva a lot more than 9 billion barrels in the Gulf over the last 20 years. Almost all of the large US fields discovered since 1988 were discovered in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1988, it was unclear whether or not the deepwater plays would prove to be economic.The largest field in the Gulf of Mexico, Shell’s Mars Field, was discovered in 1989. Prior to this discovery, no one thought that economically viable Miocene-aged or older reservoirs existed in deepwater. Mars has produced 1 billion barrels of oil and 1.25 TCF of natural gas since coming on line in 1996. It is currently producing over 100,000 barrels of oil per day. Dozens of Mars-class fields have been discovered over the last 20 years… Most of those have only barely come on line over the last 5 years.

    The most significant play in the Gulf of Mexico, the Lower Tertiary, wasn’t even a figment of anyone’s imagination in 1988. These are massive discoveries – BP’s recently discovered Tiber Field on Keathly Canyon Block 102 is estimated to contain 3-6 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Several recently discovered fields are expected to come on line at more than 100,000 bbl/day. This play is still in its infancy.

    Based on the gov’t’s track record, the estimated 116 billion barrels of undiscovered oil under Federal lands is more likely to be 680 billion barrels. That’s close to 100 years worth of current US consumption – And that’s just the undiscovered oil under Federal mineral leases.

    When you factor in shale oil (kerogen) plays, the numbers become staggering. The Green River formation oil shale has more than 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil just in the Piceance Basin of Colorado.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/north-american-energy-independence-by-2020/

  96. I am trying to figure out what Mann is trying to accomplish with these lawsuits….All this must be costing Mann a fortune, but I guess the Climate Scientist Defense Fund must be doing well?

    Then we really must rename it the Climate Fraud Defense Fund.

  97. Judith Curry wrote:
    “In fact, nearly all of thin and loosely consolidated ice has already melted (helped along by the big cyclonic storm in early Aug). The remaining ice is consolidated near Greenland and the Canadian archipelago, and is at high latitudes where the autumnal cooling is well underway. So I would suspect that there will be an earlier than usual sea ice minimum this year, with the minimum not getting much lower.”

    That was 25th August, about 20 days ago. It could not have been wronger. Sea Ice Extent was back then at 4 mio km². We are now at 3.4 mio km², and it is still not clear if we reached the minimum yet. So, there was no early minimum and it it did get *much* lower. The same thing over at WUWT. I don’t get it. Do you think, that if you state over and over again that the arctic ice is still healthy and will recover, that this will change the reality just one iota? The ice *is* extremely thin because it melted excessively in the last 10 years. It got thiner and thiner with every year, as you can see on all our data that we have about ice thickness. So, no, the ice will not recover. It will form again in this winter even more thiner.

    And I could not think of anything that would change that, if the arctic temperatures stay the same or would even rise. The arctic ocean gets warmer and warmer, because of all the exposed open water (further increasing arctic temps, as does the shrinking snow cover in high latitudes that we observe). Have you not looked at the SST anomalies this year and in the last years? This is the reason why there is no early minimum and no recovery. The arctic summer sea ice is lost, it is just a matter of time, if it will take 5, 10, or 20 years until we have an essentially ice free arctic ocean in the summer.

    decon

  98. “So I would suspect that there will be an earlier than usual sea ice minimum this year, with the minimum not getting much lower.”

    and

    “It’s not the heat, it’s the humility.”

    and

    It’s not the heat, it’s the humility.

    Might suggest… Something. On the average day of sea ice minimum, if not before.

    • ” The amount of melt since Aug 25 has not been much”
      NSIDC Extent, 10^6 sq km

      Aug 25 3.97332
      Sep 14 3.41878

      Half a million square km seems like a lot to me.

  99. Your prediction was spectacularly wrong. A prominent retraction is in order here. As Phil Hays suggests, the day NSIDC calls the minimum would be a good opportunity for you to consider how and why you went so badly wrong.

    • John, the Arctic ice issue was raised earlier today on my thread on Peter Lilley’s rebuttal of Stern (“The costs of not tackling …”)

      At 9.59 am Georgia time, 14 Sept, Judith wrote:

      “I did not make a prediction about the arctic sea ice. I have a comprehensive post on this coming next week.”

      Michael Cunningham

    • Your prediction was spectacularly wrong. A prominent retraction is in order here. As Phil Hays suggests, the day NSIDC calls the minimum would be a good opportunity for you to consider how and why you went so badly wrong.

      John Quiggiin has a habbit of making outlandish accusations. For example, he was not prepared to answer my questions about the compliance cost of the Australian ETS on his web site, and tried to bluff his way out of answering by making a ridiculous statement.
      My question is here and elaborated with more supporting information in subsequent comments:
      http://johnquiggin.com/2012/03/30/weekend-reflections-187/comment-page-1/#comment-171871

      John Quiggin responded here and in some more similar comments on this and a subsequent thread:
      http://johnquiggin.com/2012/03/30/weekend-reflections-187/comment-page-1/#comment-171953

      The essence of Quiggin’s response is that my estimate is silly because, Australia doesn’t have enough public servants to cost that much. In other words we don’t have enough public servants to do the job so my estimate must be wrong. Anyone who has done estimating knows you don’t start off estimating the cost of a job by working out how many resources you have available. What you have to do is scope the job, define what it will take to do the job, define the resources needed to do the job, then calculate the cost. This is what EPA did (correctly) to derive their cost estimate (for EPA’s costs only) of $21 billion per year.

      When this matter came up on a later thread, Quiggin deleted my comments and told me to not post on his web site again.

      It may be informative for non Australian’s to know that Professor John Quiggin is a senior academic economist in Australia (of far Left ideological persuasion). He was deeply involved with Ross Garnaut in the analyses and modelling to support the case for the Australian ETS. It is revealing to now see exposed his complete lack of estimating competence – as revealed by his responses to my questions. It is important to know that this academic – with his far left ideological beliefs – is responsible for the modelling that justified and convinced the government (and much of the Australian public) to support Australia’s ETS legislation.

      The Australian public has now realised it has been dudded. The Australian public is not opposed to the carbon pricing legislation by 2:1.

      As this http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/what-the-carbon-tax-and-ets-will-really-cost-peter-lang/ shows, the Australian ETS would cost $10 for every projected $1 of savings. But the cost will be much higher than the $10, in part because the future compliance cost is not included. Furthermore, the $1 benefit will not be achieved because the assumptions that underpin the modelling are unrealistic and impracticable; they cannot be achieved in the real world – As Professor Richard Tol (world authority on cost benefit analyses for carbon pricing) stated in response to my question here: https://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239101

      John Quiggin has helped to convince the Australian parliament and the public to implement a carbon tax. It will and is already costing Australia dearly.

      Professor John Quiggin has a lot to answer for.

    • What the heck are you talking about? The only prediction I made is that the arctic would not be ice free this september (come back and harangue me if this prediction is wrong). I don’t make sea ice forecasts. Climate Etc. Week in Review is a place for commentary and discussion, why would I hide a sea ice forecast at the end of Week in Review?.

      • I think there’s been some mixing up of your ‘predict’ with your ‘suspect’.

      • Even my ‘suspicion’ is likely not far wrong. The amount of melt since Aug 25 has not been much, although a min apparently has not yet been reached. If you look at the ice motion, ice concentration, and air temperature, there is no way that there is going to be much more melt this season. When the min actually occurs is up to the vagaries of the weather circulations.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Judith, with respect, the dates August 25-6 are receiving focused attention in consequence of outrageously false and/or willfully ignorant — yet widely disseminated — neodenialist claims that the Arctic sea-ice freeze-up began on that date.

        As of today (September 15) all that we can say with confidence of the true Arctic ice-minimum is “it’s not here yet, eh?   :)   :)   :)

      • Anyone who understands the dynamics and thermodynamics of sea ice, and weather and climate, also can say with extremely high confidence that this September will not see and ice free Arctic. Joe Bastardi’s forecast is actually closer to reality than the people that predicted an ice free Arctic this summer.

      • JC asks John Quiggin “What the heck are you talking about?.

        I’d second that question given that:

        a) John Quiggin used a strawman argument and then made an arrogant and unwarranted accusation;

        b) even if the strawman argument was correct, the “suspicion” (not ‘prediction’) waould have been out by about 30%

        c) but John Quiggin’s predictions of the carbon price in 2012 are wrong by more than a factor of two. How can he seriously accuse JC of inaccurate forecasts when his are so much worse?

        d) John Quiggin’s assumptions, which underpin the modelling in the Garnaut Climate Change Review, are ridiculously impracticable and already being shown to be wrong. Instead of countries moving towards and international carbon pricing mechanism they are moving away from any such agreement. The US is assumed to have implemented an ETS for the whole country by 2016. Clearly that is not going to happen.

        I suggest John Quiggin owes Judith Curry a public retraction and apology.

  100. @JC I certainly took “suspect” to mean “predict, though not with absolute certainty”. As noted above, people like Bastardi are claiming that your suspicion was entirely accurate and that melting stopped some time ago (Anthony Watts made the same claim about 4 September). Others, including me, are saying you were way off the mark. It would certainly be of interest to revisit your “suspicion” after the minimum is reached.

    • How hypocritical of John Quiggin. He (wrongly) accused JC of a 30% error; however he did not even acknowledge his own error of greater than a factor of two in predicting the 2012 carbon price, and his order of magnitude error in the compliance cost for measuring and reporting CO2. In fact he didn’t even consider it as a line item in estimating the costs and benefits of the Australian ETS he helped to get imposed on us. Perhaps these levels of error are acceptable for ideologically far Left economists.

  101. Judith Curry wrote:
    “Anyone who understands the dynamics and thermodynamics of sea ice, and weather and climate, also can say with extremely high confidence that this September will not see and ice free Arctic.”
    Bravo! To say at August 25th, only 3 weeks from the minimum ahead, that the arctic will not be ice free this year, is really big rocket science! *Anybody* could have made that prediction as it was virtually certain at this point. Thats like “predicting” that Usain Bolt will not break the world record in a 100m run, when it took him already 8 seconds for the first 50 meters.

    “Joe Bastardi’s forecast is actually closer to reality than the people that predicted an ice free Arctic this summer.”
    That cheap strawman argument is your reaction? That is so sad…
    Who even predicted an ice free Arctic this summer?

    The only one I get always named is Jay Zwally from NASA. But he didn’t say the Arctic would be ice free this summer, he said in an interview about the record melt in 2007: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” That is a true statement. If the melt rate of 2007 would have been reached in the 2008-2012 we would now have an essentially ice free arctic. He did not say, that it would be likely that this melt rate would be sustained over the next years. He just said that in an interview to get an perspective on how huge that loss of ice extent in 2007 was. It was so huge, that 5 more such losses and there would have been no more ice left. That’s how huge it was and that was the intention of this statement.

    That whole “the-arctic-was-predicted-to-be-ice-free-by-now” thing is just a strawman argument. 90% of all peer-reviewed papers with such predictions have been made with dates like 2035 or 2050 or even later. That is the science, and not media bullshit. And you can repeat your strawmans over and over, but that won’t change reality one bit, that those predictions from real climate scientist in real peer-reviewed literature where overwhelmingly *underestimating* the speed of the arctic melt. We are now at a point, where it is *not* unreasonable, that we will see an ice-free arctic (=less than 1 Mio km² ice extent) within the next 10 years. And that would be 50-70 years earlier, than projected back in AR4. That’s how bad the situation in the arctic looks now.

    And last of all: Even if Zwally made that statement as a prediction (which he didn’t), he would have made it for a point in time that was nearly 5 years into the future back then. And you compare that with your actual prediction that only reached 3 *weeks*(!) into the future and place those things on the same level? That is just laughable…

    And Joe Bastardi can’t even figure out the difference between sea surface temperatures and ice cover. So it is not even worth to mention his wrong “predictions”, which are not even predictions, but wishful thinking.

  102. What decon said

  103. It presents the identify of the roads, distance and the path on your next flip, and the time you will reach your destination (your ETA).
    Method 2: Complete Infinity Blade Easy Money Cheats.
    edu – Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 4:14
    AMSubject: Fw: What Makes a Marriage.