by Judith Curry
Its your turn (again) to introduce topics for discussion.
Actually, it is STILL your turn. This is the first time in CE history that one week has passed between posts, and those two posts are open threads.
I am under the gun with a big deadline, you will hear about this on Mon, and more completely on Wed, so STAY TUNED this should provide plenty of fodder for discussion.
In fact I have been so busy that I can’t even read the guest posts that have been submitted (let alone format them).
I hope my schedule will settle down (right now it looks like the rest of March should be relatively tame) so I can post more frequently.
Thanks for your patience and for your continued dialogue on previous threads.
Climate Etc. is on the list of the best Best Science or Technology Weblog. This is on a website that really did not want to acknowledge this.
Look at their story.
Climate sceptics ‘capture’ the Bloggies’ science category
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/mar/01/climate-sceptics-capture-bloggies-science
Climate Etc. was attacked by the denizens over there. That is a huge compliment. That may mean that Judy Curry threatens the Consensus Non-Science more than any other.
I started to get an account over there so I could make a comment and then I checked and they did not even get on the list of top websites. They mostly have Alarmist Warmest over there. I believe that, every day, more and more reasonable people are not reading Consensus Alarmist Junk Non-Science Blogs. These awards are proof that more and more people are finished with being panicked by Chicken Little saying that the sky is falling. The head of the IPCC has even said that the sky is not really falling, but he says it will really fall later. He said warming has halted for seventeen years but after another 20 or 30 or 40 years, then the sky will fall.
I looked at the comments over there and very few are from people who make reasonable responses to anything. There are a few good exceptions, but not enough.
A posting here will get more reasonable response from people, who agree or disagree, than over there.
Consensus Science is not Science. Science is always Skeptical. If any blogs are cast out for being Anti- Science, it should be the consensus blogs.
Scientific Consensus is a final desperate attempt to defend something that has no Scientific Defense. When Science is correct and understandable, no consensus is needed. When it is not understandable it is not likely correct and a huge dose of consensus is necessary to force it onto the people.
Founder Nikolai Nolan admits that climate sceptic bloggers have pushed out ‘legitimate’ science blogs from his awards.
He is wrong, by definition; the winners are the ones who are ‘legitimate’. His so called ‘legitimate’ science blogs are the garbage that is tossed out by the people.
I copied the spelling error for sceptic from their website.
I agree with Dr. Pope’s frank assessment of Dr. Curry’s increasing influence in society and in the scientific community.
I also want to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Curry for her patience and talents in exposing why society lost confidence in world leaders and in the pronouncements of their scientific advisors.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Oliver, Thanks.
But not Dr. Pope
I do get called that from time to time, but I only have a four year degree in Engineering and 44 years with NASA.
I also worked on Apollo, starting in 1963.
Whether or not you have the title, you have a better grasp on science than some Nobel Prize winners. The great news today is just this:
On Wed 6 Mar 2013 at 10:00 am the Subcommittee on Environment will hear testimony from Judith Curry (Georgia Tech), William Chameides (Duke University), and Bjørn Lomborg (Copenhagen) on “Policy-Relevant Climate Issues in Context.”
These are credible scientists and the hearing will be Webcast live:
http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-environment-policy-relevant-climate-issues-context
I’ll write my Congressional Representatives to express appreciation!
” That may mean that Judy Curry threatens the Consensus Non-Science more than any other. Consensus Science is not Science. Science is always Skeptical. If any blogs are cast out for being Anti- Science, it should be the consensus blogs.
Point 1: Anyone can claim uncertainty, about anything at all, is greater than generally acknowledged. That’s Judith’s approach. She isn’t saying the consensus is fundamentally wrong. She is saying the error bars should be larger.
Point2 : Science isn’t always about skepticism. You can’t be a scientist and be sceptical of the fundamentals. You’re just plain wrong if you think there isn’t a consensus about nearly all existing scientific knowledge.
It’s just climate deniers, evolution sceptics, AIDS/HIV deiners, who make this same argument and bang on about empirical evidence and reproducible experiments etc.
tempterrain
The problem is not with “claiming uncertainty”, as you describe what our hostess does.
The problem is claiming certainty where none exists.
Of course, Sir Robert Watson (and Al Gore) are prime examples with their “the science is settled” remarks.
These were absurd, of course. The “science” is NEVER “settled” on something as dicey as our planet’s climate. In fact, if you believe what scientists such as Einstein and Feynman have said on the subject, the science is NEVER settled on any scientific theory or hypothesis – because all it takes is new empirical evidence from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation for it to be falsified.
But IPCC has also been guilty of overstating “certainty” (where none really exists).
Our hostess has been quite specific in questioning the level of “certainty” expressed by IPCC in its (in)famous statement in AR4 SPM:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [more than 90% likelihood] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
IPCC is unable to back this high level of certainty with any empirical scientific evidence. Dr. Curry points out that the uncertainty regarding natural variability and climate forcing factors is simply too great to be able to make this claim as “90% likely”.
Another example in AR4 SPM were the “likelihood” estimates for increased future extreme weather events (warm spells, heat waves heavy precipitation events, etc.). Here it was deemed “likely” (more than 66% likelihood) that there had been an increase in these events over the late 20thC, and “more likely than not” (more than 51%) that there was an unquantified human contribution (based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies), yet it is “very likely” (more than 90%) that these will increase in the future due to human activity! Ouch!
There are, of course, several other such claims by IPCC of a high level of certainty where, in fact, there is no compelling basis for such high certainty. It is good that there are climate scientists, like our hostess, who try to “keep them honest” on such claims.
That is the real issue here, tempterrain, not evolution versus creationism, AIDS/HIV deniers or the law of gravity.
Max
Your second point is a little weak.There is no consensus on the basics of science, and I’ve never heard anyone claim their is. There is widespread acceptance of them because they have been tried and tested in the laboratory, or the field and have found to be able to predict the behaviour of some of oure physical systems. With that body of empirical evidence behind them they have no need to trumpet a consensus, and as I’ve said earlier I’ve never heard of consensus lending any authority to scientific debate. What lends authority is testing the hypothesis and being able to predict the outcomes of the tests.
Let us for a moment examine what the “consensus” is about. It is about humans causing most of the late 20th century warming by emitting CO2, and it is about climate sensititiviy being sufficient to raise temperatures and for catastrophes to follow.
What the consensuals now have to explain is why the human emissions of the early 21st century haven’t increased temperature. Then they have to explain why all the recent papers in the learned literature based on observations show that the predicted sensitivity is far below the IPCC’S 3C. (as an aside, I have often wondered why, after $100bn of research being ploughed – plowed? – into climate research the sensitivity is still the same as that in the Charnley report of 1979, which itself was a guess).
Finally, the consensualists have to explain to us how they know the world will react to a change in temperature of 1 -3C, when the IPCC tells us:
” … In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC TAR, Section 14.2 “The Climate System”, page 774.
I’ll repeat it for you, in all my life I’ve never heard any scientist outside of the climate change community claim that consensus gave any weight to their scientific theories. Or as Bertrand Russell shrewdly observed:
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
‘Con-sensual-ists’ Geronimo? Comes from the Greek
‘con’ ter ‘fool’ or ‘trick,’ and ‘sensual,’ well, you know.)
Geronimo,
What the consensuals now have to explain is why the human emissions of the early 21st century haven’t increased temperature.
How good are you are maths? Basic arithmetic actually.
1990 0.255
1991 0.213
1992 0.062
1993 0.106
1994 0.172
1995 0.275
1996 0.137
1997 0.352
1998 0.548
1999 0.297
2000 0.271
2001 0.408
2002 0.465
2003 0.475
2004 0.447
2005 0.482
2006 0.425
2007 0.402
2008 0.325
2009 0.443
2010 0.478
2011 0.34
The above figure are temperature anomalies (in degC) from Hadcrut3. The figures from 2001 onwards are “of the early 21st century ” .
How do they compare with the figures from the previous century?
Are you in a position to answer your own question now?
If you need any earlier results, just let me know and I’ll send you the link.
Max,
If you’d read the IPPC reports with any degree of comprehension you’d realise the IPCC don’t claim certainty. They put the likely climate sensitivity in the range 1.5 -4.5 degC.
Judith questions that and has widened the range to 1.0 -6.0 deg C. OK Fair enough. She could be right.
The only people who make the argument that, because climate sensitivity can’t be constrained into a narrow range like 3.0 degC +/- 0.1, so therefore it must be close to zero are the worst sort of climate change deniers.
Is that you, Max?
Herman Pope.
Thank you for pointing this out. Congratulations Judith Curry!
Also thank you for excellent comment by Manacker.
How biased is the opening paragraph?
Should read:
Founder Nikolai Nolan should [have acknowledged] that climate sceptic blogs have [beaten climate alarmist] blogs for his awards.
What if the Creationist crowd got together and voted for this website?
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Apparently, 40% of Americans disagree with Darwinian science, (even though they probably don’t understand it), so it probably wouldn’t be too difficult for the fundamentalist churches to get organised with the numbers to do that.
What then? Would consensus science have to recognise the error of its ways and accept it had been “beaten”?
I did not find Earthweek in the list of Best Science or Technology Weblogs. They are certainly one of the top alarmist climate blogs that I have seen. I go to Earthweek to read the latest alarmists climate stories and sometimes they fool me.
This story is in line with their extreme alarmism.
http://www.earthweek.com/2012/ew120518/ew120518c.html
On that page they quote alarmism from NOAA
“These temperatures, when added with the first quarter and previous 11 months, calculate to the warmest year-to-date and 12-month periods since record-keeping began in 1895.” — NOAA
Of course it got warmer. We just came out of the little ice age. Did they think that this time would have temperature flat line instead of doing what it always does?
Well we are not yet out of a winter with much snow and cold.
Experts claim that lack of year round Arctic Sea Ice is killing polar bears because it is cutting off their food supply but mixed in with their extreme alarmism about warming I found a story that says Arctic life is doing well.
http://www.earthweek.com/2012/ew120511/ew120511b.html
Looks like the experts have been wrong again.
Here is another story that does not talk of the huge harm that warming is doing.
Monarchs Go Missing
They failed to return in some areas after a cold and tough winter
http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130301/ew130301b.html
It looks like warming is not the top story in Moscow right now.
http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130208/ew130208d.html
As I have told you, Warm Oceans cause more snow and cold.
A manmade trace of CO2 is powerless to halt the snow and cooling that is coming, that always comes after a warm period.
Weather is now climate in Oz (and elsewhere):
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/climate-change-a-key-factor-in-extreme-weather-experts-say-20130303-2fefv.html
If anyone has a better source for this study it will be interesting to see how they get the statistical result that there is only one chance in 500 that the recent weather is natural. They must be assuming that natural climate is unchanging and weather is random, neither of which is true.
David, there’s no reference to the study at Steffen’s institute’s site http://cci.anu.edu.au/ . I couldn’t load Jo Nova’s page. The CCI is a commited CAGW body, very cosy with the pro-CAGW scare ALP government.
In that link I read: The past summer has been the hottest in Australian records. In the 102 years of uniform national weather records, there have been 21 days when the entire continent averaged more than 39 degrees – and eight of those took place this year.
There is no mention of the fact that the records do not include the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period, both of which got hot without the Manmade CO2. We are at the end of a warming period after coming out of the Little Ice Age. It is expected to be warmer in the warm part of a cycle that goes from warm to cold to warm to cold to warm again and again. The next phase of the cycle will be cold again. Look at the data, after a warm period the next part of the cycle is the cold part. Pay close attention to how much snow does fall in the warm ocean years. It is falling now. 2013 will be another year that global temperature does not get hotter than 1998.
What Mediaeval Warm Period? I’m not aware anybody has shown any such thing exists. Do you have a reference?
Your assertion about the progress of temperature since the LIA does not match any profe3ssional reading of the short-, medium-, or long-term trends up to and beyond that time.
There is a reason we are in a warming period, and that reason is evidently CO2 forcing.
Is this the drip, drip, drip of reality torture?
==================
CSIRO and BOM are both totally corrupted. Nothing they say can be trusted.
ghl,
I agree CSIRO and BOM are corrupted with respect to climate science and also to energy matters if they have any bearing on CSIRO’s advocacy of renewable energy. I think they are still respected in may other fields of research, and I expect deservedly so.
JoNova has her take on this.
Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian “hottest” ever records
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/mystery-black-box-method-used-to-make-all-new-australian-hottest-ever-records/
This would be the Jo Nova who thinks the “banking families” are involved in faking world temperature records in order to usher in a new world order, right?
Craig Thomas plays with his toys in the bright and brilliant sandbox.
=================
Here down under, this summer, consensus science is in flux,
never mind the BOM model tweaks. River banks are breaking,
there’s flooding up north time after time, bits of road washed away,
things do not hold fer the modellers in cloud towers, whiling away …
But say! Those dams Tim Flannery said would never fill again …
damndest thing, they’re full!
‘Time after Time,’ nice song, Cyndi Lauper:
‘Confusion is nothing new …’ warming then cooling then…
hmm … uncertainty prevails.. who said that on Judith Curry’s
Climate Etc?
Beth,
We’re in deep sh-t. The Government’s Climate Commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery said so on ABC 7:30 Report tonight. And its all due to man. There’s only a 500:1 chance this extreme summer, with all those broken records, isn’t due to man’s CO2 emissions. Tim told us on the Government’s TV channel. You’ve got to believe it if the government’s Climate Commissioner tells us, right?
It’s good that both you and the world’s governments are beginning to appreciate the science, Peter Lang!
Of course, government officials are merely echoing what scientists have been saying for 30 years or more, eh?
If governments didn’t heed science (albeit slowly), then we’d all be smoking cigarettes, with our children unable to play outside due to lack of a protective ozone layer, horrendous pollution from lack of public sanitation … not to mention uncontrollable epidemics of polio, measles, whooping cough, diptheria, and typhoid fever.
Everyone would have pre-existing medical conditions, so no-one could afford health-care, and so folks who got sick would just stay home and die. Especially the poor folks … whose deaths real citizens would not mourn much!
On the other hand, (1) government would be small, (2) taxes would be low, and (3) regulations would be nonexistent … so SOME folks would be happy! `Cuz heck, we could attribute our calamities to the wrath of Divine Providence upon those impious scientists!
Who’s on the right side of history, Peter Lang?
Uhhh … the safe bet is, the scientists and the progressives.
Ain’t that right, Peter Lang?
Peter,
“Climate Commissioner” has such an ominous ring to it
wouldn’t yer say? Jest noticed how late it is, Melbourne
time, gotta get some sleep! Think I’m becomin’ addicted
ter Climate Etc. (
Beth
fan,
your relevance to science is about on par to mine and hair care products.
What does whooping cough, diptheria, measles and the rest have to do with the topic? And your ozone hole reference – check in with reality. The ozone hole is still with us, and guess what,kids are still allowed out side to play.
I would like to bring attention to the very peculiar psychology of Joe Romm and his recent post on the five stages of grief. (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/01/1644511/for-climate-hawks-the-five-stages-of-grief-are-reversed/)
He lists them: 1. Denial; 2. Anger; 3. Bargaining; 4. Depression; and 5. Acceptance and then talks about how they are reversed for “climate hawks”:
THE FIVE STAGES IN REVERSE
“Climate hawks begin with accepting the science…. I’m a scientist by training, but I just don’t see how anyone can pick and choose what science you’re going to believe and what not. The scientific method may not be always be perfect in single studies — since it is used by imperfect humans — but it is the best thing we have for objectively determining what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. It is testable and self-correcting, unlike all other approaches.
Once climate hawks accept the science, many quite naturally get depressed…. The situation is beyond dire, and we aren’t doing bloody much about it, in large part because of the successful efforts of the deniers and delayers….
After depression comes a serious effort at bargaining. Climate hawks try to figure out what they can do to stop the catastrophe. Taking actions and making bargains at a personal level and a political level — depending on their level of activism.
Then comes anger…. especially [at] the deniers, the professional disinformers…. Finally, you end up in a kind of denial. It just becomes impossible to believe that the human race is going to be so stupid [as] … to avoid catastrophic global warming ….”
—————– How would a trained psychologist interpret this given the state of physical science and the debates over climate economics and public policy?————-
Regarding what so-called science to believe the debate is about the overall weight of evidence for a host of conflicting claims. That opinions differ should surprise no one.
Indeed, it is known the skeptics are doing this.
Denial (not warming, not CO2)
Anger (don’t show me proof, it is all a conspiracy)
Bargaining (OK, maybe it is warming and maybe it is CO2, but warming is good).
Next is Depression (when the warming and bad effects are more evident they will go silent or just lose interest), and finally Acceptance (some never will).
Wow, it is so great how you can just divide people into two camps and you know exactly which camp to put each person in and exactly what they think and the psychological reasons why. Sounds like there is a consensus there too. And it makes just as much sense as being on Team Red or Team Blue in politics. Because you always know what each person thinks on each team and you always know what you should think and then even though you had one opinion when Team Red was in power, now that Team blue is in and have the same policies, now you believe the opposite of what you used to believe. Sorry, homey don’t play dat.
It is possible to classify nearly every “skeptical” post in the Denial, Anger and Bargaining categories.
On the consensus side, by their own consensus, you can put them in one camp. The may not all really think alike, but they do claim they do.
On the Skeptic side, we do not have consensus, you cannot put us all in one camp. There are many views over here.
There is one slim chance out of many that the consensus side is right. There are many chances that some skeptics are right. The correct climate theory is likely a combination of several skeptic theories and it may include some of the consensus stuff.
Calling disagreement denial is a cheap shot at best. Disagreement and debate is the soul of the scientific frontier, which is precisely where we are. And we certainly have a right to be angry at the often silly claims made by warmers (such as this one of yours). As for bargaining are you claiming that it would be better if we went back to the LIA? How does that go?
Supporting Joe Romm is a losing position. Try something rational.
Jim D wrote: “It is possible to classify nearly every “skeptical” post in the Denial, Anger and Bargaining categories.”
————————————————————————-
Of course it’s possible – you do it all the time.
Denial is a term reserved for those who deny actual scientific facts such as the existence of warming or CO2’s effect on radiation. Skeptics can just as easily use true-believers which we read as truth-believers. Or if they say GCR-deniers, that is fine too, just be specific on what is being denied.
JimD, Denial can also be ignoring on scientific opinion for another that is more agreeable with personal preference. That is most of the real debate, the Manabe’s versus Hansenites.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048101/abstract
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281988%29001%3C0841%3ATSEOAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I tend to think Manabe with his 2C, bistable climate and 70+C no greenhouse Earth is the man after comparing observation to prediction.
captain, I don’t call that denial. Maybe you are a bigot or prejudiced for doing that. Yes, believing the science textbooks might be viewed as prejudiced too, but I’ll take it.
I finally understood the 70 C claim after reading about it, and that is a case if you don’t allow convection or vertical movement of the air at all. It is not a possible state of the real atmosphere when you turn on the greenhouse effect because it is highly convectively unstable, even if it is a radiative equilibrium. In this sense, convection cools the surface.
…on the other hand, Manabe isn’t talking about that or 70 C, so I don’t understand the point.
JimD, We are human. We can’t avoid some prejudice. That what Graeme Stephans was on about with his “range of comfort”. Draw a line in the sand and someone will pick a side. The real line though is pretty wide, not 3C but 2 or 4 C. 3 C is an “average” not an estimate based on sound science. Averages just get you in a ballpark, sooner or later you have to start looking at the “real” values.
JimD, “…on the other hand, Manabe isn’t talking about that or 70 C, so I don’t understand the point.” Manabe took exception to the 33 C because of unrealistic assumptions. A purely radiative impact would be greater than 33 C. Roy Spencer had a post on that, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/why-33-deg-c-for-the-earths-greenhouse-effect-is-misleading/
That references Manabe and Strickler 1964. A large portion of the atmospheric effect is the internal energy transfer, seasonally and longer, which the 33C estimate neglects.
Also with the bistable potential, CO2 forcing impact would decay to a value, not increase exponentially.
Jim D: you say that “Denial is a term reserved for those who deny actual scientific facts such as the existence of warming or CO2′s effect on radiation.”
Reserved by whom? Is this your special language? Skeptics who question whether the CO2 increase is causing warming or question whether the warming is dangerous are the two most common varieties and they are usually called deniers by Romm and Company, but they deny neither of the two things you list.
As for the existence of warming I deny that the HadCRU, GISS, NOAA and BEST statistical models are accurate. So far as I can tell the 1978-1997 warming they all show did not happen. But I admit to a small warming 1998-2000. Does that make me a denier in your terms, as I do not deny the existence of warming just the popular beliefs about its timing and magnitude? If so then you do not know what the actual scientific facts are which makes your definition useless.
What you fail to grasp is that the debate is over just what the actual scientific facts are.
JimD, “I finally understood the 70 C claim after reading about it, and that is a case if you don’t allow convection or vertical movement of the air at all. It is not a possible state of the real atmosphere when you turn on the greenhouse effect because it is highly convectively unstable, even if it is a radiative equilibrium. In this sense, convection cools the surface.”
Right, but latent also. 33 C assumes every thing remains equal and since internal transport of energy is dependent on the delays due to convection and moist adiabatic lapse rates, it is not an apples to oranges.comparison. The 33 C is little more than a poor analogy like the “greenhouse effect” itself.
Jim D: when you say “CO2′s effect on radiation” do you mean the fact that CO2 molecules adsorb and emit radiation, as do all molecules. Has anyone actually denied that? Or do you mean something else that you are too vague to communicate?
Jim D
You gave us a list of (what you think) the skeptics are doing.
Let me give you a list of (what I think) the warmers are doing:
Indeed, it is known the warmers are doing this.
Lying (fudging the data to make AGW appear to be a potential threat.)
Denial (there’s no pause in global warming)
Obstinacy (don’t confuse me with conflicting data, I know what’s right)
Rationalization (OK, maybe it hasn’t warmed, but it’s because of Chinese pollution)
Next is Depression (when they realize that there have been no bad effects and they are losing the battle on convincing the public of imminent disaster)
Acceptance (some never will)
Right.
Now that we’ve both got our little tantrum off our chest, let’s go back to discussion REAL issues related to the ongoing scientific and political debate surrounding AGW.
OK?
Max
The head of the IPCC said warming has halted for 17 years.
Which side is really the side in denial?
Rubbish. Most anti- CAGW just want evidence CO2 drives climate. None has been forth coming and observations are proving models wrong. ESP. When clouds are a negative feedback not positive.
On the Skeptic side, we do not have consensus, you cannot put us all in one camp. There are many views over here. There is one slim chance out of many that the consensus side is right
So are you saying that the more theories there are to explain global warming the less chance that it will turn out to be anything to do with adding GH gases to the atmosphere?
I think Skeptical science have catalogued 174 arguments. So we can all rest easy that the chance of the consensus being right is a real long shot at 174 to 1 against !!
Personally I think its a toss up between AGW and microwave transmission from satellites :-)
http://globalmicrowave.org/
I hit the denal stage a decade ago. Still there.
Andrew
Sorry “denial.” I’m just a team player. There is no “I”.
andrew
But Andrew, ya can’t deny the hockey stick:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/screenhunter_256-mar-02-06-55.jpg
Spangled Drongo,
very good!
Of course, Thomas Jefferson got it all wrong, eh?
Because ignorance that preserves the public’s unquestioning faith in the providence of God, the harmlessness of CO2, and the beneficence of global capitalism, is BENEFICIENT ignorance … isn’t that right?
And so, by cultivating and conserving the public ignorance that denialist belief-systems absolutely require — and therefore, dearly cherish — denialist demogogues act to preserve American ideals from the onslaught of godless science!
Isn’t that the way of it?
PS: A big thanks goes to Climate Etc‘s own Erica, for reminding everyone of the vast modern conspiracy of science!
Fan,
Read the first link about Canadian u-grads. Seems like a good result. Uninformed students who only knew: “CO2 bad, world get hot” now know that climate science is extremely complicated, with many, many uncertainties, and much of the best data has only been collected since 1979 or in some cases for the last ten years. So they should come out being more uncertain. That is called being informed. Much more complicated than propaganda. Since most of the climate scientists who were once so certain are now admitting that they are less certain and not sure exactly what is going on with the climate, I would say that the u-grads learned something of importance.
Fanny
Of course Thomas Jefferson got it right.
He was very much against the kind of top down government pressure we see here to frighten the general populace into paying taxes in order to make the government more powerful.
An informed general public can see through this, because it can only succeed if the public is ignorant.
Glad you finally see it, too, Fanny.
Max
No fan,
Tommy J got it right. Which is why statements such as “the debate is over”, “the science is settled”, “97% of climate scientists agree” and “you are not a climate scientist, therefore stay out of it” set my alarm bells ringing. They all are an attempt to “enlightenment” to the few.
Hey everyone, Stevey Mac is back and Mikey Mann won’t be able to sit down for weeks.
Only Steve can rip new bungholes in Team propaganda with such devastating aplomb.
Why is the Left so threatened by those who value individual liberty? And, why is the Left driven to bring America down like their comrades have done in so many other places around the world?
Isn’t denying the poor access to cheap energy such as fossil fuels immoral? Why are AGW True Believers cheerfully participating in this crime against humanity while keeping women down in the third world and dooming developing countries to poverty and an out-of-control worldwide population explosion?
As Fekete says, “Putting the developing world on a rapid path to economic growth” is the only humane thing to do.
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore sees through the charade. He wrote a book about global warming alarmism and the politics of fear that the enviro-whackpots have been using since the ’70s to bilk money from gullible old ladies.
Wind energy is much cheaper than fossil fuels – so why are you trying to deny the poor access to it?
Wind energy needs backing by an equivalent amount of fossil fuel generators. Why waste everyone’s but especially the poor’s money so uneconomically?
====================
Craig Thomas,
Do you really believe that? Have you done any checks to work it out for yourself? Here is a quick, rough comparison (using the Australian costs):
CO2 abatement cost with gas, or wind & gas, or nuclear
CO2 abatement with wind power is high cost; nearly twice as much as with gas and nearly three times as much as with nuclear power.
Wind power cannot provide reliable electricity supply alone. It needs backup generators for when the wind doesn’t blow. The quick calculation below compares the CO2 abatement cost for wind with gas back-up versus gas only versus nuclear. The calculation is for the abatement cost of replacing existing baseload black coal power stations with either wind plus gas back-up, or gas only or nuclear only.
Calculate cost per tonne CO2 abated for new wind + gas.
The cost of electricity and the emissions intensities for new wind, gas and nuclear technologies, for Australia, is sourced from BREE AETA Report (2012) http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aeta/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdf.
The following approximate average figures are used for the existing black coal power stations:
CO2 emissions intensity (existing black coal) (approx) = 1.0 t/MWh
Average wholesale electricity cost (approx) = $30/MWh
Gas only (CCGT):
CO2 emissions intensity (t/MWh) = 0.368
Cost of electricity ($/MWh) = 89
CO2 abatement cost ($/t CO2) = (89-30) / (1.0-0.368) = 59 / 0.632 = 93
30% Wind + 35% CCGT + 35% OCGT:
CO2 emissions intensity (t/MWh) = 0.3 x 0 + 0.35 x 0.4 + 0.35 x 0.7
Cost of electricity (wind) ($/MWh) = $116
Cost of electricity (CCGT) ($/MWh) = $89
Cost of electricity (OCGT) ($/MWh) = $196 (@ 10% CF)
CO2 abatement cost ($/t CO2) = 178
Nuclear (CCGT):
CO2 emissions intensity (t/MWh) = 0
Cost of electricity ($/MWh) = 96
CO2 abatement cost ($/t CO2) = (96-30) / (1.0-0) = 66 / 1.0 = 66
CO2 abatement cost Summary
Gas only = $93/t CO2
Wind + gas back up = = $178/t CO2
Nuclear = $66/t CO2
Therefore, wind costs nearly twice as much as gas and three times as much as nuclear to abate CO2.
There are many simplifications in this calculation (some would decrease and some would increase this cost). But changing them with in reasonable bounds does not change the conclusion. Wind is a very expensive way to reduce emissions.
Some that would increase the calculated abatement cost are adding the increased grid costs (up to $45/MW/h) and allowing for the ineffectiveness of wind abatement (wind was just 53% effective at avoiding emissions in Ireland in 2011 (17% wind energy penetration). We don’t know in Australia because we have no way of estimating the emissions avoided accurately enough and at the time scale required).
Not to mention the dead bats and birds.
Not to mention the vibrations disturbing ecosystems further than the ear can hear.
Not to mention local residents driven mad through their ears.
Not to mention difficult and dangerous upkeep on the monuments.
Not to mention that there’s so much more to not to mention.
=========================
Wind is basically an emission reduction technology the cost of which has to be added to the cost of the fossil plants it is temporarily supplanting.
Wind power ain’t cheaper ‘n anythin’. Wind energy is jest so
doggone Intermittent … needs back up, needs ramping up,
needs ramping down, (when the wind blows too hard or…
not hard enough.) On-shore wind energy costs an arm and
a leg while off-shore energy costs even more!!!
http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf
See pp11-12 and Tables pp13- 23.
And wind technology ain’t good fer the environment. We know
about the noise … the birds and bats killed by turbines …
there’s more. Wind farms sure take up a lot of land, could be
crop land. Off shore, wind farms take up a lot of space too.
Picture the proposed off shore wind farm in the UK covering
more than one100 square miles of theThames Estuary.
Did yer know that wind farms can be messy too? In Valencia,
Spain, operators of the giant wind installations mention the
dripping and flinging off of gallons of motor oil, cooling and
cleaning fuels …tsk tsk.
H/t Rosenbloom E. 2006
le Pair C. 2009
Craig,
Could you explain how you come to this conclusion? The company I work for is ranked 2nd in the US for wind generation capacity. It most certainly isn’t cheaper. However it is beneficial to us. Between the tax incentives and subsidies, plus the primium prices California pays us for the renewable credits, we do ok.
Between the tax incentives and subsidies, plus the primium prices California pays us for the renewable credits, we do ok.
In other words, a scam or worse.
“Wind energy is much cheaper than fossil fuels – so why are you trying to deny the poor access to it?”
It’s always nice to have visitors from other planets on the blog, however Craig, here on planet Earth the winds blow intermittedley so we have to build power stations to run on standby in case the windmills aren’t running. Some stupid individuals have pointed out that if we just built the power plants and didn’t bother with the windmills we’d save money. I always respond using the case of your own planet Xingon where the winds blow all the time and the inhabitants save money by not having to use their electric clothes driers because the wind is always going full belt.
“… So the progression-type methods of the so-called hockey stick studies of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes [MBH] suffer from a number of problems which should have been addressed before the hockey stick was elevated to an authoritative description of the temperature history of the past 1,000 years …
“… The key statistical assumption of any of such methods is the uniformity of informational content in the proxies which are regressed on the climate variables (mostly temperature) … Regression-type models are designed so that they return only part of the full variability of the variable of interest, namely that part which can be traced back to the proxies. Not all of the variability can be accounted for in this way. The difference in variability of temperature and of proxy-derived temperature is dealt with by ‘scaling’, i.e., by applying a suitable normalization. If “scaling” is used, then the basic principle of regression is violated, as the part of variability in the predictand (temperature), which can not statistically traced back to the predictor (proxy), is nevertheless related to predictor-variability. Scaling is useful, when the transfer function is not regression (screening of co-variability of two variables) but based on physical arguments … The problem with MBH was that the result was presented by the IPCC and others in a manner so that one could believe a realistic description of historical temperature variations had successfully been achieved. The NRC report published in June 2006 has made clear that such a belief was incorrect.” ~Dr. Hans von Storch
Progress is NOT a given…
Anyone who believes in the scientific method cannot accept global warming alarmism based on reductionism or any other dogmatism such as substitutiing progressionism for realism.
We are now approaching the time of maximum sea ice extent in the Arctic, and minimum in the Antarctic. In the Antarctic, the refreeze may have started a little early, and the minimum sea ice extent has the second highest value on record. In the Arctic, there has been a record refreeze, and currently the sea ice extent is just within the 2 SD limits of the average from 1979 to 2000 (I believe those are the dates).
I am fully aware that there is a pal reviewed paper, which provides an excuse as to why CAGW only affects the Arctic, and not the Antarctic. But it seems to me that there is a requirement for another such pal reviewed article that provides the excuse as to why CAGW affects Arctic sea ice extent far more in the summer, than it does in the winter. Does such a reference exist?
Jim Cripwell
Yes. It is interesting.
End February Arctic sea ice is below the 1979-2000 baseline value, while Antarctic sea ice is above this value.
After over 30 years of satellite sea ice measurements, global sea ice extent (the sum of the two) is 0.5% below the 1979-2000 baseline (18.49 million square km versus 18.58 msk), and the linear trend has been -0.19% per year. Yawn!
Looks like by concentrating on lamenting about Arctic sea ice the NSIDC is falling into the “Much Ado about Nothing” trap.
But, hey, it scares people (and that’s the plot here, not to report scientific findings).
Max
Duh.
Lets start with some basics.
when it warms in the arctic it actually gets above the melting point of ice.
For example. Lets suppose that the temperature at location X was
-40C year round. And lets assume that temperature at location Y was
-2C year round. Got that?
Now, warm both by 10C.
-40C becomes -30C
-2C become +8C
If there were ice at both locations would you be amazed to see that it melted at one location and didnt melt at the other? Nope you would not be surprised.
Second, suppose one location location Y was on land, that is the ice was landed, and at the other location the ice was in the water. Gosh, do you think that the temperature of the water might play a role for one location?
Third. Suppose one location, location X had sources of fresh water that drained into the salt water it was sitting on. Gosh, could that make a difference?
fourth, suppose one location had more soot fall on the ice? could that make a difference? ya think.
There are many other differences between both poles and there is no reason to expect that they will both shrink in the same manner or even in the same time scales. As it warms in the south you could get more snow and thicker ice. As it warms in the north, you also get more precipitation, BUT
it falls as rain because the higher air temps support that.
Many reasons why you should NOT expect them to melt the same or build additional ice the same. It is not kansas.
The real question is why do you think two vastly different places should react the same.
The antarctic is anomalous insofar as the increase in sea ice is both unforeseen in the models ie no one predicted it,and secondly the models cannot account for it.
Usual explanations such as o3 forcing,break down as it decreases sea ice in the models.eg Zunz
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/3539/2012/tcd-6-3539-2012.pdf
The null is that the sea-ice is recovering from internal variability (a previous decrease) suggest again that random is the norm.
Similarly space borne measurements to land based mass increase (decrease) are limiting when decade reversals greater the mean can occur
http://spaceinimages.esa.int/Images/2012/03/Change_in_blue_ice_height
It is not sensitivity to a perturbation, that needs to be defined it is random that needs a clear definitive statement.
Steven, You write “The real question is why do you think two vastly different places should react the same.”
Let us forget the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic for the moment. The empirical data seems to show that the SAME place, the Arctic, behaves differently from the effects of CAGW in winter and in summer. In winter sea ice extent is only slightly below average; in summer it is well below average. An excess losss of ice in the summer is followed by an unusually extensive freeze the next fall and winter.
Why does CAGW affect the SAME place in different ways during different seasons?
in truth both declines and increases have been proposed so its one area with a lot of uncertainty. that uncertainity says nothing about whether it is warmer. it is. that uncertainty says nothing about co2. co2 warms the planet
Jim, do you think the record refreeze is due to the record minimum last melt season and the fact that it freezes to about the same area each winter?
Here’s a prediction for you, next freeze season will be another record, I’m going with about 1.5 million square kilometers more than this season for the increase in sea ice extent.
Steve
You apparently misunderstood what is being discussed here.
It is SEA ICE – you know, the kind that is floating on the sea.
This is measured both in the Arctic and in the Antarctic.
Both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent vary greatly on an interannual (seasonal) basis, but what is usually reported is the change at a specific time compared to previous years at that same time.
Much hype is given to the decline (especially in late summer) of the Arctic ice (the “canary” in the coal mine, etc.), but not much is said about the Antarctic sea ice, which has been growing steadily, albeit at a slightly slower rate.
Instead of acknowledging this steady growth, IPCC in AR4 SPM states:
The dishonesty in reporting is the problem that is being discussed here, Mosh, not all the side tracks you threw out, which have nothing to do with the problem.
Max
PS The most recent (end Feb) combined (Arctic plus Antarctic) sea ice extent is 0.5% lower than the 1970-2000 baseline level. This is no big deal, Mosh.
bob droege
You got it!
Sea ice (in both locations) melts in spring and summer and refreezes in fall and winter. The amount of seasonal change is orders of magnitude greater than any change from one year to the next.
And, yes, the more that melts one summer, the more will re-freeze again the following winter. Duh!
The issue being discussed here is the fact that the steady growth of the Antarctic sea ice a) cannot be explained by the climate models and b) is not honestly reported by IPCC, whereas the steady decline of the Arctic sea ice is being portrayed as a climate disaster, not only by a gullible press, but by the folks at NSIDC who feed the press.
Double standard and duplicity at work?
Max
bob droege, you write “Jim, do you think the record refreeze is due to the record minimum last melt season and the fact that it freezes to about the same area each winter?”
I am not sure I understand the question. As I understand it, the warmist position is that CAGW causes sea ice extent to become less and less in the northern summer, until at some time in the future, in the Arctic, there will be no sea ice (<1 million sq kms), when the minimum occurs. This claim I understand, even though I do not believe it will happen.
However, the empirical evidence shows that in winter, the sea ice extent in the Arctic is not decreasing anything like as rapidly as it does in the summer. This seems to be contradictory to the claim that the decreasing sea ice extent in the summer is due to CAGW. If CAGW causes a decreasing amount of sea ice in the summer, why does it not cause a similar decrease in sea ice extent in the winter? There is a pal reviewed paper which claims to explain why there is a difference between the Arctic and Antarctic. But what is the explanation of why CAGW decreases sea ice extent in the Arctic dramaticly in the summer, but does not have anything like the same effect in the winter? That is what I do not undersatnd.
Thinking in terms of basic physics, it seems to me that the empirical data gives a strong indication that CAGW, if it in fact exists, has no effect on sea ice at all. All the changes that are observed are better explained by natural effects.
LOL … yer (unsupported!) claim is wrong-on-the-facts, Jim Cripwell!
Yah need to be readin’ Neven’s Arctic Sea-Ice Weblog, my man!
`Cuz there’s mighty little difference between folks who decline to read the science, versus folks who don’t think about the science, versus folks who — commonly from political motivations — ignorantly deny the science, eh?
Fan, I usually ignore you, but I will make an exception. I omitted the usual reference to daily data on sea ice extent, namely http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ and http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/, not to mention the sea ice reference page on WUWT. Your reference gives no data whatosever on sea ice extent. So what you wrote is, as usual, complete and utter garbage.
trend in Arctic sea ice thickness, winter
Prawly the AMO. Try to get to Tisdale velocity.
==========
JCH, I am not talking about sea ice thickness, I am talking about sea ice extent. If the warmists want to phrase their predictions in terms of sea ice thickness, then fair enough. Until they do, I will continue to talk only about sea ice extent.
It would be an intersting discussion about what is causing the reduction in Arctic se ice thickness, and what effect the value in winter has on summer sea ice extent. But until we have that discussion in detail, your reference is just another of your usual red herrings, which you continuously bring into any discussion, and which tends to draw any discussion away from the real issues.
Jim – I know you’re not talking about thickness. That is what is wrong.
These are the various things I have seen measured and reported on sea ice: extent, thickness, age, volume.
When ice melts, which one is the most meaningful snapshot of what is transpiring. It appears extent is the popular winner.
But how about Arctic winter sea ice? The extent? In the land of the midnight sun the chit refreezes to the continental boundaries. Holy cow, how surprising. If we could just sinkhole Mother Russia, who knows, winter extent might grow like crazy. Wouldn’t matter much. Getting thinner and thinner does matter.
Max,
I think, and I am just eye-balling the graph here, but I think the statistically significant change in Antarctic sea ice extent may have been achieved more recently than the latest IPCC report.
Jim,
Take Fan’s advice and spend some time at Neven’s blog, follow some links there and listen to those that post there. Make up your own mind, but there are some real knowledgeable guys posting there, not just Neven.
Or stick with WUWT’s sea ice page, but look closely at the last arctic ice chart, Right now that one looks like a combo of conditions that existed in both 2007 and 2010. Extensive transport of ice through the Fram straight and the beaufort gyre picking up speed and stripping ice off of the Canadian side and transporting it to where it melts. That keeps up, its bye bye ice extent this year.
Ice extent or area are beaten soundly by ice volume, that is if you want to know what is going on, look to PIOMAS.
Bob,
taking fan’s advice about anything is akin to tilting at windmills.
Actually, it is more like wading all day through untreated waste. You may ocassionally find something of value, but mostly you will find yourself covered in poo.
Fanny
Wow! Ya did it again!
You got it wrong one more time!
Is this a record for this site? Who knows? (But I love your fancy smileys.)
Check the NSIDC data (it’s easy).
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
End-summer (end-September) Arctic sea ice extent has receded from the 1979-2000 baseline value of 7.04 million square km to a 2012 level of 4.00 msk (a reduction of 3.04 msk or 43%).
End-winter (end-March) Arctic sea ice extent has receded from the 1979-2000 baseline value of 15.70 million square km to a 2012 level of 15.21 msk (a reduction of 0.49 msk or 3%).
And that is what Jim Cripwell told you. There is major reduction of end-summer Arctic sea ice extent, but essentially no change in the end-winter extent.
Get your numbers straight before you make a claim, Fanny, otherwise you look foolish.
Max
Steven Mosher | March 3, 2013 at 8:24 pm |
‘in truth both declines and increases have been proposed so its one area with a lot of uncertainty. that uncertainity says nothing about whether it is warmer.”
Obviously climate works in mysterious ways ,mosher applying papal infallibility .
Unfortunately the evidence suggests that it is the models that are broken ie they are sensitive to parameters,where extrapolating to the unknown past exhibits divergence to the known present (aka as guessing wrong)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1
I don’t, but the IPCC tells us that both the Antarctic and the Arctic will lose sea ice, admittedley at different rates, but both are forecast to lose sea ice:
“Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.” IPCC AR4 SPM
And it isn’t because of a rise in temperature in the Arctic either because it’s been stable since 1958 when the Danes started the records:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Timg56,
You would be well advised to take a skeptic’s eye at what Fan says, not only because I tend to agree with him, but our host does as well in regards to Neven’s blog. I may not be recalling correctly, but I believe Neven asked her to remove his blog from her blogroll and she has obviously refused or Neven recanted, or I am making it all up. Anyhow, Judith at least thinks Neven’s blog is worthy of her blog roll.
I conclude that she thinks you ought to check it out.
And I mean by a skeptic’s eye is to go there and examine the evidence.
Or keep making worthless contributions here, you pick.
Warm ocean water has been flowing through the Arctic for ten thousand years. When it is very warm, such as now, the Arctic Sea Ice extent gets low in summer until the minimum in September. Nothing to do with CAGW, this is natural cycles. When the oceans are cooler the sea ice does not recede as ,much in the warm seasons. The warmer the summer oceans, the more the sea ice recedes and then it snows more and gets colder to make the rebound bigger. Cold follows warm and warm follows cold.
Gee Wagathon, it’s interesting *both* you and Anthony Watts/WUWT are attacking Michael Mann’s research this week.
And yet, for some strange reason — and what might that reason be? — neither you not the WUWT folks *EVER* link to Michael Mann’s own scientific presentations and articles
Gosh … what’s the point of keepin’ folks in the dark regarding the actual science, Wagathon?
`Cuz gee … uncited and/or cherry-picked polemics makes for bad science, eh?
And heck … you and Anthony/WUWT *do* trust folks to think for themselves … don`cha?
Hey, it’s Stevie Mac, too. I’m not surprised to see Nanoia Oreskes and Michael Piltdown Mann singing from the same songsheet. I haven’t bothered to look yet, but I’ll bet The Gorebellied Fool’s cultured pearls twittering on a twig still support the Crook’t Hockey Stick. Reality has such bright shiny new bona fides.
============
Nice. Good to see such class being allowed here. Vive la communication!
Critics! And such a one!
======
kim,
our friend Craig seems to have no appreciation for the arts.
Bet he’s a blast at parties.
timg56
Naw. he just sits in the corner and gripes.
And can’t even grasp the hidden message in kim’s artistic prose and poetry.
Max
Anyone who believes in the scientific method cannot accept global warming alarmism based on reductionism or any other dogmatism such as substitutiing progressionism for realism.
[T]he progression-type methods of the so-called hockey stick studies of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes [MBH] suffer from a number of problems which should have been addressed before the hockey stick was elevated to an authoritative description of the temperature history of the past 1,000 years …
The key statistical assumption of any of such methods is the uniformity of informational content in the proxies which are regressed on the climate variables (mostly temperature) … Regression-type models are designed so that they return only part of the full variability of the variable of interest, namely that part which can be traced back to the proxies. Not all of the variability can be accounted for in this way. The difference in variability of temperature and of proxy-derived temperature is dealt with by ‘scaling’, i.e., by applying a suitable normalization. If “scaling” is used, then the basic principle of regression is violated, as the part of variability in the predictand (temperature), which can not statistically traced back to the predictor (proxy), is nevertheless related to predictor-variability. Scaling is useful, when the transfer function is not regression (screening of co-variability of two variables) but based on physical arguments … The problem with MBH was that the result was presented by the IPCC and others in a manner so that one could believe a realistic description of historical temperature variations had successfully been achieved. The NRC report published in June 2006 has made clear that such a belief was incorrect. ~Dr. Hans von Storch
Evaluation Your post was examined for elements of:
• Rationality none found
• Scientific Evidence none found
• Characteristics of Demagoguery all found
Why is that, Kim?
Here’s what Naomi Oreskes actually said at the AGU:
Kim, how is it that is Naomi Oreskes’ world-view is so strikingly rational and evidence-based, whereas your recent Climate Etc posts have been strikingly demagogic in form and content?
Oreskes’ error is in analogizing tobacco tars causing malignant metastasizing neoplasms with AnthroCO2 causing widespread and destructive climate catastrophes.
It’s just bad poetry, and has been from the gitgo. AnthroCO2 is a minimal daily requirement for the plant kingdom and may warm both the cold blooded and the warm-blooded of the animal kingdom.
AnthroCO2 is a blessing, not a damnation.
===============
Uhhh … your assertion is wrong-on-the-facts, isn’t it Kim?
Oreskes analogizes Big Tobacco’s disinformation and astro-turfing systematic campaigns with Big Carbon’s disinformation and astro-turfing systematic campaigns.
Here Oreskes is right-on-the-facts.
After all, Big Tobacco and Big Carbon both have just one legal responsibility: protect shareholder value.
In which case, disinformation and/or astro-turfing campaigns are perfectly legal actions … indeed economically obligatory actions … both for Big Tobacco and for Big Carbon … isn’t that correct, Kim?
Remember, actions that are contemptible when human beings do them, become perfectly OK — even mandatory! — when corporations do them!
Isn’t corporate amorality both simple common sense, and more-and-more, an everyday experience for all of us, Kim?
In fact, isn’t corporate amorality an essential element of unregulated and/or globalized markets, Kim?
It was a nice easy curve, and Fan takes a huge swing and a miss at it.
==================
fan,
Believing in “Big Carbon” and “Big Oil” , isn’t that some sort of believe in a conspiracy? I’d refer you to this Australian fellow – name of Lewandowski – who published a paper on the subject. Well, published is an exageration. It was rejected.
kim has it wrong. You didn’t just swing a miss. You managed to conk yourself in the back of the head with the bat. Nice job.
LOL … timg56, maybe yah better study the RICO/racketeering convictions of Big Tobacco!
Then watch Big Oil/Big Carbon testifying under oath … and ask yerself … are these mumbly-mouthed Big Carbon guys any different from the mumbly-mouthed Big Tobacco guys?
fan,
how do actions by tobacco companies play any part in there being a concerted effort by “Big Carbon” to hide information and deceive the public?
This is what I mean when I refer to having to wade through poo when engaging with you.
It’s simple common sense, timg56.
Corporations lack both overall organizational consciousness and a human moral sense, and therefore in similarly seeking maximize shareholder value, given similar economic incentives, corporations engage in distinctive patterns of astro-turfing, politician-buying, and racketeering.
Thus we can reasonably study global corporate history to foresee global corporate behaviors … isn’t that correct, timg56?
Fanny
You got it wrong (again).
It’s not “Michael Mann’s research” in general (whatever in the hell that is) that is being attacked.
It was (first of all) his phony hockey stick, which was so eagerly embraced by IPCC in TAR (without first doing due diligence) and which was subsequently totally discredited.
To IPCC’s discredit, it did not distance itself from this piece of junk science, but quietly moved it from “centerfold” position in its SPM summary to a back page, covered by hastily conjured up copy spaghetti hockey sticks, in order to keep the myth alive that there was no MWP or LIA and that the current warm period is, therefore, unusual in 1300 years.
MM was exposed as a phony (or at least as a bad scientist) and IPCC became implicit in the scam.
Had he simply acknowledged that he made a mistake with his hockey stick and retracted it, he could have salvaged his image. The same goes for IPCC.
But he made the unwise mistake of trying to “tough it out”, thereby losing all credibility.
His lawsuit attempts to clear his name are truly tragic.
A sad story.
But there will always be a few diehards who still believe in the credibility of this broken man.
Are you one of these?
Max
What’s this “hockey stick discredited” nonsense doing here? Wasn’t this crud put down and buried years ago?
The hockey stick hasn’t been “discredited”, it’s been replicated and confirmed by numerous independent studies using numerous independent proxies.
Why resurrect discredited nonsense accusations that were flung about years ago?
Craig just awoke from a ten year slumber.
==============
Craig Thomas, argument by assertion accomplishes nothing. If you are interested in discussing actual points about whether or not the hockey stick has been discredited, we can. I have a standing offer to discuss them in any detail, with anyone (an offer people seem to run from). But understand, some people actually know this topic well. If you cannot provide more substance than you have so far, it’ll be apparent very quickly.
As an example, I’ll ask you a simple question. Which of the “replications” you refer to are independent confirmations of Mann’s hockey stick? My bet is you can’t find three.
Craig Thomas
Another “Elvis lives!” believer.
Let me break the news to you as gently as I can.
Elvis has passed away.
So has the Mann et al. “shtick”.
First McIntyre and McKitrick tore it apart.
This was confirmed by the Wegman panel.
The findings of M+M and the Wegman panel were confirmed to a US congressional committee under oath by a panel from NAS
It’s all there to read in gory detail in Andrew Montford’s book.
The “shtick” is dead and buried as a piece of junk science.
Let it R.I.P.
Max
PS In addition to several historical references from all over the civilized world at the time, as well as actual physical evidence, there are dozens of studies from all over the world, using various paleo-climate methodologies, which all confirm a global MWP that was slightly warmer than today, thereby falsifying the myth and IPCC AR4 claim that “the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years”.
Craig Thomas,
Exhibit a little self respect.
So.. I’ve gotten to wondering.. just how many times do you have to repeat something that isn’t true, to make it true?
Is there a fixed number, or does it vary?
Does the number get smaller the more like-minded repeaters repeat the untruth? Or is it just the comfort of travelling in packs that leads to the choruses?
How will you know when you’ve made untruth into truth? Does a light flash, or a bell ring?
Does the repetition have more to do with frequency, or simple count, or volume?
A far better place to propose discussion of https://realitydrop.org/
Ought reality drop on Climate Etc.. or would it be mere reality off a duck’s back?
+1
sadly they refused my request to sign up. weird
Ya think?
===
I wish these morons were not on my team.
1. They think a conversation is something you can “win”
2. If it were, it would not be won by ‘dropping’ canned responses
into threads. That will quickly be seen as akin to spamming
especially if its link backs to SkS or stuff that folks have already linked to.
3. If somebody comes into a conversation and drops some science they cannot defend or havent read, they will get a boomerang in the face.
4. claiming the science is settled and the debate is over HAS NOT WORKED. it is more busted than climate models.
Steven Mosher | March 3, 2013 at 7:20 pm |
Oddly, I wasn’t even tempted to try to sign up.
And I do so love party games.
However, as a resource, it’s not entirely without its uses.
Try log in with Twitter or FB.
Dear lord. That site is ridiculous.
Am I reading its About page right, that the Met Office is working with them?
..possibly in the same sense as they work with David Rose? ;)
The Met Office!
Someone should tell Tony.
Let’s hope he won’t have to change his vacation plans.
Does that mean we can FOIA them?
Our beloved bishop could turn purple.
Josh, make a cartoon.
Someone should tell the Met what someone is working with them.
=====================
Only in liberal Utopia is Leftist propaganda an adequate substitute for reality–especially when it comes to believing school teachers can control the weather.
There’s some terrific scientific news for you this week, Wagathon!
This new scientific understanding goes a long way to allaying rational climate-change skepticism, eh Wagathon?
`Cuz heck … non-rational climate-change skepticism doesn’t amount to much … in the long run anyway … does it?
And so we’re all of us learning that James Hansen’s, Michael Mann’s, Naomi Oreskes’, Jane Goodall’s, and Ed Wilson’s world-view is turning out to be pretty much scientifically and morally the correct one, right?
That’s reassuring, isn’t it Wagathon?
FOMD
Thanks for that. Interesting to see another result corroborating Shakun et al. (2012).
The mechanisms by which orbital forcing triggers deglaciation are becoming clearer every year.
Should there be consequences when we learn that academics engaged in fraud, collusion and corruption to deceive the public or should they still be guaranteed lifetime employment and payed with taxpayer dollars to destroy capitalism and help facilitate a liberal fascist state of fear?
You shouldn’t comment on Wegman until the legal process has officially finished with him.
Craig Thomas is plagiarizing his thoughts, or I’m a monkey’s uncle.
============
The scene is set for cooling, the question is only how fast. AGW will need a lot of aerosols and other epicycles.
Wagathon, do you honestly imagine that a science-respecting essayist like Tom Paine could post his “Common Sense” upon any of today’s far-right weblogs, without being immediately abused, condemned, censored, and “outed”?
LOL … that’s why denialists are on the wrong side of history, Wagathon!
Fanny
Tom Paine’s “Common Sense” fits perfectly for anyone who believes that individual liberty and freedom is the most important thing a government can guarantee its people.
The top down central government approach to force individuals to pay a (direct or indirect) carbon tax would be very much against Paine’s political philosophy of individual liberty and freedom from oppressive government.
Good point, Fan.
Max
PS And, yes “denialists” (i.e. those who deny that it has temporarily stopped warming) are definitely “on the wrong side of history”, as you write.
manacker
What are you going to do if GAT starts rising again? Will you concede that you are on the wrong side of history?
BBD
You ask a pretty direct question, to which I’ll give you a direct answer.
I personally am convinced that the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface and tropospheric temperature anomalies” will start to rise again, as they have been doing (in case of the surface record) for over 160 years, as we have been slowly emerging out of a period of hasher weather, called the Little Ice Age. Long term, the world is warming.
So I am probably on the same “side of history” as you are.
After the observed multi-decadal oscillations of ~30 years each are taken out, I expect it to rise by around 0.05 to 0.06C per decade, as it has since the record started.
I do NOT expect it to rise at a rate of 0.2C per decade (as IPCC has projected, based on anticipated GH warming).
If it DOES increase for an extended period at that rate or faster, then I will “concede that I am on the wrong side of history” on this issue.
Now my question to you:
What are you going to do if GAT continues to cool slightly or stays statistically flat over the next 15 years? Will you concede that you are on the wrong side of history?
Thanks for a response.
Max
Max
I expect it to rise by around 0.05 to 0.06C per decade,
I think the secular trend now is at about 0.1 deg C per decade.
Girma
This ended up in the wrong spot so am re-posting
Girma
Thanks for your input.
I’ve just taken the observed long-term linear rate of increase as the underlying warming trend.
It’s hard for me to see if this has changed, in view of the multi-decadal oscillations (~30 warming followed by ~30 years slight cooling), with an apparent amplitude of ~2.0 to 2.5C.
How do you arrive at a higher secular trend?
Thanks for reply.
Max
Max
There is an acceleration of 0.04 deg C/decade every 60 years in the global mean surface temperature data as shown in the following 61-years moving average.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/from:1875/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/scale:0.003/offset:-1.04/detrend:-0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1974/to:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/offset:-0.26/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/offset:0.26/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/scale:0.003/offset:-1.3/detrend:-0.2/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/scale:0.003/offset:-0.78/detrend:-0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.000001/offset:1.5/from:1880
The following quadratic function fits the 61-years moving average(1903 to 1981) with a correlation coefficient of 0.99.
Secular GMST: 3.335*10^(-5)*year^2 – 0.1241*year + 115.15
Differentiation of this function gives:
Trend for Secular GMST = 2*3.335*10^(-5)*year – 0.124
For 2012, this equation gives
Trend for Secular GMST = 2*3.335*10^(-5)*2012 – 0.124 = 0.01 deg C/year or 0.1 deg C/decade.
.
The acceleration of the GMST is given by differentiating the Trend for Secular GMST above and gives
Acceleration of Secular GMST = 2*3.335*10^(-5) = 0.000067 (deg C/year)/year
Which can be written as
0.00067 (deg C/decade)/year
In 60 years, the increase in the Secular GMST Trend is
0.00067 * 60 = 0.04 deg C/decade increase every 60 years.
Since the Secular GMST Trend for 2012 is 0.1 deg C, 60 years latter in 2072 the Secular GMST Trend should be 0.1 + 0.04 = 0.14 deg C/decade!
As the current secular warming rate is only 0.1 deg C/decade, and IPCC took the transient warming rate of 0.2 deg C/decade as secular. This leads to a climate sensitivity only about 1.5 deg C, half IPCC’s estimate.
BBD | March 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm | Reply
“What are you going to do if GAT starts rising again? Will you concede that you are on the wrong side of history?”
Will you concede you are on the wrong side of the story if it does not?
We are currently at .6 above the long term average of the last ten thousand years. In the last ten thousand years we were at 1 above a few times a at 2 above or almost 2 above a very few times. We can warm another 1.4 before we get out of the bounds of the last ten thousand years. I will concede that I might have been wrong after we pass 1.4 more with would match the upper bound. Look at the bell shaped curves using NOAA’s data.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page27.html
manacker | March 3, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
You’ve read Paine very, very wrong. Paine did not call for governments to suppress the price of apples, the price of grain or the price of whale oil. Those who owned surplus to their needs of commodities were, per Paine, free to sell their excess in honest trade on a fair market.
So too Paine would back http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org/ against those oppressors who seek to ride free on the backs of every American..
Oh. Wait. I forgot. You aren’t one, then, are you? American, that is.
Bart R
I certainly agree with Paine’s free-market approach.
Also with his thoughts on individual liberty and freedom from oppressive government.
Paine wrote before the Industrial Revolution.
You do not know, nor do I, where Paine would stand on a top-down tax, to be paid by all individuals to the government for the freedom to heat one’s home or have lights.
But I’d suspect he would not favor such a thing.
He might even see such a government as “oppressors who seek to ride free on the backs of every American”.
Max
PS I don’t know if you are American or from Timbuktu (no do I really care).
manacker,
I wish it were off limits to cite the works of a philosopher/theorist of another country like Bart R implies. That way only the Germans would be stuck with the depredations that have been inflicted by those who followed Marx.
The funny thing about the AGW True Believers is that they pretend to have the ability to reengineer the Earth’s weather but in reality they cannot even take care of themselves and cannot survive away from the government teet.
Or the Reality Tweet.
===========
It’s as if the flower children grew up and now they’ve got all these kids who have nothing of value to add to society because they’re just like their parents so the government is supposed to become mom and dad and take care of them all…
GaryM | March 3, 2013 at 9:15 pm |
You read an implication that isn’t there, when the straight up interpretation is: it’s off limits to so thoroughly misrepresent a philosopher/theorist/pamphleteer as Max has done of Paine.
Why should we have American Common Sense so diluted, regardless of the nationality of the guy telling Americans how to run their government?
Yeah, THAT’S why you found it necessary to say manacker is not an American. You were criticizing him for his views on Paine “regardless of his nationality,” which is why you felt it necessary to point out he is not an American.
Not to mention that manacker’s comment said nothing about American policy.
Pompous and dishonest too. Nice combination.
This was a reply to Bart R, though with the threading gone haywire….
GaryM | March 4, 2013 at 12:41 am |
.. when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord and cultivate predjudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable.
The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
When it shall be said in any country in the world my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, there may that country boast its Constitution and its Government.
Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead..
In stating these matters, I speak an open and disinterested language, dictated by no passion but that of humanity.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.
-The words of Thomas Paine, an American tax collector.
Bart R
Everyone can play the “let’s quote Thomas Paine” game.
Here are a few:
On creeping totalitarianism:
– Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
– The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government
On gun control by the government:
– Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
And here’s one for the “consensus Team” after Climategate:
– Character is much easier kept than recovered.
Don’t ever be so arrogant as to think for a minute that you have the sole monopoly on understanding or quoting Thomas Paine – you don’t.
Max
manacker | March 4, 2013 at 2:50 am |
What would be the use to me of having a monopoly on understanding Paine?
It’s certainly been useless to me in this exchange.
Thomas Paine recognized the necessary evil of government due the tendency of some to violate the rights of others; and the worst of government as the tendency of some who violate the rights of others to infiltrate government. Paine argued against taxes to support the corrupt, to uphold private enterprises, to be spent wastefully; Paine did not otherwise object to reasonable taxes where a necessary fatigue to support the rights of all.
You can assail my character with false allegations of arrogance. I wear that as a badge of honor, considering it was the first charge of Paine’s detractors in his time against him.
And WTF does gun control have to do with anything, other than to add some swagger to your already bloated claims?
It’s no arrogance to insist on accuracy, to defend another from defamation when his words are twisted, or to uphold reason against unreason.
And if someone, regardless of their nationality, so usurps Paine’s messages for personal vainglory as your spun and misshapen arguments do, then they aren’t really acting very American, are they?
Old, forgotten, far-off bones, and tattles long ago.
====================
Interesting graph in the Financial Post with–i.e., something like this:
GLOBAL AVERAGE MEAN
TEMPERATURE,
DEGREES CENTIGRADE
| ’97- | | | | | | | | | | -12
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
14.37°C | | | | | | | | | 14.45°C
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
The article is on the right track but misses a key point–i.e., isn’t a bit silly to imagine a world chock full of supposedly intelligent Western government-funded academics preaching the validity of reductionism who cannot see how astoundingly ludicrous it is to carry out an intensive variable like the average global temperature to two decimal places?
Bart R
Some advice:
Get off your soap box.
Max
manacker | March 5, 2013 at 2:08 am |
For someone with two orders of magnitude more postings than mine, by number and volume, you may wish on considering this most recent to visit http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrisy and contemplate the wisdom of the Oracle at Delphi, γνῶθι σεαυτόν.
Or, maybe you could describe what you think this soapbox of mine is, that so offends you? Is it that I defend Thomas Paine from interlocutors who cherry-pick choice phrases to make the American philosopher sound like a knuckle-dragging thug? Is it that bad math offends my nose, and I say so? Is it that I call straw man when there’s a straw man, and ad hom when there’s ad hom? Is it that my responses to your longwinded tirades are longer than two paragraphs? What bothers you about my engagement in your discourse?
I believe I can find a relic of his. Whaddya offer?
===========
Bart R
I don’t know what has caused your latest tantrum.
I can’t remember referring to your “soap box”, nor do I recall implying that Thomas Paine was “a knuckle-dragging thug”.
But I think you appear to be getting excited.
Calm down. Take a deep breath. And relax.
The world is a great place to be in the year 2013 – if you are one of the fortunate individuals living in the industrially developed world, with ready access to a low-cost, reliable source of energy, clean drinking water, a developed infrastructure and a government plus legal system that protects you from attack by others -(as you and I both are).
So enjoy!
Max
PS Just saw my “soap box” comment. Thanks for reminding me.
manacker | March 8, 2013 at 9:10 pm |
So I take it, with the prompting of your own words, you’re open to the chance that you’ve also written and forgot words so selective and narrow that one might reasonably infer Thomas Paine was a violent lowbrow.
But as you’ve moved on to new implications (and I’ve worked and lived in developed and lesser developed situations, not that it’s relevant), why look to the ghosts of past wrong claims while there’s fresh meat on the new assertion. Lack of coal or oil do not equate with insufficiency of energy in a nation; nor with a lack of clean drinking water — indeed, quite often, just the opposite; nor with infrastructure, sufficient government and legal system to give others other options than to attack me and mine; nor does more government or more legal system equate with protection from attack, as we know from many examples. Though I suppose it needs to be said that coal and oil sometimes are not the cause of governments and legal systems that attack people; I’m merely not having much luck finding a link that supports this last assertion of mine.
Bert R
As an admirer of Thomas Paine and his writings, I would not be so disrespectful that I would infer that he is a lowbrow.
Access to reliable, low-cost energy plus clean drinking water has been a real boon for a major segment of humanity, increasing the quality of life and life expectancy immensely (along with other factors, of course).
Those nations and people who still do not have this access suffer a harsh, brutal and generally shorter life as a result.
So far this has required a source of (ideally locally sourced) fossil fuels. This may change as new technologies are developed, but today that’s where we stand.
We probably agree on most of the above.
Max
manacker | March 9, 2013 at 1:24 am |
You make these claims so handwavingly, yet they are so unsupported by detail or fact, mechanism of cause and effect, actual research or study, that one must remain skeptical of them when you say them as when Lomborg repeats them from the likes of Nigel Lawson.
Access to clean drinking water comes from access to clean drinking water, not from coal mining or oil drilling or fracking. Indeed, coal and oil and frack deplete and contaminate drinking water. Access to clean drinking water, as water tables in many areas drop through the demands of industrial water use, is being eroded by your cause, not improved.
Access to low-cost energy does not correlate well with longevity nor with quality of life. Go ahead, show me the epidemiological study that supports your claim; I can show you ten that dispute it for every one you provide because when you say low-cost energy you don’t actually mean the energy is low-cost; you mean the cost is not borne by the people who profit by the massive energy projects. You mean subsidized energy. Tell me how I am wrong about this interpretation of your meaning. Give me some specific low-cost energy examples that are not subsidized and that truly pay for themselves.
Certainly it’s a tragedy when people burn dung for fuel, or peat, in their homes, especially with insufficient ventilation. A proper digester system could convert dung or peat to synthgas, and such mechanisms are not costly, and as a bonus they produce soil-enriching byproducts instead of generation by generation depleting soil. And nothing in your ‘low-cost energy’ from coal or oil does the least to solve this.
And let’s mention these ‘other factors’ you breeze past. Education in science, especially of girls and women is the number one other factor in improving longevity and standard of living. It makes more difference than education in literacy or math or business, all of which make more difference than any other factor. The means of self-sufficiency, such as locally made hand pumps for water, locally made cement fixtures for sanitation, locally made bamboo bicycles. Bednets intelligently deployed to sequester vulnerable targets of insect vectors and especially to sequester reservoirs of infection. Communication through mobile devices that can be used for education, commerce and organization over the vast distances involved in servicing remote populations. Peace. Medicine. Respect for traditional territories allowing stability of family units. All of these rank above low cost energy, and low cost energy ought mean low cost energy lifecycle, not mere subsidized fuel.
None of this has ever required fossil fuel, locally sourced or otherwise, except bednets and pharmaceuticals made from petroleum products which are diverted from use as fuel to actually do something beneficial.
Equating coal or oil subsidy with benefit to the vulnerable is both exploitative of the conditions of those who are not here to speak for themselves and simply a lie. It is immoral. It offends any reader of Thomas Paine, any reader of Thoreau, or of Adam Smith.
And since you introduced the topic of soap boxes:
manacker | March 3, 2013 at 8:45 pm |
You do know that Paine was a tax collector, right?
And that the Citizen’s Climate Lobby isn’t; they lobby for dividends to citizens, for privatization of the carbon cycle, not for tax.
So while it is amply evident you choose not to know what is plain common sense set out in front of you, we can guess well it does not agree with Paine.
It probably is true that Western technology is in part responsible for global warming alarmism. For instance, can we even imagine that in addition to times of relative material plenty, such as the current interglacial warming period has afforded to Western Civilization that the current warming period also has given birth to the philosophy of AGW insult commie dog global warming Armageddonism?
Telescoping things, global warming is far better for the human race by all objective indicators when compared to Ice Age living. Even so, perhaps the veritable plenty of economic success, together with the vagaries of human nature itself, mass superstition and the frailty of the intellect of the consensus, makes moral decline and self-destruction inevitable.
If you are “science-respecting” yourself then please provide empirical evidence along with sound scientific reasoning as to why you believe there is any proof that human produced CO2 played any part in the brief cyclic warming in the last quarter of last century. Please note that Kinetic Theory (as used by Einstein) can be utilised to explain the current surface temperatures without any need for additional warming by any back radiation, so your argument should take that into account.
“Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased fifty percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. They are in a particular panic over things they can’t even see–germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like the belief in witchcraft, it’s an extraordinary delusion–a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must all live in fear. Amazing.” ~Crichton
Did anything ever come of the proposal to ask our host to open a WUWT-liberated thread, where posters moderated off WUWT could post the material WUWT suppresses, to give CE readers a chance to judge it for themselves uncensored and without the manipulations of a biased team that busily denies free speech while pretending to be a home of online science?
What harm would it do?
Bart R
IMO such a proposal is silly, for two reasons.
– Climate Etc. is not here to be an “ombudsman” for disgruntled bloggers that got kicked off of WUWT for whatever reason.
– Doing so would immediately required Climate Etc. to also add all the censored comments from disgruntled bloggers at RealClimate, SkS, etc.
It would be a can of worms, Bart, just providing a bully-pulpit for disgruntled misfits and malcontents, but achieving nothing else.
Max
manacker | March 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
“..to also add all the censored comments from disgruntled bloggers at RealClimate, SkS, etc.”
Well, why not? It’s just one thread. No one need go there who doesn’t want to. Why let the censors win? I’m against them all. Why aren’t you?
Start your own blog. You could call it What’s Up With What’s Up With That? You could gin up traffic by promising complimentary brie to go with all the whine.
GaryM | March 3, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
There isn’t such a site already? How odd.
I’m just looking for a thread here, for the convenience of denizens and lurkers here, who seem by and large more willing to share sincerely in frank exchange of ideas than there.
And of the many faults of those WUWT moderation finds fault with, one suspects whinging is one of the lesser vices; certainly it would be one of the more hypocritical charges levelled by WUWT against those it seeks to suppress.
Bart R
You got it wrong.
I AM against the censors (at WUWT, RealClimate, SkS, wherever).
That’s why I only lurk there and blog here, where there is no censorship policy to cut out embarrassing mails, as long as they meet the ethics code as laid out.
I am against turning this blog into a site where disgruntled misfits display all the comments that were censored out somewhere else. (Most of these are BS, anyway.)
If these disgruntled misfits want to post these comments here, they are free to do so, but let’s not set up a special site for such rubbish.
My opinion.
Max
Perhaps we could post them on http://rcrejects.wordpress.com.
willard (@nevaudit) | March 4, 2013 at 9:48 am |
RCRejects still exists?
Wow. I suppose if someone only intended to be read by fifteen lurkers and the occassional lost websearcher, they _could_ re-post there.
Hardly amounts to a solid exercise in freedom of speech, or a defense of the rights to hold ideas against censors.
BartR,
Seems that RC Rejects still has a motivation:
> The fact is that it is now widely understood that RC harshly censor posts that ask “inconvenient” questions, or challenge the AGW view promulgated there. They do post some rejected comments to their Bore Hole thread, which actually makes entertaining reading. However, it is very evident that they still reject numerous posts. How do we know that? Well, a sufficiently large number of people have had difficulties posting at RC over the years that there is quite a bit of comment about that topic at some of the more sceptical websites dealing in climate related issues. And numerous posters now put up copies of their rejected posts at one or other of these sites.
http://rcrejects.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/apology-for-inactivity/
For more on “Yes, But RC Moderation” mantra:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/YesButRcModeration
Bart, as far as I know, anyone can comment here, and few are moderated. WUWT-suppressees can presumably post here, and it’s not an obscure, hard-to-find, site.
Faustino | March 3, 2013 at 8:25 pm |
Oh, agreed. You’ve cited some of the many advantages of CE over WUWT.
My suggestion is to have a thread dedicated to such a topic. I’m not even asking for a separate thread for WUWT alone, but any climate censorship center.
And while my empathy for Max’s worry that disgruntled misfits will rush here to repost helter skelter whenever they’re moded off elsewhere is not small, neither am I inclined to give into that particular line of thinking. A thread here need not be visited by anyone at all; it’s not obligatory. It is, however, an emblem of free speech and open dialogue.
If we could have, what, a dozen threads for the Skydragon Slayers, then a thread for those suppressed elsewhere ought be a small token indeed. And I’m not even suggesting the CE mod policy be altered for this thread: CE allows much that is spurned elsewhere — generally stimulating lively and productive debate here other sites lack — while still deleting some comments prudently per policy.
Gosh Wagathan … the 61,000-member American Geophysical Union has just elected Michael Mann a prestigious fellow of their professional society.
Whereas the denialist weblogs who are smearing both Michael Mann and his research number&nbdsp; maybe a dozen or so?
Hmmmm … I’d say Mann’s denialist detractors are outnumbered by … [calculates] … five-thousand-to-one?
Is that arithmetic right, Wagathon?
Fanny
It’s pretty obvious that your strength lies more in pasting fancy smileys than in arithmetic.
Mann’s shtick was discredited. It is dead and has been buried (although copy spaghetti “shticks” have popped up like mushrooms after a spring rain).
Let it R.I.P.
Max
LOL … Wagathon, your claim is wrong-on-the-facts, specifically in that …
• The US National Academies of Science says otherwise.
• The American Geophysical Union votes otherwise
• And only a dozen-or-so wacky denialist websites agree with you!
It’s getting kinda lonely in the denialist “bubble”, eh Wagathon?
Fanny
You have an amazing batting average – wrong every time!
A panel from NAS confirmed under oath to a US congressional committee the findings of the Wegman panel and McIntyre & McKitrick, which discredited the Mann et al. “shtick”.
Read all about it in Andrew Montford’s book.
Max
.
Found in the weekly Friday afternoon news dump by the Obama administration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-xl-pipeline-will-not-have-huge-impact-on-climate-draft-analysis-says/2013/03/01/715491b0-82a5-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html
This is not an approval of the pipeline. It is not a recommendation in favor of the pipeline. But it is a failure to support blocking the building of the pipeline. Which is why it was released when it was likely to get the least attention.
GaryM | March 3, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
And yet, it is carried in WaPo under no less than three bylines, has garnered among those bylines a huge number of comments, and is being re-run in countless places, many of those flooded with commentary.
This is not the conspiracy you make it out to be.
Is there not a single progressive anywhere who actually knows what a conspiracy is? Claiming the White House dumps info on a Friday to limit news coverage is not a claim if conspiracy. Nor is the fact that the Washington Post reports on it even relevant to the issue.
Friday dumps have been common by all presidents, since the advent of the 24 hour news cycle. The point is not that no one will report it. The point is that people are paying a lot less attention to news on Saturday and Sunday than they do during the week.
Why doesn’t at least one of you actually look up the word?
GaryM, I’d say not.
So.. the wild misrepresentations of blog commenters on Sundays.. what cycle are they part of?
Some facts about carbon dioxide and global warming.
The amoumt of heat that a gas (or any solid or liquid) can absorb for a 1.0C rise in temperature is called specific heat or heat capacity. Here are some figures for atnospheric gases:
Nitrogen (70% of atmosphere) 29.12
Oxygen (20% of atmosphere) 29.37
Carbon dioxide (less than 1% ) 36.62
These are molar heat capacities at the standard temperature of 25 degrees C.. You can see from this table that the atmosphere’s heat capacity is dominated by nitrogen and oxygen because of quantity. Yet CO2 is the culprit. Why?. Because CO2 has vibration modes at critical temperatures, not 25C, but higher and lower. These vibration modes can absorb heat energy like a sponge absorbs water. Classical thermodynamics does not deal well with these vibration modes, but quantum thermodynamics can and does and should be used by scientists to construct models and explain AGW. One thing we learn is that CO2 can just as easily lose heat as squeezing a sponge loses water and that is most likely what happened in 1940 which the IPCC ignored.
Why is there so little discussion of the heat capacity of atmospheric gases despite its obvious importance? I believe part of the answer is that theoretical physicists find it difficult to explain the degrees of freedom of molecules with more than two atoms (like CO2). But surely this is no impediment to experimental physicists? In the end only experiment can deternine whether a vubrational mode is excited or not..
Heat capacity is irrelevant.
Craig, so,”Heat capacity is irrelevant”
So why don’t you freeze instantly at sunset?
64 comments and threading is already blown.
Hey Fanny,
Thanks for tagging yourself with that silly dangle at the end of your Gorebotisms. Makes you easy to ignore and makes me want to sing:
She had them Apple Bottom Jeans [Jeans]
Boots with the fur [With the fur]
Here is why cAGW web sites are not part of the Bloggies science category, how many of the cAGW site would even allow a comment on Mike Mann’s latest truthiness (science censorship, will cause no one to visit their sites) ??
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/
There is an interesting article by Professor Richard Tol on global climate negotiations.
see the full article and interesting chart here: http://www.voxeu.org/article/global-climate-talks-if-17th-you-don-t-succeed
There is virtually no chance of success and we are spending $100 million per year on the negotiations!. That’s not the money spent on climate research and policies – that amounts to $100 billion so far. And all the time, rational polices are blocked.
Why have we persisted for 20 years pushing for policies and international agreements that rationalists knew would fail from the start?
Peter’s maths is as good as his science:
$100million per year
20 years
= $100 billion.
Craig, Peter’s maths is far better than your reading comprehension. Try again.
LOL … Why, that’s almost 2¢ per year, per global inhabitant! Outrageous! Why, that’s more than fifteen minutes of global carbon-energy costs, out of a whole year!
Peter Lang, it appears that neither you nor Richard Tol have a solid understanding of how tiny the UN budget is, eh?
Not much left after the army of bureaucrats get paid
according ter the life ter which they have become
accustomed, oh … and “entitled,” hey, fan?
fan’s comment should be printed up on voter education cards and handed out to voters at every election for the next 20 years. $100 million per year is nothing, as long as it’s other people’s money.
And they wonder why we don’t want them running the energy economy too.
fan,
Now you think that contributions to the UN are on a per capita, global basis?
I just posted a comment and there are four comments that were posted hours earlier below mine on the thread.Why are the comments being posted out of order already? What causes this to happen?
Those are orphaned comments. They are comments which belong to nesting trees that no longer exist. When a comment gets deleted, any comment made in response to it still labeled as belonging to its tree. Since that tree doesn’t exist, the server doesn’t know where to place them.
Such comments are known as “out-of-their-tree” comments, often with good reason.
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for that explanation.
Faustino, that’s too wordy for my tastes. I’ll always prefer “orphaned comments.”
Glad to Peter Lang. I had the same question the first time I saw it happen.
Wow, I’m slow. I just got the joke you made Faustino.
Some of us chirp joyously on the twigs.
============
Murphy’s Law?
manacker
I’d be surprised and delighted in equal measure. But until I knew more about the mechanisms, I’d be wary of claiming to be on the right side of anything.
BBD
To YOUR question to me regarding being on “the wrong side of history” if it started warming again over an extended period, I gave you a straight answer.
To my question to you regarding being on “the wrong side of history” if it continues not to warm over an extended period, you gave me a bit of a waffle:
Is it YES or is it NO?
Or do you stay with your waffle?
Max
It’s a qualified no, Max.
In the unlikely event that there is any actual *cooling* as opposed to another few years of relatively flat trend – it would need to be explained. The only two mechanisms that seem plausible are aerosol negative forcing and/or mixing into the deep ocean (which may be seen as part of natural quasi-periodic ocean circulation eg AMO; PDO etc).
In either case, the offsetting of tropospheric warming is going to be temporary, so by accepting (as opposed to denying) the standard scientific position on AGW I would be assuring myself a place on the right side of history, as you put it.
If you are fortunate to live for another three or more decades, I hope you recall this conversation and consider your own orientation vis a vis history ;-)
BBD
OK. I got it.
Even if, despite unabated human GHG emissions continuing for several decades, CO2 concentrations reaching ever higher record levels and no further global warming (of the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface and tropospheric temperature anomalies”), you would still say “NO” (qualified) to the suggestion that your stand today (that CAGW presents a potential threat to humanity) was “on the wrong side of history”.
Thanks for clarifying this.
It is clear that you are a firm believer in a dogma, and you are not going to change your belief in this dogma just because of the empirical evidence out there falsifies it.
Max
BBD
Here is an example of a closed mind:
Duh!
The most logical explanation is simply that the models have grossly overestimated the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity and underestimated the impact of natural forcing and variability.
But, since this has become dogma in your mind, you are unable to even see this most logical explanation, which lies “outside the box” of your paradigm.
See?
Max
To argue this successfully you’d have to deny *all the paleoclimate evidence* which corroborates modelled estimates of ECS. Oh, wait… you do! Every time!
No ’empirical evidence’ out there falsifies ECS estimates in the range 2.5C – 3C. That’s both dogmatic, and false.
Silly Max.
There has been a new development on two issues dear to the heart of many: Michael Mann and conspiracy theories. If you look at the latest post on Michael Mann’s Facebook page, you’ll see him repeatedly claim Steve McIntyre is saying there’s a conspiracy in his latest post. Both Dana Nuccitelli and John Cook commented in support of it, and both have also tweeted it. John Cook even said:
Remembering John Cook, proprietor of Skeptical Science, has claimed this post of McIntyre’s shows the same conspiracy ideation he (and co-author Stephan Lewandowsky) have been seeing in skeptics all along, consider this:
Steve McIntyre’s post didn’t discuss anything resembling a conspiracy theory. He said Michael Mann did things. He referred to the IPCC and AGU in the post, but he did not say they had any involvement with what Mann did. In fact, the only person (or group) he referred to as having done anything other than Michael Mann was Naomi Oreskes, who he says “appears to have [been] wrongfooted.”
McIntyre blamed everything on Mann. Mann responded by saying McIntyre “chose to invent an entire conspiracy theory involving not just [Mann], but multiple scientists, the AGU, IPCC, etc.” Skeptical Science founder (and another member of its team) supported this, saying it is the same conspiratorial ideation they have been seeing in skeptics all along.
If that post is an example of what they’ve been seeing all along…
Brandon Shollenberger,
Claiming “conspiracy” is no different from claiming funding by big oil, belief in creationism, being conservative in general. It’s so much easier to look for reasons not to respond to an argument, than to respond on the merits.
If you took away their straw men, the CAGW acolytes might have to actually engage the arguments of skeptics and luke-warmers (like McIntyre). Since they aren’t allowed to even think about heretical arguments, that scares them silly. How do you argue against something you don’t even understand?
GaryM:
True. So true. It’s amazing how often disagreements continue because one or more side refuses to even consider what the other says.
Breaking News Brandon Shollenberger, writing on WUWT has:
• Congratulated Michael Mann on his election to AGU Fellow, and
• Provided a thoughtful link to Mann’s recent research, and
• Initiated a rational discussion of climate-change science.
No wait … actually Brandon Shollenberger’s WUWT essay accomplishes none of these things!
Hmmm … perhaps thoughtful, respectful, rational discussions of climate-change science aren’t the main goals of Brandon Shollenberger and/or WUWT?
The world wonders!
What’s with the Piltdown Mann saying anything? Big, fundamental error in the communication of climate science. Patinated, too.
===================
Well, well. I see that Brandon has added a “Mommy, mommy, they do it tooooou” WUWT post to his resume.
Impressive. I usually see that limited to comments. It isn’t the first time that I’ve seen an entire post dedicated to Mommymommyism – but I must say it is a particularly striking example of the phenomenon – and indeed, worthy of a WUWT guest post.
Joshua, you sound as ridiculous as Mann did. There isn’t anything remotely resembling your description in my post.
LOL … there’s nothing in your WUWT post that remotely resembles a thoughtful, respectful, rational discussion of climate-change science either, is there Brandon?
The contrast between your WUWT post and Michael Mann’s AGU Fellowship lecture — which was a model of clarity, eh? — is quite striking, don’t you agree?
Fanny
Mann’s recent behavior reminds me of Nixon’s “I am not a crook” phase during Watergate.
Max
How about, “I did not have sexual relations with that hockey stick” ;-)
Josh,
The more you do this, the more one has to wonder if you were a bottle baby.
If one wants to engage in a rational, intelligent discussion about climate, then distancing one’s self from people like Cook, Nuccitelli, Lewandowski and Mann, is a must requirement. Only one of them is actually involved in climate science and he’s busy telling stories about his heroics on the front line. Bravely battling from the trenches. Standing up to cyber bullies conspiring against him. The target of a well organized, well financed campaign by Big Oil to shut him up.
Until you can acknowledge that, you are only a sideshow distraction.
A fan of *MORE* discourse says:
The thing is, I have attempted to have a “thoughtful, respectful, rational discussion of climate-change science” many times. In fact, the last post of mine on WUWT that was a detailed discussion of science Michael Mann got wrong (both in his book and journal publications).* Nobody attempted to rebut anything it said. In fact, it was completely ignored by basically everyone who supports Mann.
The same pattern can be found time and time again on blogs when I’ve attempted to have reasonable discussions of climate science issues, and the other side has basically run away (I can provide examples if necessary). It’s a wonderful trap.
Do the “right” thing, and you get ignored. Don’t do the “right” thing, and you get mocked. If you respond to the mockery by doing the right thing (in my case, yet again), you’ll just get ignored again. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
*The post was originally written as a .pdf file. Much formatting was lost due to it being posted as a blog post. If desired, I can find the link to the original file so it’ easier to read.
LOL … Brandon, did’ja ever think that maybe … just maybe … that’s because WUWT notoriously abuses, selectively censors, and unilaterally “outs” dissident points-of-view?
So what other outcome did you expect from posting on WUWT … or want, eh Brandon?
Brandon Shollenberger,
It is not an accident that you got no responses to a reasoned discussion of climate science from a skeptical perspective. The reason “appeals to authority” are so effective among CAGWers is that they have been trained since pre-school to follow the herd.
That is why they react so viciously against one of their tribe who speaks heresy, ala Dr. Curry or Steve McIntyre. Most who attempt some degree of independent thought don’t last long outside the warm embrace of the progressive thought police. Keith Kloor comes to mind as an example of an apostate who finally “saw the [progressive] light”on climate again.
Show me a CAGWer who can accurately and fairly state skeptical arguments, let alone respond to them, and I’ll show you a figment of your imagination.
Progressives simply cannot engage in fair debate with those with whom they disagree. They have been taught that everyone who disagrees with them is stupid, or evil, or probably both. And they believe it.
It was hilarious to me when the attorneys who argued for Obamacare appeared before the Supreme Court. These were unquestionably highly intelligent attorneys who had access to the briefs filed by those who opposed the insurance mandate. But they were humiliated at being unable to answer some of the simplest questions regarding the arguments raised by their opponents.
Critical analysis is anathema to the left.
Well, this is interesting. A fan of *MORE* discourse says:
I’ve rarely posted on WUWT. Most of my attempts to have discussions of climate science issues have been in places that wouldn’t censor those who disagree with me. That includes sites like this one, Collide-a-Scape and Bart Vegheggan’s (sp?). It has even included sites where the only person at risk of being censored was me, such as Arthur Shumway’s and Chris Colose’s.
In fact, Chris Colose selectively edited comments of mine in order to paint me as a fool and avoid discussing the points I raised. He denies this, but I have the original comments and a link to what he posted so anyone can check (which at least one person has).
Arthur Shumway wasn’t as bad, but he repeatedly misrepresented and dodged points. He then had the audacity to later come to this very site and claim nobody was willing to provide support for the very points I provided support for on his site. In other words, he completely misrepresented the people who disagree with him.
I’m not trying to “name names,” but my point requires examples. The simple reality is there is nobody who disagrees with me on the climate science points I’d raise who is willing to have a reasonable discussion with me. I have tried for years to find someone who would.
And A fan of *MORE* discourse blames me, not the people who run away.
Joshua,
You do seem to forget this other gem:
> Update: This blog post contains mistakes because of a programming error. The mistakes will be addressed as soon as I am capable of doing so, but in the meantime, I direct anyone who hasn’t been following the comments section to read this comment. My apologies – Brandon Shollenberger
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/its-fancy-sort-of/
“This comment” refers to the one which starts with this:
> And this is why I shouldn’t program while lacking sleep.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/its-fancy-sort-of/#comment-95519
My favorite bit of this was:
> This makes one thing clear: I was right. From the very start, I was right. […] So again, I was right.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/its-fancy-sort-of/#comment-95549
The emphasis is not mine.
There are four other occurences of “I was right” in that thread.
Willard
You dig back into to archives to slam Brandon for conceding and correcting a prior error.
Wow!
I personally think it’s great when someone concedes and corrects earlier errors. It’s called “keeping an open mind”.
Too bad the IPCC forced consensus process doesn’t allow this type of “out of the box” thinking, isn’t it?
Dogma versus science, it appears.
Max
MiniMax,
Thank you for the kind words.
Recanting Mann’s stories is OK.
Quoting when Brandon says “I was right” three times is not.
Please tell me why.
Hey, thanks for reminding me of that post willard. The update at the end of the page said I’d collect the material from the comments section into a single, simple explanation and update the post to include a link to it. I totally forgot to do that. Oops!
Anyway, I have no idea why that post of mine is relevant. There isn’t any mommy-whatever in it. All it really shows is I found a problem with some work Tamino did, but I made a bone-headed mistake in the process. When that mistake was pointed out to me, I fixed it and examined the results. At first, I thought the mistake invalidated my post, and I said so.
A little while later, I looked into things further and found my original point was correct despite the mistake I made. Naturally, I pointed that out. And yes, I emphasized the fact a bit. So sue me. I felt really stupid for my mistake, and I felt really happy to see it didn’t actually invalidate my point.
I have no idea why we’d discuss that post here, but since you brought it up, I’m happy for people to examine it. They’ll see I’m human and make mistakes. They’ll also see I take responsibility for those mistakes. And they’ll see that despite making mistakes, I’m pretty good at what I do.
The idea that that post is some mommy-whatever is nonsense, but hey, free publicity!
manacker:
Heck, I didn’t even just correct the error. I apologized for it,* and I stated the effect the error had on my results. It was only later, after I spent a while thinking I had been in error, that I was surprised to realize the error didn’t change my conclusion. I showed both a willingness for self-doubt (open-mindedness), and my ability to spot errors was sound.
About the only thing I can see criticizing me for in that post was writing style. I can’t help but read my post acknowledging my mistake as overwrought. I wish I could fix that.
Always a pleasure, Chewbacca.
Please rest assured that I was not citing an example of a tu quoque, simply an instance that I believe was more “impressive”, as Joshua put it.
Were I to promote (in a technical sense, as auditors would put it) your post at Tony’s, I’d rather point the obvious Bad Association trick near the end:
> That’s right, the founder of Skeptical Science, a man who works with people like Stephan Lewandowsky to claim skeptics are conspiracy nuts, promotes this as an example of their conspiratorial ideation.
The tu quoque is obvious, by the way.
As BartR might say, read harder.
Willard
You missed the point.
Brandon conceded that he had made an error. He corrected the error.
Mann is still trying to sell his thoroughly discredited and long dead “shtick”.
Big difference.
Science versus “normative science”?
Or simply: Science versus “dogma”?
You choose (I already have).
Max
> You missed the point.
No, I ignored it, since it shows you have not read Chewbacca’s post and now his latest comment.
And this point, even if it were valid, is irrelevant to my question.
And my question is: how does recalling Chewbacca’s post different from recalling Mike’s tricks?
Please tell us more about your special pleading, dear MiniMax.
willard claims he wasn’t “citing an example of a tu quoque, but instead was just citing an instance that is more “impressive,” as Joshua put it. But what did Joshua say was impressive? The supposed mommymommyism of my post. So willard was giving an example similar to Joshua’s that wasn’t similar to Joshua’s. Or so he says.
Oh well. What kind of reading skills can you expect from him? He provides a quote from me saying it’s an example of mommymommyism. In the quote, I say John Cook gave a false example. That isn’t anything close to saying Cook behaves the same way as those he criticizes.
Total fabrications are fitting for people responding to my criticisms of Mann completely fabricating things.
Like digging back in the archives and watching The Paleface or Duck Soup.
Chewie’s past performance is funny, too.
Along those lines, there is this skeptic site:
http://cosy.com/Science/TemperatureOfGrayBalls.htm
which has the following disclaimer:
I don’t know what is more absurd, the title of the site or the disclaimer.
I thought the “impressive” applied to the resume, Chewbacca.
Sorry about that.
***
> He provides a quote from me saying it’s an example of mommymommyism.
No, I provide a quote of a Bad Association.
The tu quoque lies elsewhere, Chewbacca.
Keep reading harder.
. willard, assigning homework to others…
I don’t think that counts as homework. Short of mind-reading, I don’t see any way someone could figure out what willard meant. After all, he isn’t doing anything to help. He just says it is “obvious.”
Of course, he then says to “read harder.” I’m not sure how that makes sense. Why should someone have to read harder to see the obvious?
Then again, this is willard we’re talking about.
Let me see if I can help you Brandon
“Tu quoque” is the fallacy of hypocrisy. Wikipedia gives a fine example
Person 1: It should be illegal to make clothing out of animals.
Person 2: But, you are wearing a leather jacket.
That is, the argument that Person 1 makes is dismissed because Person 1 doesnt practice what he preaches. And of course it’s a fallacy of the ad hom form.
Lets, start by schematizing a different form of argument
Person 1: It should be illegal to make clothing out of animals.
Person 2: Really, consider the case of eskimos. Their lifestyle depends on wearing clothing made from animals. The rights of people are more important than the rights of animals.
Person 2; by the way, you are wearing a leather jacket hypocrit
Now, what do we make of this? Person 2 has made a cogent response to the argument that Person 1 made and he adds in a personal dig.What does that dig do? Well that dig undermines moral authority of the speaker. That dig says to people, this is guy is not only wrong, he’s evil. No fallacy there.
Person 1: C02 doesnt cause warming
Person 2: Yes C02 does cause warming, look at this physics, look at that data.
Person 2: By the way, are you a climate scientist?
Is this an appeal to authority. Hardly. It directs person 1 to self examination. much the same way the first example operates and it lets people know why person 1 got things wrong. person 1 is wrong and too dumb to unfool himself.
So, I look at your argument against Mann
Did you simply and clearly say
1 Mann accuses Mcintyre of Conspiratorial ideation
2. That claim is bunk because mann is the conspiracy nut.
I dont think so. I think a charitable reading of your piece is more like
1. Mann accuses Mcintyre of Conspiracy thinking.
2. Mcintyre didnt engage in conspiracy thinking because McIntyre only talked about what Mann did and he didnt mention the AGU or the IPCC or multiple scientists.
Now thats not the best defense of Mc. but it does count as an attack on the argument as opposed to an attack on Manns character.
However, if I was uncharitable, I would only focus on those parts where you do make Manns character an issue. If I’m really charitable, I’m going to assume you meant to explain why Mann gets his argument wrong. In short, I assume that you are arguing two things: 1) manns argument is factually wrong and 2) Mann gets things factually wrong because he is deluded. No fallacy there.
The only way I can read your work as using a logical fallacy is if I ignore a big portion of it. I have to work to put the worst interpretation on your words. I must be selective and uncharitable. I must have no honor to do this.
Cook as well gets things factually wrong.
he implies that Mcintrye is the chief orginator of conspiracy theories.
This relies on a poorly constructed and factually wrong table in the paper he cites ( table 3 ). For example they cite McIntyre as the orginator of the multiple IP theory, however in the very text they point to, Mcintyre makes it clear that the idea originated at Lucia’s.
They also get the facts wrong on the multiple versions of the survey first. Mcintyre is not the originator of that either. Lucia asked if there were different questions and Steve responds factually that there are three different IDs on the surveys. I have no theory why they get these facts wrong.
But more importantly, neither Cook nor Mann established the case using the criteria that we should probably use to identify conspiritorial ideation
NI=nefarious intent;
NS=nihilistic skepticism;
PV=persecuted victim;
MbW=must be wrong;
NoA=no accident;
SS=self sealing;
UCT=unreflexive counterfactual thinking.
They simply didnt make the case. I have no theory why they did not make the case using the very tools they developed. They are good tools. They allow for a fair reading of things.
Mosher, I suppose I can sort of see what you’re getting at. If one uses a completely unreasonable interpretation, they can come up with a logical fallacy in my post. I hadn’t thought to look through my post while intentionally avoiding obvious interpretations. That said, I don’t see how what you describe would be a tu quoque. All I see is an ad hominem.
And for the record, I didn’t say Mann is delusional. I said he says things “that make him appear delusional.” There are at least two other reasons he might say things like that: Stupidity and dishonesty. If I didn’t even say Mann is delusional, it’s difficult to see how I could have used an argument in the form, “Mann is delusional, therefore he’s wrong.”
> Then again, this is willard we’re talking about.
In Chewbacca’s dreams, perhaps.
We’re talking about Chewbacca’s impressive resume, which includes many tricks, and the latest tu quoque Joshua underlined.
Here’s a hint, with our emphasis:
> Thus starts the latest crazy posting in the climate blog world, unsurprisingly written by Michael Mann. Snickers abound when Mann talks about “credibility,” but no words exist for the reaction this post should garner.
***
But speaking of conspirational thinking, perhaps Chewbacca could tell us what the Auditor means when he says:
> Mann would be well aware of the effect of 2012 data on this graphic and chose not to use it. End of story.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/#comment-402437
with our emphasis, and also, again with our emphasis:
> If the observations had gone the other way, there is no way that Mann wouldn’t have incorporated the data into his talk. And “Just a talk”. The talk was Mann’s acceptance of his AGU fellowship. Of course, an organization and a “community” unoffended by Gleick’s fraud will obviously not care.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/#comment-402424
The Auditor says time and time again that he tries to be careful not to impugn motives to anyone and to any group.
***
Let also be noted that the post mentions Pierrehumbert, for whom our Auditor found a nice nickname a few years ago, and now “Wingman Naomi”.
Chewie has a style reminiscent of Somerby of The Daily Howler.
“Snickers abound” reminds me of the passive sarcastic style of the howler. Nothing new here.
An update:
> Update: As reader DGH observed in a comment below, Mann’s presentation at Rutgers also employed Mann’s AGU Trick to hide the divergence between Hansen Scenario B and observed temperature, not showing data after 2005. As noted above, not using up-to-date data in virtually identical circumstances was characterized by Pierrehumbert as “ugly” and “illegitimate”:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick
The notion of virtual identity deserves due diligence.
Now, why would the Auditor mention Pierrehumbert if Mann alone was his sole target?
I prefer ‘Raymond T. Pierrehumbert’. It sounds so robust.
=================
Crickets.
For memory’s sake, here was the Auditor’s line:
> All in all, it’s a French farce with the Chevalier often acting more like Inspector Clouseau than Hercule Poirot.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/7731143731
Classic.
They just don’t make any sense, do they Brandon?
Brandon,
When we are looking at Dr Mann, John Cook and Scooter Nuccitelli, we are seeing three of a kind. All Jokers, mind you, but I recall there being some games which allow you to use Jokers. Add Lewandowski and we are a card short of a full house.
I don’t get it. Why would anyone of right mind want to associate themselves with Lewandowski after his conspiracy “paper”?
timg56, I think it mostly comes down to John Cook. John Cook worked with Michael Mann at least as early as Mann’s book being published. Cook corresponded with Mann in a discussion of a campaign to get members of the Skeptical Science forum to publish positive reviews on the Amazon website. Cook even offered to give out free copies of Mann’s book early so people could have their reviews ready to go. Quick side note, Amazon requires reviewers declare if they were given a free copy so readers are aware. None of the people involved did.
John Cook is also the one who encouraged, promoted and eventually co-authored Stephan Lewandowski’s work. Since he is the founder of Skeptical Science, this causes people like Dana Nuccitelli to become associated with Lewandowski. In effect, anyone who is part of the Skeptical Science team is now associated with both Mann and Lewandowski, even if they would rather not be.
The only way to avoid such associations is to back away from Skeptical Science. I imagine that’s too great a cost for some people.
If I were a progressive (shudder), I would be embarrassed by Skeptical Science. Imagine following a blog that doesn’t have the courage to address what its opponents actually say. It’s the MSNBC of climate blogs.
Seriously, if skeptical arguments were really so easily rebutted, what is the need for building one straw man after another? I have no difficulty stating progressive arguments on any number of topics, then stating why I disagree. You just cut and paste a quote, in context, and say what you think is wrong with it.
There are certainly some skeptics who use straw man arguments, and their arguments are just as weak. But I can’t think of a single CAGWer who uses anything else. So maybe SS isn’t so bad after all, from their perspective.
Brandon,
John Cook may well be the hub, but all of these guys are damaged goods as far as I am concerned.
timg56, I agree. I just wonder how far that judgment should extend to. For example, does John Cook supporting Michael Mann’s insane claim mean Skeptical Science is tarnished? Yes. What about the people who are on the Skeptical Science team? I think so. What about the people who write guest posts for it or cite it? I don’t know.
Similarly, while I think Lewandowsky’s papers are garbage, should he be tarnished with Mann’s nonsense just because a co-author promoted it? I don’t know.
Speaking of which, I sent Lewandowsky an e-mail drawing this issue to his attention. I’m hoping he’ll agree Mann was wrong and ask John Cook to retract his support. That would show this isn’t completely “partisan,” and there are at least some grounds of agreement.
(I’d send a similar e-mail to Cook in the hope he’d recognize his mistake, but I don’t know his e-mail address.)
“Conspiracy theorist” is the new “tobacco lobbyist,” was the new “big oil funded,” was the new “climate denier,” was the new “creationist,” was the new “anti-science conservative,” was the new “listens to Rush Limbaugh,” was the new…. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
What else can you do when you don’t understand your opponents arguments, and have been trained since birth not to think for yourself? Follow the herd. “Conspiracy” is just the latest buzz word to provide cover for low information progressives.
It’s wonderful, really; I can have all the glory of being a conspirator without ever having to do any of the heavy breathing.
============
LOL … no GaryM, the latest buzz word is “RICO”.
The contrast between Big Carbon’s weaseling and Michael Mann scientific lecturing is utterly astounding, eh GaryM?
We should all chip in and buy fan some new crayons. His red and blue must be worn down to a nub by now.
Gary M
That’s the only part of Fanny’s posts that are worthwhile.
He/she gets the facts wrong every time, but the smileys are great.
Max
Six munts ago Ah cudnt even spel corn-spirit-er, an now Ah are won!
Always did lahk them corn-spirits.
Even make mah own (an never paid a cent of car-bone tax ta them revenooers neether).
Chewbacca’s pet theory have been discussed at John’s:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1898#comments
Please notice Tom Curtis’ comments, which I find potent, as always.
You’ve got to hand it to Lewandowsky.
He has quite possibly invented a recursively self-sustaining research paradigm.
Brilliant.
Don’t expect any AGW True Believers of the Left to ever say–e.g., Thank you industrial man for helping humanity avert the Malthusian catastrophe that had all the commies swooning.
Manacker,
You posted a clear, well explained comment on the previous thread here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/24/open-thread-weekend-9/#comment-299635
I asked some questions about it, but I suspect you may not have seen my comment. I’ll re-post it here. I am very interested to try to get a better handle on these.
“Manacker,
I would like to ask some questions of you and anyone else who can contribute knowledgeably.
1. Why is your projection of 1C warming so much lower that IPCC AR4 projection of 3C to 4C warming for the same CO2 concentration by 2100 (640 ppm)?. Is all that difference due to reducing the 2xCO2 ECS from 3C to 2C?
2. You said: “At the latest observation-based estimates of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity …”. Is this “latest” ECS figure generally accepted? If not, why not?
3. What is the most recent consensus of climate experts on climate sensitivity? What is going on in the backrooms of AR5 and among the scientists who are influential on climate senstitivity? (By the way, I have read the sections on climate sensitivity in the leaked AR5 – it seems the words are little changed from AR4).
Peter Lang
Let me address your questions (which I missed on the other thread):
1. Why is your projection of 1C warming so much lower that IPCC AR4 projection of 3C to 4C warming for the same CO2 concentration by 2100 (640 ppm)?. Is all that difference due to reducing the 2xCO2 ECS from 3C to 2C?
IPCC AR4 projects warming by 2100 of
0.6C for the case with “constant Year 2000 GHG concentrations”
between 1.8C and 2.4C for the three cases with CO2 between 580 and 630 ppmv
between 2.8C and 4.0C for the cases with CO2 between 700 and 850 ppmv
These are based on the mean model-predicted 2xCO2 ECS estimate of 3.2C
I have calculated the theoretical GH warming from CO2 increasing to 640 ppmv (similar to the first three IPCC cases) at around 1C. But I used the latest observation-based estimate for 2xCO2 ECS of 1.5C (or around half of the model-based estimate used by IPCC (so logically I get around half the warming).
Also (a minor point) I start the warming with 2012, while IPCC starts with the average from 1980 to 1999, which is around 0.2C lower (so the IPCC estimate should be higher by this amount)
The higher IPCC cases are based on higher CO2 concentrations as well as the higher 2xCO2 ECS estimate.
2. You said: “At the latest observation-based estimates of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity …”. Is this “latest” ECS figure generally accepted? If not, why not?
Judith Curry ran a post on this a few months back. IPCC has apparently not yet made a decision on whether to accept these new lower estimates. As Dr. Curry stated, they have a bit of a dilemma here: if they “sweep this new information under the rug”, they lose credibility; if they accept it, the “C” is removed from their CAGW premise as outlined in AR4. Based on their past performance, I personally fear that IPCC will try to tough it out and take the chance on losing credibility in order to keep the fear factor alive.
3. What is the most recent consensus of climate experts on climate sensitivity? What is going on in the backrooms of AR5 and among the scientists who are influential on climate senstitivity? (By the way, I have read the sections on climate sensitivity in the leaked AR5 – it seems the words are little changed from AR4).
I cannot answer these questions (guess it depends on whom you ask). I do not believe that IPCC has addressed this dilemma yet. They will have to, however, by the time AR5 gets published.
Hope this answers your questions.
Max
Manacker,
Thanks you for these responses.
I’d like to hear what others have to contribute on this (constructively, of course).
By the way, The Australian Climate Institute, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) and the MSM have gone berserk today and tonight telling us that this summer has broken hundreds of records and it’s definitely severe climate change and definitely man-made. Australian Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery has just said on ABC that there is a 500:1 chance that these events are not due to man made climate change. Tim Flannery is the guy who told us a couple of years ago that the dams would never fill again. That was before the drought broke.
Points to note:
1. Australia is in an election campaign
2. The ABC is a government funded news service like the BBC. But the ABC is far more left biased than the BBC.
2. The Climate Institute was set up and funded by the current Labor government, before Copenhagen, to give the government ‘independent, objective’ advice on climate science. Its comprised of Australia’s extremist climate change activists.
Regarding climate sensitivity, I found this article and the comments interesting: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/1/12/lewis-on-schmidt-on-climate-sensitivity.html?currentPage=2#comments. I get the impression that these guys may be digging into a problem of statistical methods like Steve McIntyre did with Mann’s hockey stick.
The comments by Nic Lewis and Jonathan Jones are especially interesting. Here is one by Jonathan Jones copied in full (I hope that is acceptable).
Peter Lang
Regarding the latest estimates of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity at equilibrium, there have been a few studies. Here (for what it’s worth) is my take on all this:
Schlesinger et al (2012) estimate it at 1.45C to 2.01C, based on several past temperature records
Nic Lewis (2012 article, study not yet published) estimates it at 1.6C to 1.7C also using the past temperature record
van Hateren (2012) estimates 1.5C to 2.5C using reconstructed record of past millennium plus actual past record
Schmittner (2011) calculates 1.4°C to 2.8°C, using reconstructions of Last Glacial Maximum
Lindzen & Choi (2011) calculate it at around 0.6°C to 1.0°C, using CERES satellite data..
The average range of these recent studies is 1.3°C to 2.0°C, or about half of earlier model-based predictions cited by IPCC.
Since three out of five of these studies are based on actual physical data for the temperature and CO2 record (plus estimates for the natural forcing), they have higher credibility (in my mind, as a rational skeptic) than the model predictions cited by IPCC in AR4, which are only as good as the assumed inputs.
I would see the largest source of error in the IPCC approach in the handling of cloud feedbacks. While conceding that clouds represent “the largest source of uncertainty”, these are estimated by IPCC to be strongly positive, increasing the 2xCO2 ECS from 1.9°C to 3.2°C (AR4 WGI Ch.8, p.633). More recent studies (Spencer & Braswell 2007) show that net overall cloud feedback with warming is observed to be negative rather than strongly positive. Model studies using superparameterization to better capture the behavior of clouds (Wyant et al. 2007) also confirm a net negative cloud feedback with warming. This correction, alone, would put the ECS at around 1.5°C.
A second source of error in the IPCC approach is its assumption that water vapor increases with warming to essentially maintain constant relative humidity. Satellite observations over the tropics (Minschwaner & Dessler 2005) show that water vapor rises but by less than half the amount resulting from maintaining constant RH, so that the IPCC model-derived estimate of water vapor feedback is exaggerated. In addition, the long-term NOAA observations (since 1948) from radiosondes and satellites show a reduction of tropospheric RH with warming. This correction would reduce ECS by around 0.5°C
There was, of course, also the 2006 study by Forster et al., also based on ERBE satellite observations, which suggested an ECS range of 1.0°C-4.1°C, which was cited by IPCC and shown at the lower end of the many model estimates.
All in all, I’d say (as a rational skeptic) that the evidence points to a climate sensitivity of around half that previously estimated by the IPCC climate models in AR4, or around 1.5°C for 2xCO2.
Will IPCC acknowledge all these new data and revise its 2xCO2 ECS estimate accordingly in its new AR5 report?
Or will it “hang tough” with a high ECS in order to maintain the fear factor?
Who knows?
What do you think?
Max
Manacker,
Thank you very much for this. I have been following it to about this level. I don’t try to get into the analyses. I just try to work out what is most likely given all the biases involved. You ask: “What do you think?”
1. I don’t know what the ECS is, I think it is highly uncertain and I recognise it varies depending on the starting state (eg glacial maximum, interglacial, Warmer times like Pliocene-Eocent, etc). But I think ECS for the current state of the planet is one of four extremely important parameters for deciding the most appropriate policy approach. The four very important parameters are (IMO): ECS, damage function, decarbonisation rate, and probability the proposed solution will work in the real world. Without those four parameters any attempt at a useful cost-benegfit analyses is hopeless.
2. I don’t know why we refer to the mean and median values rather than the mode. It seems to me that the mode is the most likely value in distributions which are not distribution of ECS but rather distributions of our estimates of ECS. So the distributions are really showing how little we know. On that basis, I would have thought it is the mode that should be quoted as the most likely value. Please correct me if I am wrong.
3. I would like to hear the other side of the argument. I would like to hear the rebuttals from defenders of the IPCC figures (and yes, I have read IPCC AR5, draft AR5, Nic Lewis’s previous posts on Climate Etc and Bishop Hill and some other reports, articles, posts).
4. I think the focus of research should be on improving the estimates of the four parameters I mentioned above. The research focus and funding should be in proportion to the uncertainty they contribute to the cost-benefit analyses and ‘robust analyses’ for informing policy.
5. I think most of the research funding is being wasted on research that has little or no policy relevance. I think much of the funding is being spent on research with the objective of supporting scaremongering.
5. I think it is disgraceful that after >20 years of research we have next to no understanding of the damage function and the decarbonisation rate that could be achieved practicably.
6. I think it is also disgraceful that the people who claim to be most concerned about CAGW are the ones who block economically rational policies to reduce global GHG emissions.
There’s just a few things I think, off the top of my head.
You can’t get equilibrium sensitivity from recent temperature records alone. You have to make an assumption about how much the tropical oceans will finally warm when equilibrium is reached, which is where the discrepancy comes from. These oceans warm more slowly because CO2 forcing is concentrated in other areas (land, polar areas, as seen in the data) so there is a delay in the system. What you get with the temperature record alone is more like the transient sensitivity and these figures are in line with previous estimates of that. Land areas alone are warming with a transient sensitivity in excess of 3 C per doubling based on the last 30 years and BEST data.
No, it is closer to 3C, and the evidence keeps on mounting. All the modeling pieces are interlocking and match to empirical data.
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-sensitivity-and-33c-discrepancy.html
You skeptics don’t have a chance. All you have left is an agenda.
Jim D
You state
adding
Empirical evidence from actual real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation represents the single best way to either corroborate or validate a hypothesis according to the scientific method.
Unfortunately, even here we must make assumptions on the natural forcing and variability, as these are not known. All we know for sure, from the most recent period of no warming despite continued unabated emissions of GHGs and concentrations reaching record levels, is that these are stronger than we had once assumed.
The recent observation-based estimates of 2xCO2 ECS, which I cited above, all include estimates of the natural forcing, which are very likely to be on the low side IMO (as there are very likely mechanisms that are as yet undefined, which are involved). So these estimates are likely to be on the high side.
The anticipated “warming of the tropical oceans” is a bit of a red herring. In fact, the oceans represent an extremely large thermodynamic reservoir, with a heat capacity several orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere. 1C warming of the atmosphere is equivalent to 0.0045C warming of the “upper ocean” (or 0.0007C warming of the entire ocean). So the ocean provides a very large heat buffer (or “pipeline”, if you want to call it that).
All the 2xCO2 ECS estimates, which I cited, are by definition at equilibrium, of course, so any energy hidden “in the pipeline” has been taken into consideration.
None of the 2xCO2 ECS estimates to date are perfect, of course, since none are based entirely on empirical evidence.
But the latest observation-based estimates are IMO (as a rational skeptic) better than earlier estimates based on model predictions alone.
And they show that the earlier estimates were exaggerated by a factor of around 2.
Max
I see Webby is back and up to his usual tricks. There is in fact ample evidence for a sensitivity between 1C and 2C.
1. As pointed out by Annan rather forcefully and by Nic Lewis, IPCC estimates are contaminated by the use of uniform priors which inflate the mean and the fat tail.
2. Nic Lewis recently redid an observationally based estimate using more up to date forcings and came up with 1.6C. He has discussed this at length at Real Climate and James’ Empty Blog and so far as I can see, no one has refuted his calculation. Annan also came up with the same figure for linear sensitivity based on the LGM. He has vague reasons about unspecified nonlinearities for saying this is too low, but I cannot see much detail here.
3. The final issue is the models. Most of the IPCC figures rely on models in one form or another. I have pointed out many times that these models are unreliable. They seem to miss the recent decade of temperatures rather badly as pointed out by Lucia and a host of others. There are a priori reasons to disbelieve them too.
4. In any case, it is likely that a warmer climate will be a smaller change than the change from the LGM to the Holocene optimum, which was huge at higher latitudes. Average temperature anomalies are rather meaningless in this context. Regional changes are what matters for us and GCM’s are rather poor at this.
So, Webby, and others, what is your technical response to these recent developments? No name calling and no argumentum ad hominum will count toward your score.
Web
You are missing the point with your “oil conundrum” theoretical dissertation on climate sensitivity.
We have recent estimates, which are not simply based on theoretical deliberations and beautiful mathematical equations, but (at least partly) on actual physical observations, admittedly with estimates for the more uncertain impact from natural forcing or variability.
These show that the 2xCO2 ECS is very likely around half as high as was predicted by model simulations cited by IPCC.
Max
33 C explained
1 C solid for CO2
1 C solid for H2O
1 C very likely for all the other GHGs and albedo feedbacks.
Empirical evidence shows 3C for land, no sweat.
Equivalent heat goes into the oceans heat sink, isn’t going anywhere.
As JimD says look to paleo for further corroboration.
Max is in awe of solving quadratic equation, completely out of touch with technical analysis. Will wait to see if he or FOO Young understands it.
Webby
You’re starting to talk in riddles, like the Sphynx.
Quadratic equations are cool.
Climate models are nifty.
Empirical evidence is even better.
Max
Hope I can clear things up for you.
When we have a solid theory to back up the data, it is very easy to formulate substantiating arguments. All the pieces fit together and a decent scientist can rework the principles into first-order arguments that make the concepts simpler and easier to explain. That is the brilliance of physics and what we can learn from the greats such as Feynman. I was fortunately educated by clever university physics professors who realized the effectiveness that first-order approximations can provide for further understanding. They also recommended Feynman, so they share the blame with me as I read Feynman’s lectures as an undergrad.
So when I put together this piece yesterday
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-sensitivity-and-33c-discrepancy.html
it was meant to be used as an alternate explanation to the more refined approaches that climate scientists apply in their simulations and analyses.
On the other hand, when the theory is scant, one sees a variety of counter arguments, much like those documented on Climate Etc by the relentless crankpot commenters who provide zero value and negative understanding
Max, I don’t see any kind of rebuttal to my piece. Are you scared of first-order physics and some algebra?
The climate sensitivity value is much closer to 3 degrees C than it is to 1.5 C, and it is pure cherry-picking on your part to low-ball the value. Just look at the empirical evidence:
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6980/climatesensitivity.gif
Empirical evidence and solid theory is a strong 1-2 punch.
DY
Cut and pasting your misunderstandings here I see.
No. What JA is driving at is that the fat tail is docked. Not that the central estimate is a significant over-estimate. Either you don’t understand Annan’s argument (although at least you spelled his name correctly for once) or you are deliberately misrepresenting it in furtherance of your agenda.
Out of curiosity, which is it?
manacker
Dogma!
Now start denying the entire collective body of paleoclimate evidence that demonstrates ECS to be ~2.5C or higher. If you start now, you should be done by Christmas ;-)
manacker, those who add in pipeline warming like Nic Lewis, don’t tend to include any positive feedback to it. If the warming occurs in the surface over tropical oceans, there is a lot of water vapor equilibrium adjustment that goes with it. That part of the positive feedback has a delayed response because of the ocean heat capacity and circulation.
Jim D,
You might like Nic’s response to James’ criticism regarding the reasonableness of his choice:
> I agree that would have been a useful addition to my work.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.ca/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html?showComment=1359752369736
The concept of addition might deserve due diligence.
BBD | March 5, 2013 at 9:29 am |
“Now start denying the entire collective body of paleoclimate evidence that demonstrates ECS to be ~2.5C or higher. If you start now, you should be done by Christmas ;-)”
Ok, but only if you agree to hold your breath until the 5-year mean annual temperature trend starts increasing again. According to Jimmy Hansen it’s been flat for 10 years and counting w;hich means there’s been no global warming for 15 years according to him since it takes 5 years of history to calculate the first entry in the 10 year stretch. The IPCC says that a 15-year pause is outside the 95% confidence interval for ECS of 1.5 to 4.5. So guess what, the empirical evidence TODAY is that ECS is lower than 1.5C/doubling. You’re in denial. Wake up and smell the coffee, buddy. Good thin gyou chose to be anonymous. You can just ditch the BBD handle and pretend you never got involved. Smooth move.
Springer
Or it could be volcanism, the ‘quiet sun’ and cool phase PDO/negative ENSO temporarily offsetting CO2 forcing, exactly as most scientists suspect. This does not have the slightest impact on ECS. And quite how you can make any statement about EQUILIBRIUM sensitivity to 2 x CO2 based on a short data period during which CO2 reached 394ppmv is a mystery. My guess is that you are clueless.
Now why am I on moderation?
I am following the discussion on climate sensitivity estimates here. Just ‘listening’.
Hard to find a needle in threading gone haywire … maybe if we stacked them … no … [tired and manic mode engaged]
Faustino,
That gives me an excuse to once again advocate to Judith that she dump the nesting alltogether and just let comments appear in the order they are posted.
IMO it is easier to follow the discussions as they develop. Multiple discussions can run on the same thread with no problem. It’s easier to catch up on what’s been said since a reader last visited.
BraveNewClimate started with threading. The owner, Professor Barry Brook, dumped it after a year or so. Many regulars were opposed to dumping it because they were used to it the way it was. I was one of those opposed to dumping the nesting. However, after a short while everyone thought it was much better without nesting and no one supported a return to nesting.
Example of one continuous page and no nesting:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/
(some threads have over 1000 comments)
Bishophill also has no nesting but I prefer one continuous thread with no pages
Threaded discussions has a very long successful history dating back several decades on USENET and continuing today in a great many discussion forums.
I say continue with threading, stick the offenders whose comments must be deleted in moderation, and lobby wordpress to fix the frickin’ bug.
And on a topic that’s actually relevant to Climate:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu
So BEST’s view that only volcanos and CO2 levels are sufficient to explain global temperatures has another study supporting the same conclusion.
That’s embarrassing. Cargo Cult is losing it.
Well, with the aerosol control knob we can demonize those filthy poor people and with the volcanic control knob we can sacrifice their virgins.
=================
It is your turn (again) to introduce topics for discussion.
1 ) The CO2 concentration has a correlation coefficient of 0.99 with global mean surface temperature as shown:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/normalise/offset:0.65
This means the CO2 concentration should reduce with global cooling.
2) Global cooling should result when the increasing solar activity changes to a quieter sun as in the 19th century as shown:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:1056/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/from:1895/to:1965/normalise
Girma
Thanks for your input.
I’ve just taken the observed long-term linear rate of increase as the underlying warming trend.
It’s hard for me to see if this has changed, in view of the multi-decadal oscillations (~30 warming followed by ~30 years slight cooling), with an apparent amplitude of ~2.0 to 2.5C.
How do you arrive at a higher secular trend?
Thanks for reply.
Max
Let me bring up, again, a position I espoused on the recent thread Spinning the climate model – observation comparison. The measurement of how much additonal CO2 in the atmosphere causes global temperaturse to rise.
My statement of claim is that no-one has measured how much global temperatures rise as more CO2 is added to the temperature from current levels. No-one from the warmist side has stated that this claim is incorrect. However, at the same time no-one from the warmist side has agreed that it is correct. Which concerns me.
This issue is, I beleive, vital, because of the claims of certainty and probabiltiy made by the IPCC in the SPMs to AR4. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html. This part of the AR 4 ignores the fact, if I am correct, that no actual measurements have been made on the relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temepratyures. With this omission, so far as I can see, the probabilities assigned by the IPCC are sheer scientific nonsense.
Can I request the warmist denizens on Climate Etc. to state clearly what their position is on this issue. Is my claim correct that no meaurements have been made on how much global temperatures warm as more and more CO2 is added to the atmopshere? Or if it is not correct, why is it wrong?
A new teacher was trying to make use of her psychology courses.
She started her class by saying, “Everyone who thinks you’re stupid, stand up!”
After a few seconds, Little Johnny stood up.
The teacher said, “Do you think you’re stupid, Little Johnny?”
“No, ma’am, but I hate to see you standing there all by yourself!”
http://www.svpvril.com/Jokes/Standing%20Alone42114.html
Great joke.
Sorry if a repeat, but if not there’s an astounding post (if you’ve not been paying attention) on the sick, twisted machinations of Prince Michael M. over at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/04/a-conspiracy-of-one/
Sorry if a repeat, but if not there’s an astounding post (if you’ve not been paying attention) on the sick, twisted machinations of Prince Michael M. over at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/04/a-conspiracy-of-one/
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/freep
PokerGuy, you are 100% correct that Climate Etc folks have gotten wise to (in your handy phrase) the sick, twisted machinations over at WUWT!
So thanks for the heads-up, PokerGuy!
Nesting a mess. Where’s Dr. J? The good ship Climate Etc. is taking on water…
As the key growth market within the offshore oil and gas sector and the most capital intensive area for development, the emerging trends within the deep and ultra-deepwater sector reflect the dynamic state of the industry and the level of operator optimism going forwards. … International Oil Companies (IOCs), Independents and National Oil Companies (NOCs) are all looking ahead to an increasing number of prospects within the deepwater market, in both established areas of deepwater development, and in areas previously deemed to be of marginal value.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1243061-growth-of-ultra-deepwater-oil-gas-spells-big-gains-for-oil-service-operators
Skeptical Warmist and lolwot. The Feb 2013 UAH global temperature is in ; 0.176 C.
So, lolwot, the thermageddon seems to have been cancelled.
Skepticla Warmist. My guess about SSW might have had some truth. We will need to wait for the next SSW event, and see what happens.
Anyone have insights on Scaled Range Analysis and temperatures? I’ve tried coding up what I can understand of it, and looking at graphs of GISS NH and SH and the SH looks interesting but I have no idea if I’ve coded it properly or how one might interpret graphs (as opposed to simply finding Hurst numbers).
In R, I coded:
range.rescale <- function (x, len=length (x)) { cumdev <- cumsum (x – mean (x)) (max (cumdev) – min (cumdev)) / ( len * sd (x)) }where I divide by length(x) to make it easier to compare results using different window widths. Then I plotted things like:
Resulting Graph
Resulting Graph
Which is a bit interesting since the SH appears to have an interesting event in the 1922-1951 era. Still, not sure what I might want to look at or if I am doing it correctly or not. Anyone with tips on this?
+1
Anyone?… Any tips or hints? I believe I’ve seen the technique used in some manner on Watt’s site, but haven’t found any kind of good explanation anywhere as to how one might set up such a plot (window widths, etc) and how one might interpret it (looking for indications of regime change or overcooked data).
There is a clear need for a serious and properly sober investigation into what triggered the idea in the mid to late 60s that pampered Western youths, male and female, had suddenly been granted an otherwise unprecendented insight into the corrupting of impact of their civilisation, of which they were all obvious beneficiaries, and which, left unchecked, would inevitably spark a new global catastrophe.
Then it was the imminent arrival a new Ice Age. Today, of course, precisely the opposite is claimed. Either way, it is asserted that the result will be the same: a world rendered uninhabitable, despoiled, ruined, left waste, a monument to conspicuous consumption that can be avoided only by self-flagellation on an equally epic scale.
How does anyone explain this perverse inversion of truth? You have never had it better so you immediately want to destroy precisely those elements that have made your life safer, happier, more secure and richer than at any time in humanity’s otherwise inglorious existence?
Is there an in-built mechanism that affects pampered youths that demands that the moment a society has overcome all the basic insecurities of practically the whole of human history it should be laid waste?
I can just about understand Millenarium types in the Middle Ages waiting on mountain tops for what they assumed was their inevitable, deserved destruction, victims of an implacable, cruel god. Theirs was a world that was unforgiving in every sense.
But what, in name of everything rational, leads the world’s most pampered generation to decry everything that has made their lives so desirable?
If human ingenuity knows few limits, you can only say the same about human perversity.
Time for a stiff drink.
Plus ca change . . .
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/1/1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
Max
Accelerated interpretation of the global mean temperature by the IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-1-figure-1.html
Cyclic interpretation of the global mean temperature by a skeptic:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/from:1870/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/scale:0.003/offset:-1.05/detrend:-0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1870/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/from:1870/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/from:1870/offset:-0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.000001/offset:2
Which one is realistic?
CYCLIC GMST
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:252/offset:-0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.000001/offset:2
David Springer,
@ March 5, 2013 at 10:51 am on the “Forthcoming congressional hearing” thread
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/04/forthcoming-congressional-hearing/#comment-300355
Small nuclear power plants on ships cost $1200/kW. The large land based derivatives in the developed countries cost $5000/kW. In China and Korea they cost about $1250 to $2000/kW. Why do you think there is such a large difference in the cost between nuclear power plants in developed countries, nuclear power plants in China and Korea (for basically the same design such as the AP1000 and APR1400 – BTW, only a small part is due to local labour costs) and small nuclear plants on US Navy ships?
I suggest the main reason is commercial competition is blocked by excessive regulatory restrictions (regulatory ratcheting caused a facto of eight cost increase up til 1990 and more since: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html). Such constraints apply to no other industry.
If competition was allowed, the costs of small modular nuclear reactors would come down. At a cost reduction rate of (say for example) 10% per doubling of capacity this small LWR http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/, (which is derived from navy ships) would supply electricity at the same cost as a new coal plant (Australian costs) by the time 2.5 GW is in operation world wide, half the cost when 180 GW is in operation and a quarter the cost when 1500 GW is in operation. That is assuming no real cost increase in the cost of coal generation.
However, if the many other designs could be developed and compete in a properly commercial manner, without requiring $1 billion and five to ten years for NRC approval to build even a demonstrator, the costs of nuclear power would come down even faster.
That is what competition does. The best designs win out in the market place and they keep improving. But we are blocking that progress, and have been for 50 years.
There is massive room for cost reduction of nuclear power and effectively unlimited fuel available. One indicator of this is that nuclear fuel, when used in light water reactors, is 20,000 times more energy dense than fossil fuels, and up to 2 million times more energy dense if used in breeder reactors. The room for cost reductions is far greater than with any energy source we have used to date. But progress is blocked by irrational fears.
If we really want to decarbonise, nuclear power will have to supply a major part of the world’s energy.
@Lang
re; http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
Your cost reference is from an uncritically reviewed book published 23 years ago by an emeritus professor of a non-descript university. That’s not an acceptable source. But looking at his chart of cost escalation we can see it started in 1978 and by 1982 had leveled off. Think back on what was happening during that time. Does oil embargo ring any bells? Does excessively high cost of capital in that era mean anything to you? Evidently it didn’t to emeritus whoever from wherever.
In the original thread I gave you a reference from the congressional budget office which appears to dispute your claim about the cost of shipboard nuclear power plants saying they would not be cost effective unless oil were between $140 and $323/bbl in 2011 dollars depending on the application. Presumably the lower cost is for ships that must refuel more often and have fuel delivered to them at hard to reach destinations making nuclear a much more attractive alternative. The $323/bbl I assume would be for ships whose mission parameters allow them to routinely fuel up for an entire mission at ports with civilian refueling infrastructure.
I’m less than convinced you can accurate cost accounting out of China or Korea and you provide no reference at all for it.
DS,
I’ve just seen this. It is no help whatsoever. You start off with an ad hom, don’t point to anything substantial wrong with the figures and then proceed to quote a whole pile of totally irrelevant figures.
Instead of trying to distract attention can you point to authoritative sources where proper comparisons have been done, where all figures have been prepared on a comparable basis and we have the capital costs, cost of electricity and CO2 abatement cost, CO2 emissions abated, (something like this: http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/ and this: http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf )
I might have missed it here but UAH February global temperature anomaly is out.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2013-0-18-deg-c/
It dropped like a stone from January. My condolences to all the warmists who thought they’d been given a lifeline to rescue themselves from the accursed pause.
“Steven Mosher | March 3, 2013 at 7:15 pm | Reply
Duh.Lets start with some basics.when it warms in the arctic it actually gets above the melting point of ice.”
And in the Antarctic ?????
at the the sea ice edge ???
where it is forming in winter and melting in summer???
must be -40 C I’m told or -30 C
.Re comments on the north and south pole ice extents being different creatures. Yes, but …. They can be compared.
Sea ice extent at both poles is used as one of the measurable signs of global warming. Both poles increase and decrease by large, comparable amounts. In a warming world one would demand [not expect] that both sea ice area extents and volumes and areas would decrease.
This is not happening. The antarctic ice sheets are getting larger or the fact is ignored.
The sea ice is formed and lost nearly completely each antarctic summer from sea water not glaciers running into the sea. It forms from the coldness of the oceans underneath
If the oceans were heating up basically the top layer would be ever so much slightly warmer and less ice would form at both poles
Yes, CO2 can cause global warming as one of a large number of factors.
Is the world warming significantly. On sea ice [both poles] which is a gauge of sea heat content, and air temperatures recently No.
Chaqueta de color rosa pálido, diseño rosado del dobladillo con flecos, perverso sentido de la individualidad, dulce, lindo, poniendo de relieve el temperamento damas. Diseño Flecos dobladillo, una especie de sensación de saltar, muy inteligente, fresco, oh. Con polainas blancas, botas de nieve de peluche es muy agradable, y muy delgado.