Open thread weekend

by Judith Curry

It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.

I have some spare time during the coming week to prepare some new posts, stay tuned.

723 responses to “Open thread weekend

  1. If not for what psychologist Clive Hazell calls “the narcissism of small differences… to achieve a superficial sense of one’s own uniqueness, an ersatz sense of otherness which is only a mask for an underlying uniformity and sameness,” a Climatist would simply be a weatherman.

    They of course made their play for starker differences but nature refused to cooperate. And, they could never make their case with real data. We now know that a Climatist is just a dishonest weatherman with an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a flair for histrionics.

    • Nature has given us a cold ocean (PDO) and cooling sun, and even then we have the warmest decades. This seems to be Nature showing us what we are doing by removing the excuses.

      • In the revealing 13-March-2013 Email to skeptical bloggers on the internet, self-named Mr. FOIA (the still anonymous whistleblower who released foi2009.pdf on the eve of the corrupt proceedings in Copenhagen that detailed all of the CRUgate shenanigans) said, “It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods… We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else… Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far… Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of. Over and out. Mr. FOIA”

      • PDO only switched to cold a few years ago.

        Wait until it is both the PDO and AMO negative.

        AMO is approaching negative for the winter months, but not yet the summer months.

        And thats why winters in the UK and Europe are so cold.

        http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/has-the-amo-peaked-may-oct-says-no-and-nov-apr-says-yes/

      • sushine, but the PDO cooling trend started nearly a decade ago and has probably already passed the trend max, next being a more steady cool phase that won’t impact AGW warming.

      • The Sun and PDO has failed them jim.

        They only have the AMO to cling onto now. I am greatly interested to see what happens when that doesn’t pan out for them either. I expect a sudden rush to accept manmade global warming.

      • ” but the PDO cooling trend started nearly a decade ago”

        All the temperature series are flat or negative for the last 10 years.

      • sunshine, exactly. Solar and PDO are downward yet global temperature is flat, something else must be rising to compensate.

      • “something else must be rising to compensate”

        The AMO hit bottom in 1975 and started rising and peaked in 1998 but has stayed well into the positive range since then.

        Also, clean air legislation has resulted in significantly more sunshine in the Europe and the USA starting in the mid 70s thanks to dropping SO2 emissions.

        http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/cleaner-air-more-sunshine/

        Chinese use of coal has resulted in more SO2 since about 2000.

        http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/are-we-cooling-the-planet-with-so2/

        If only the AGW/CO2 cult considered other factors.

        AGW cult is like the dumb cop who latches onto an obvious suspect (CO2) and never considers anything else while the amateur sleuth finds all sorts of overlooked clues pointing at other suspects.

        AGW = bad TV detectives.

      • sunshine, the steadily increasing use of coal in China is another negative factor. Thanks for reminding us. Now we have three (1) Solar, (2) PDO, (3) Chinese sulphates.

      • I’m glad you agree JimD that CO2 is irrelevant to changes in temperature.

        As I said, AMO + PDO + more sunshine from cleaner air caused the post 1980 warming ….

        When the AMO finally goes negative it will get bitterly cold.

      • sunshine, we are naming a list of negative-trend factors and yet seeing no negative trend. Your explanation so far is that we are awaiting some kind of AMO. Anything better?

      • But you forget that if the AMO is strong enough it can balance out the other negative trend factors. And increased sunshine in Europe and NA could be counteracted by less in Asia. etc etc

        The AGW obessession with CO2 has blinded fake scientists to the real import climate factors.

      • Sunshine hours writes:
        Maybe thats why winter Arctic Ice is doing fine and summer Arctic Ice is not doing fine.

        Open Arctic is part of a normal cycle. That is when ice is replenished on earth. It is a necessary part of the well bounded cycle. If we did not have warm ocean and open Arctic, we would not get cold and snow again. This is normal natural and fine.

      • Jim D

        Yeah.

        But Nature has started a slight cooling trend in globally and annually averaged land and sea surface and tropospheric temperature anomalies, so she is showing us pretty clearly that she is still in charge of our climate.

        Max

      • manacker, the kind of false sense of security that precedes each of the large El Ninos.

      • Jim D

        “manacker, the kind of false sense of security that precedes each of the large El Ninos.”

        Good point. I wonder what the temp records would look like if we controlled for the spurious warming created by the impact of El Ninos on the surface temp records?

      • GaryM, there are some who think that the reduced ability of the earth to cool off after large El Ninos has nothing to do with rising CO2, but they can’t explain it themselves.

      • Jim D

        there are some who think that the reduced ability of the earth to cool off after large El Ninos has nothing to do with rising CO2, but they can’t explain it themselves.

        BIGGEST El Nino on record 1997/1998:

        HadCRUT3 globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly in degrees C

        1996: 0.124.
        1997: 0.356
        1998: 0.517
        1999: 0.263
        2000: 0.239

        “Reduced ability”?

        Looks like the Earth cooled off pretty fast after that last big El Nino, Jim.

        Max

      • Jim D,

        You miss my point. there shouldn’t be any need for the Earth to cool off after an El Nino. Everything I read about the El Nino is that it is a concentration of heat in the western Pacific caused by the trade winds.

        But it does not warm the Earth. As far as I can see, the concentration of existing heat in during an El Nino, causes temp readings to surface temps to spike. If the trade winds were not concentrating the heat, it would still be somewhere in the climate system.

        So the rise in global average temperature during an El Nino, does not reflect real warming, but the weakness of our ability to measure global average temperature at all.

        Now I have asked repeatedly here, and once on WUWT, if any consensus type can explain how an local (albeit large) weather phenomon of natural variability, can raise global average temp without adding heat to the climate.

        The closest to an answer came from Dr. Curry who posited that added cloud cover resulting from an El Nino, would prevent radiation of heat. But my question, still unanswered, is whether there is any study that shows that the net effect of any such increase in clouds is net positive, and to an extent that justifies the resulting spike in GAT? That question has not been answered as far as I have seen.

        Perhaps you have an idea?

      • manacker, you can look at any temperature series and see that the earth never cooled back to pre-1998 strengths of either El Nino or La Nina. Each one seems warmer than the previous. Now even La Nina years are warmer than pre-1998 El Nino years when you look at annual averages.

      • GaryM, the atmosphere and ocean both warm due to climate forcing. The ocean surface affects the atmosphere directly, and during El Ninos, some of the accumulated ocean energy is released to the atmosphere at an accelerated rate due to the El Nino circulation change. This is ultimately why the surface temperature doesn’t change uniformly with time even if the forcing change is smooth. It is the ocean circulations that introduce the variability in surface and atmospheric temperature.

      • I wonder what the temp records would look like if we controlled for the spurious warming created by the impact of El Ninos on the surface temp records?

        Sort of weird as you would be leaving in the spurious cooling caused by La Nina years.

        Like the back-to-back ones that have trounced the worst full-moon effect on ever seen on Climate Etc..

      • TJim D

        The temperature records do, indeed, show that post-1998 temperatures have dropped, but not to the pre-1997 levels.

        But what is also apparent is that we had several fairly strong El Ninos during the 1980s and 1990s, and this trend has reversed in the 2000s.

        As many are “putting the blame” on La Ninas replacing El Ninos for the current slight cooling trend one could also “put the blame” on El Ninos replacing La Ninas for the 1980s/1990s warming, including, of course, the warmest year of all: 1998.

        Others are quick to attribute the 1980s/1990s warming to CO2, but the current slight cooling on La Nina (which is not totally logical).

        I think it’s much more complicated than that, and that we really don’t have any idea what all the factors were behind the 1980s/1990s warming or the 2000s slight cooling.

        And I am also sure that Nature is still in charge of climate – not IPCC’s anthropocentric notion that it is our SUVs or light bulbs.

        Max

      • Jim D,

        “…some of the accumulated ocean energy is released to the atmosphere at an accelerated rate due to the El Nino circulation change….”

        You are still missing the point. That is how I understand El Ninos as well. But the releasing of heat that has already “accumulated” should not raise the average temp. That heat raised the temp somewhere else when it entered the system. The fact that it is concentrated in one area of the Pacific, the released to the atmosphere, does not add any heat/energy to the climate.

        But don’t worry, no one else has actually answered my question yet.

      • GaryM, the ocean absorbs heat at a nonuniform rate too. La Ninas are a phase where it absorbs more, so between absorbing more at some times and releasing more at others, it balances out over time to the general absorption of the increased forcing and overall heat content rise. You can only cancel out this ocean oscillation by suitably averaging over long periods. A ten-year average gets rid of most of it, and only a couple of tenths of a degree is left that people attribute to PDO, etc.

      • “…the ocean absorbs heat at a nonuniform rate too. La Ninas are a phase where it absorbs more”

        You are still missing the point. Whether the ocean is absorbing heat or releasing it into the atmosphere, it is not adding heat to the climate system. The average of the system should not be affected by movement of heat among its various components.

      • The answer is obvious. It’s a travesty. Really, it is. GaryM and Trenberth agree. Holy freakin’ cow, how did that happen?

        GMT is like some sort of crude butted, 2-meters above the surface crap. When the earth disagrees with it – 15-year pauses, HadCrappy3, RSS, HadCrappy4 as examples – go with the earth.

      • > The answer is obvious. It’s a travesty. Really, it is. GaryM and Trenberth agree. Holy freakin’ cow, how did that happen?

        It might more appropriate to say:

        > Holy travesty, Batman!

      • GaryM, the surface temperature is not a measure of the heat in the climate system. The ocean heat content is nearer the kind of quantity needed to measure that. At best, the surface temperature is proportional to how efficient the surface is in removing the solar heat input, but there are large annual and interannual cycles in the way heat enters and leaves the system. Snow cover, sea-ice and clouds modulate this. It is far from a smooth behavior over months.

    • Right wag, and not very good weathermen at that. Who would you take in a weather forecasting contest, Joe Bastardi or (insert name of just about any establishment climate scientist you can think of) ?

  2. Climategate 3.0: Will it be a tipping point to get more non-climate scientists steamed at climate scientists? A lot of public trust is at issue with the Mann et al. ‘negative externality.’

    • The big news there I’d say is that any objective observer now has to conclude what we’ve strongly suspected all along, that an insider is responsible for this, i.e. a whistleblower.

      • I would not expect Mr. FOIA to be a whistleblower, being a non-English-speaking person with a manifesto, but perhaps he obtained his files from an internal source at UEA.

      • pokerguy,

        Do you think that the whistleblower law in the UK still applies to the Miracle Worker?

        If not, I suggest that your use of “whistleblower” is metaphorical.

      • I think it’s pretty clear that an individual hacked the CRU mail server and tried to hack realclimate too. And this individual wants everyone to think he doesn’t live in the US.

      • willard, I’m afraid you’re confused. The term is always metaphorical. Are you suggesting that people are lliterally blowing whistles?

        I think not.

      • Legal definitions are not metaphorical, pokerguy:

        http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/21/uk-whistleblower-legislation/

        Too bad our Miracle Worker chosen bitcoins instead of legal protection

      • Again, you’re deeply confused. The term itself is ultimately metaphorical, whether or not it now has come to have precise legal definition. You should have said, “legally speaking, this fellow is not a whistleblower.”

        What you did say was, “your use of the term (whistleblower) was metaphorical.” Not only is it grammatically incorrect with respect to what you intended to say, the statement itself makes no sense. Either one is using a term or he is not. There’s nothing metaphorical involved.

      • My use of “metaphorical” was also metaphorical, pokerguy. The Miracle Worker might not be a whisteblower anymore, in the legal sense of the word, the one that matters most when talking about the Miracle worker as a whistleblower.

        Thank you for parsing my question in a way to evade answering it.

      • David Springer

        By his own admission Mr. FOIA is a whistleblower.

        The definition of a whistleblower includes no requirement that the person be an employee of the accused organization.

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

        I really wish people would stop making up their own meanings for words and/or failing to consult a dictionary to double-check what they believe is the defintion. In the online world where you can check a dictionary in the time it takes to type the word to look up there’s no excuse for poor vocabulary.

      • Steven Mosher

        Willard you are conflating two definitions or two different questions.
        Not every whistleblower can avail themselves of the whistle blower defense. Assuming that the OP was talking about the legal definition does not demonstrate charity. At the limit you realize that the principle of charity allows one to recast what anyone says into a position that doesnt conflict with anything I believe.

      • David Springer

        Steven Mosher you are correct!

        It’s an early Easter miracle! Hallelujah!

      • David Springer, I don’t think you read the Wikipedia article you linked to very carefully; the whole thrust of the article opposes your point. Perhaps you could stand to do your own double-checking of definitions, before running other people down. The article says (in the third sentence, no less): “Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).” David, what kind of whisteblower *outside* of an organization has the choice of making their allegation internally or externally? The “Definition” section or the article you send others to read carefully also repeats and elaborates the thought that whistleblowing is one or the other. (You could insist it’s very critically meaningful that the linked article doesn’t stress the word “employee”, but only at the risk of insulting everyone’s intelligence.)

      • David Springer

        bentabou | March 17, 2013 at 12:06 am |

        “David Springer, I don’t think you read the Wikipedia article”

        No, it was you that didn’t read it carefully. My bold below so you don’t miss it again. I was exactly correct and you are exactly wrong.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower#Definition

        Definition

        Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct on a fellow employee or superior within their company. One of the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behavior or report it.

        External whistleblowers, however, report misconduct on outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information’s severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies. In some cases, external whistleblowing is encouraged by offering monetary reward.

        I’d say thanks for playing but your response was so poor it was just a pain in the ass to correct your pathetic attempt to make a point. Next time put in a little bit more effort.

      • > By his own admission Mr. FOIA is a whistleblower.

        Indeed, and I am a ninja.

        A relevant resource:

        The Frank Dodd whistleblower Law offers anonymity to a whistleblower only when that person files his securities fraud complaint through a whistleblower attorney.

        http://www.secwhistleblowerprogram.org/SEC-Whistleblower/anonymity/

        The concept of whistleblower deserves due diligence, unless one wants to consider any kind of leaking whistleblowing.

      • Never send to know for whom the whistle blows…
        It blows for thee.

      • The concept of whistleblower deserves due diligence, unless one wants to consider any kind of leaking whistleblowing

        The due diligence with Mr Foia being that the information was about what public servants were doing with taxpayers money, hence the public have a right to know. The whistle was blown not only on the crooked science being done, but also on hiding the crookedness.

      • > [H]ence the public have a right to know.

        See how easy it is to switch back to the legal mode.

        All we need is another commenter.

      • David Springer

        willard (@nevaudit) | March 17, 2013 at 6:50 pm |

        ds: By his own admission Mr. FOIA is a whistleblower.

        willard: Indeed, and I am a ninja.

        By your own admission you are now a ninja. This doesn’t speak to the veracity of your admission. That’s a different matter. Mr. FOIA might be lying in his admission.

        By my own admission it was I not Al Gore who invented the internet. Difficult as it is to believe I may be exaggerating that claim a wee bit. ;-)

    • Rob,no.

    • > [Y]ou are conflating two definitions or two different questions.

      Our Miracle Worker’s actions do not qualify as whistle blowing anymore.
      Calling him or her a whistleblower won’t change that fact.
      Thanks for the concerns.

      RELEASE ALL THE EMAILS!

      • Steven Mosher

        There are internal whistleblowers and external whistleblowers.

        One need not be a member of an organization to qualify as a whistleblower.

        Example:

        Who is an eligible whistleblower?
        An “eligible whistleblower” is a person who voluntarily provides us with original information about a possible violation of the federal securities laws that has occurred, is ongoing, or is about to occur. The information provided must lead to a successful SEC action resulting in an order of monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million. One or more people are allowed to act as a whistleblower, but companies or organizations cannot qualify as whistleblowers. You are not required to be an employee of the company to submit information about that company. See Rule 21F-2.

        A canadian example

        Whistleblowers are people who put themselves at risk, often when they didn’t have to, in order to protect the public interest. Typical examples might be a scientist trying to stop drugs of questionable safety from being approved, or an auditor trying to halt the misuse of tax dollars.

        Ask yourself the question: “How is the public interest harmed by… [whatever wrongdoing you have observed]…? If there isn’t an obvious answer, you are probably not a whistleblower by our definition, and unfortunately we probably cannot help you.

        As with most words you will find substantial disagreement about the meaning. It’s really dishonorable to pretend such disagreement is not real.

        here is a discussion that wasnt to far away. Staring with Ralph Naders view ( he was one of the first to use the term )

        http://www.whistleblowing-cee.org/about_whistleblowing/

        Rather than quibbling about the meaning of whistleblowing It might be more helpful to discuss why people felt his actions were justified or not justified. In what ways does he differ from Gleick, if at all?
        That would be interesting since Gleick put himself in the middle of his forged document and RC remains anonymous.

        Whistleblowers by definition have to be selfless. Anyway, that would be an interesting conversation. Not sure where I would come down on that. Was FOIA/RC selfless?

      • Mosher > Whistleblowers by definition have to be selfless.

        Surely not. Just need to expose some wrongdoing.

      • From that same resource, we see that priviledged access must be demonstrated:

        > Whistleblowing must involve an intentional disclosure of information to which the whistleblower has privileged access.

        http://www.whistleblowing-cee.org/about_whistleblowing/

        ***

        We also see that non liability must be demonstrated:

        > This is the main difference between whistleblowers and informants: informants are often involved in some sort of unethical affairs, and use disclosure for clarifying their own role, or reduce their liability.

        So much the worse for the theory that Briffa could have been the whistleblower.

        ***

        We can be thankful for the Miracle Worker’s concerns, but he can’t have his cake and eat it too.

      • Steven Mosher

        Briffa has never been a candidate. Eliminated him early on.
        Oddly, in this case people WITH privaledged access would not require the whistleblower defense, since they would not be in violation of the computer security laws in the UK.
        Bottomline, you should be more charitable in trying to understand what people mean when they use the term whistleblower, but i guess when Charity doesnt work, it is quickly forgotten.

      • David Springer

        Mosher, in the US whistleblower protection isn’t usually about avoiding criminal prosecution. It’s about the internal whistleblower avoiding what would otherwise be legal retaliation like getting fired from the job at the company he snitched on or being subject to a hostile work environment. Presumably it’s essentially the same in the UK.

        To whoever said the whistleblower is position on the moral high ground that’s not necessarily true either. Paid informants are also whistleblower. Say I know the company I work for cheats on taxes. I take evidence of cheating to the IRS from whom I get a percentage of taxes recovered and penalties assessed. That’s not a moral high ground it’s an opportunist out to make a buck. Whistleblower law would protect me from retaliation by my employer. There are other instances of monetary damage to the government (contract breaches and frauds for instance) where the goverment pays the informant and then protects him from retaliation. This is actually rather morally bankrupt for the government to pay people to inform on each other and leads to all kinds of societal ills and even atrocities such as Nazi’s rewarding people for reporting Jews in hiding. It’s rather bad business if you ask me and the government should not be allowed to have paid informer programs of any stripe.

      • Steven Mosher

        david,
        I’m not particularly interested in your limited understanding of the law or anything else you have to say on the matter. I have yet to read anything from you that I
        a) don’t already know
        b) couldn’t find with the five seconds of googling.

        The issue from my perspective is not what the law says about whistleblowing, its not what willard thinks about whistleblowing.

        The issue is what do people actually mean when they use the term. It may be that folks using the term are at variance with the legal meaning, or at odds with what you think. What you think doesnt interest me because you tend to be contrarian. If I said white, you would say black. Just sayin
        ( go ahead and disagree it proves the point )

        When most people argue that FOIA is a whistleblower what exactly are they trying to point to? what are they trying to do? That’s more instructive that trying to decide what a “whistleblower’ actually is “in reality”.

        Are they:
        1. arguing its an insider ( employee)
        2. talking about the motive ( protect the public interest)
        3. talking about a legal defense
        4. defending the morality of the act.

        Moving away from the term whistleblower facilitates this discussion.
        For my own part I always thought the motive was personal which would make him an “informant” as opposed to a whistleblower.. but you see how those terms color the discussion. As a term whistleblower was introduced because Ralph Nader want to spin the description of snitches.
        FOIA is a snitch. FOIA is a whistleblower.
        hmm part of me wants to do an “ordinary language’ approach to the problem, but only willard would get that. For now, I’ll suggest that people avoid the labels as they are an impediment to understanding. In this case language gets in the way of communication.

      • > hmm part of me wants to do an “ordinary language’ approach to the problem, but only willard would get that.

        When done right, this kind of analysis makes more sense than using a dictionary. It mainly consists in providing examples and analyzing their variations.

        It makes sense to refer to our Miracle Worker as a whistleblower. Just as it makes sens to refer to him as a hacker. It might even make sense to refer to him as a Miracle Worker. All these cases provide their own set of connotations. They all serve a rhetorical function. Et cetera.

        My point is that the concept of whistleblower entails social strictures that the story of our Miracle Worker might not satisfy.

  3. A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

    As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all.

    The results were announced at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces: http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/SPD2011/

    “This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

    Expect a corresponding global cooling=>
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:732/to:1965/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:1052/normalise

    • An infinitesimal amount of warming in the deepest oceans that cannot be found let alone measured but the models nevertheless say must be there…

      • Jim D, Larsen C is many times as big as the peninsula glaciers which it ‘anchors’.
        Besides, where did you read that it could collapse any time soon? Everything I’ve read indicates that it’s stable with no reason to believe that’s going to change.

      • You’re missing the propaganda value. Give a glacier a name and it’s like losing a member of your family when it clves off and falls into the water. Al Gore did his understudy under Bill Clinton not Roger Revelle when it comes to propaganda.

    • Why do we need an excuse sunshinehours1? we aren’t denying the antarctic sea ice is increasing.

      Anymore than you are denying Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral, right?

      • If by death spiral you mean the global sea ice is slightly above normal and the Arctic Sea Ice is 250,000 sq km below the mean and Antarctic Sea Ice is 1,000,000 sq km above the mean.

        By the way, that translates to:

        Arctic = 6% below the mean
        Antarctic = 28% above the mean

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Sunshinehours1, thank you for illustrating the willfully ignorant cherry-picking — the turning of a “blind eye” toward scientific evidence — that is pathognomonic of climate-change denialist cognition!

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

      • sunshine, summer sea ice is 50% below the mean. The Antarctic responds differently by occasionally losing centuries-old ice shelves.

      • Its not summer JimD. Arctic Sea Is only 6% below the mean now.

        But take a look at this graphic …

        But I do admit than September 2012 Antarctic maximum was 1,000,000 sq km above the mean.

        So both minimum and maximum Antarcrctic Sea Ice Extent are 1,000,000 sq km or more above the mean.

      • sunshine, winter sea ice varies very little compared to summer, and the lack of sunshine means it matters less in winter too.

      • “winter sea ice varies very little compared to summer”

        The Antarctic Sea Ice Minimum Trend is increasing at 140,000 sq km per decade.

        http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/antarctic-sea-ice-minimum-trend-climbing-at-140000-sq-km-per-decade/

      • “and the lack of sunshine means it matters less in winter too”

        In the Antarctic Maximum Sea Ice is first day or spring. 12 hours of sunshine. Reflected by an extra 1,000,000 sq km of sice much further from the pole compared to Arctic Ice.

      • sunshine, the Antarctic would be fine if those ice shelves would just stop breaking apart. There has been a southward progression of these events, starting with the northern tip near S. America, and another one due any time now.

      • Larsen C is 48,000 sq km.

        Maximum Antarctic Sea Ice is 19,000,000 sq km. Antarctica it self is 14,000,000 sq km.

        Larsen C is microscopic compared to the extra 1,000,000 sq km of ice caused by cooling in the SH.

      • yeah thank god for a new ice shelf each winter!

      • Larsen C is over 10000 years old, and could suddenly collapse within the next decade. It is the size of the state of Louisiana (or Slovakia on the European scale).

      • Jim D wrote: “Larsen C is over 10000 years old”

        Considering the ~50m rise in sea level in that time, it must have started out well above the water.
        Or is dynamic movement – which includes breaking off – simply a part of the natural process?

      • Louisiana? The 1,000,000 sq km of extra sea ice in Antarctic is the size of Texas+California.

        If losing Rhode Island or Lousiana is a tragedy and a sign of AGW, then adding Texas+California must be a sign that AGW is false and the world is saved (and doomed to freeze to death).

      • Maybe it started out as a land glacier, which is what it is now an extension of.

      • sunshine, you are averting your eyes from the 3 million sq km lost in Arctic summer sea ice.

      • It was only for a month or so. As I’ve pointed out, Arctic maximum is only 6% lower than the mean … about 250,000 sq km, not 3,000,000.

        And a large chunk of that 3,000,000 was caused by the huge cyclone.

      • Jim D, Perhaps, but then it would either still be resting on the ocean floor, or would have slowly melted from the bottom over thousands of years.
        But that also implies that pieces have continuously been breaking off over the millennia.
        Also, if it is just an extension of a land glacier, saying it’s 10000 years old is just as nonsensical as saying a river is 10000 years old.

      • phatboy, I believe the land ice here is not flowing because these shelves are anchoring it, which is the concern about them disappearing, but I need to read more about that.

      • David Springer

        CO2 warming mechanism works 24 hours/day 7 days/week. If the Arctic winter isn’t warmer but the summer is, which is exactly what we observe, then the cause is related to incoming shortwave not CO2 longwave.

        A key difference between Antarctic sea ice and Arctic sea ice is proximity to sources of anthropogenic black carbon (soot). This accumulates on multi-year ice darkening its surface. In the polar winter the darkened surface is irrelevant because there’s no shortwave energy to absorb. In the summer it makes a big difference with the sun beating down on it 24/7.

        So it’s actually anthropogenic forcing partly or largely responsible for acceleration of glacial and multi-year sea ice melt but it’s not a well mixed greenhouse gas that’s doing it. It’s soot generated in the Northern hemisphere where it can remain aloft long enough to reach the north polar region but doesn’t mix like CO2 does and make it to the south polar region.

      • David Springer

        To whomever said that Antarctic sea is different because it’s a thick shelf that calves that’s a grand display of ignorance.

        Antarctic sea ice expands and contracts seasonally as much if not more than Arctic sea ice as can be easily seen in the north and south pole seasonal sea ice extents pictured above.

        Unfool yourselves. Due diligence is required. The data is there for anyone who cares to look for themselves. Believe nothing without going to the source when the source is so readily accessable as is the case here.

      • Jim D, Larsen C is many times as big as the peninsula glaciers which it ‘anchors’.
        Besides, where did you read that it could collapse any time soon? Everything I’ve read indicates that it’s stable with no reason to believe that’s going to change.

      • David Springer

        http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth/posts/post_1292991500275.html

        Recent modeling, conducted by Jacobson and funded in-part by NASA, suggests that eliminating soot emissions from fossil fuel and biofuel burning over the next fifteen years could reduce Arctic warming by up to 1.7 °C (3 °F). Net warming in the Arctic, in comparison, has been about 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) over the last century.

        –Adam Voiland, NASA’s Earth Science News Team

        66% ( 3:4.5, see above) of Arctic warming is NOT from CO2. Write that down!

      • lolwot

        Wording is important.

        Antarctic sea ice is “increasing”

        Arctic sea ice is “in a death spiral”.

        Duh!

        Forget the histrionics, lolwot – just simply state that it is “decreasing at a somewhat higher rate”.

        Sounds more “scientific” (and less hysterical) that way.

        Max

      • phatboy, Larsen C was the subject of a Scientific American article in July 2012. The initial signs such melt ponds are already there.

      • I agree words are important. Such as Precipitous. We need to convey the Arctic is rapidly heading towards a new summer free ice state.

    • Steven Mosher

      its soot. Soot causes melting in the north and growth in the south.
      no wait, its the sun. causes melting in the north and growth in the south.
      no wait its the wind, causes melting in the north and growth in the south.
      No wait its underwater volcanoes. No wait its the ocean currents causes ..
      you get the idea sunshine? there is no simple explanation. I know you want one.. hey more sunshine? melts the north causes more ice in the south

  4. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Breaking Scientific News …

    MARCOTT’S UPTICK
    by Anthony Watts

    In the graphic below, I’ve plotted Marcott’s NHX reconstruction against an emulation (weighting by latitude and gridcell as described in script) using proxies with published dates rather than Marcott dates.

    LOL … Anthony Watts seemingly doesn’t appreciate that WUWT‘s own proxy analysis asserts that the last time temperatures rose this abruptly — circa 10,000 years BP — the result was massive melting of the polar ice-sheets and a sixty meter sea-level rise!

    Conclusion  Thank you, Anthony Watts/WUWT for publishing an immensely strong trifecta of evidence that:

    • James Hansen’s scientific worldview is right,
    • Michael Mann’s hockey stick is right,
    culture-drowning CAGW sea-level rise is credible.

    Well done, Anthony Watts/WUWT! Your fore-sighted public service in refuting the short-sighted astro-turfed ignorance of climate-change denialism is hugely appreciated!

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

    • “the last time temperatures rose this abruptly … ”

      “According to Marcott, NHX temperatures increased by 1.9 deg C between 1920 and 1940, a surprising result even for the most zealous activists.”

      http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/marcotts-zonal-reconstructions/

    • I’m not sure I follow the logic of your post. The WUWT post showed what happens when one blogger approximately redid the steps in Marcott et al. paper using the Marcott et al. data. It showed that you get roughly the same distribution. If I add A+B=C and you and I both add A and B we’ll get C. Even if *you* believe that C is a credible estimate of temperature then this doesn’t exercise doesn’t show that I’ve just proven it by adding two numbers.

      Incidentally that post you mocked showed that the hockey stick handle was most likely an artefact of the algorithm used in the analysis. The proxy temperature corresponding to the recent period actually went down over that period :)…. Even the author of the paper says its “not robust”.

      • McIntyre and Watt’s point is irrelevant. The Marcott curve is long enough that it can be joined onto the instrumental temperature record. Joining that with Shakun gives us r Hagelaar’s wheelchair curve, which is the scary one.

      • Eli

        You’ve lost me there. What year is that vertical line at the end supposed to start from and end?
        tonyb

      • Google translation:

        Figure 3: The temperature reconstruction Shakun et al (green – manual y-correction) of Marcott et al (blue), combined with HadCRUT4 (red) and model mean of the IPCC A1B (orange) to 2100.

      • JCH

        So it runs from 1880 to 2100? Wheel Chair graph? I can think of a few names for it and ‘Vivid imagination’ is the politest.
        tonyb

      • Eli Rabett said, “McIntyre and Watt’s point is irrelevant.”

        Really? If they misdated the proxies by 500 to a thousand years that is irrelevant because of why exactly? I have always thought that crap is crap no matter the source.

    • k scott denison

      fan, hard to know where to start with your post as it is so full of misinformation.

      I will start with the fact that the author of the post is Steve McIntyre.

      If you cannot get even that simple fact correct, then why should anyone believe anything else you say?

      Second, the chart you link to shows how one can create, by spurious means, a chart that emulates Marcott’s. It is part of Mr. McIntyre’s on-going total destruction of the shoddy work of Marcott.

      • It is very down-in-the-weeds stuff from McIntyre, but if I understand it, he is not denying that the global temperature rose in the last century, or that the Marcott proxy happens to be right in this regard, but he argues whether the proxy data should be able to show this and be right in this way. Convoluted way of saying the proxy is only right by accident or error.

      • k scott denison

        No, Jim that is not what Mr. McIntyre is arguing. What he is arguing is that the uptick in Marcott is purely due to the fact that most proxies end before the uptick so that the “average” of the remaking proxies is *artificially* high. Hence, the uptick is purely a fiction of the imagination (or arthimetic if you like). It is *not* representative of temperature in that period.

      • k scott denison

        In simplest terms, Jim, here is what causes the uptick:

        I have two proxies. Proxy one has values of (-2, -2, -2, -2, n/a). Proxy two has values do (2, 2, 2, 2, 2). I average these over the five periods and get: (0, 0, 0, 0, +2). OMG, it’s a huge uptick in the last period!!!

        But the uptick isn’t real, it’s an artifact of the fact that the first proxy didn’t have data for the last period.

      • A big problem I have with the way they filter proxies, is that they have to remove proxies that show a correlation with the current warming, so as not to introduce a hockey stick effect artificially. I find this removal to be a strange practice, which is why I tend not to like these methods in general.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      sunshinehours1 and roger, there’s a common-sense reason why the US Navy decisively rejects climate-change denialism …

      … it’s because willful ignorance, astro-turfing, and cherry-picking amounts to a losing battle-strategy.

      Ain’t that right, sunshinehours1 and roger?

      That’s we the world’s military and business leaders overwhelmingly reject climate-change denialism. It’s because … these leaders hate to lose!

      Anyone can read the scientific tea-leaves for themselves … the present-day “double hockey stick” of warming-rates and CO2 levels is unprecedented.

      Denialist spinning, quibbling, and astro-turfing == LOSING plain and simple!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}\,\spadesuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\spadesuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • A fan
        Sorry – you behave like a troll.
        Please, try to use first principles logic and dispute the content of my post if you’re able to. Sloganeering isn’t the same thing.

      • Thank you Fan for showing a perfect example of “willful ignorance”.

        You can’t defend the facts so you resort to the only thing left in your bags of tricks. Is ad hom all you’re left with?

      • The US Navy, now down to a small handful of ships (smallest # of ships since 1917), is jumping on the AGW bandwagon in hopes of subsidies from Obama.

    • k scott denison

      fan, here is the mone quote from the post you quote:

      “Marcottian (uptricks) upticks arise because of proxy inconsistency: one (or two) proxies have different signs or quantities than the larger population, but continue one step longer. This is also the reason why the effect is mitigated in the infilled variation. In principle, downticks can also occur – a matter that will be covered in my next post which will probably be on the relationship between Marcottian re-dating and upticks.”

      Translation: the uptick in the Marcott paper is purely a remnant of poor science.

    • Great strawman, fomd, the point being made by Watts, McIntyre, et al is that the Marcott Hockey Stick is as bogus as the original hockey stick. Have you even read McIntyre, Istvan’s and others’ demolition of the, at best, flawed analyses in Marcott’s paper? Never mind, I am sure that you did not.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      k scott denison (KSD) posts  “fan, hard to know where to start with your post”

      The common-sense scientific fact that you have overlooked, KSD — and Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts overlooked too! — is that the two most prominent features of Steve McIntyre’s own paleo reconstruction are:

      • the sharp rise at 10,000 years BP, and
      • the comparably sharp present-day temperature rise.

      The former temperature rise was accompanied by a 60-meter sea-level rise, eh?

      Uhhh … so won’t the latter do the same? Ain’t that pure common-sense, k scott denison?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}\,\spadesuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\spadesuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • k scott denison

        Uh, fan, you do know that the “sharp rise” seen at 10,000 BC is inferred from proxies, the same ones that no longer correlate in current times, right?

      • “common-sense” = Faith void of facts.

      • k scott denison

        And perhaps to short circuit the back and forth, fan, I will state that I’m not a big believer in proxies, no matter what they show. The science behind them, while extensive and certainly very sophisticated, is not enough to convince me that the represent temperature. Once someone puts instrumentation next to a tree to measure temperature (integral not min/max during a day), humidity, CO2, sunshine, precipitation, pH, soil content, animal patterns, etc, AND then compares those results to tree ring growth AND shows that ring width = temperature I’ll be a believer.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        k scott denison (KSD) posts  “The science behind [climate proxies], while extensive and certainly very sophisticated, is not enough to convince me that the represent temperature.”

        LOL … thank you, KSD, for so vividly demonstrating to Climate Etc readers that unbounded skepticism regarding climate-change theory and observation is operationally indistinguishable from willful ignorance and deliberate denialism!

        Needless to say, responsible institutions like the US Navy can’t afford the luxury of willful ignorance and deliberate denialism, eh KSD?

        \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}\,\spadesuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\spadesuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • k scott denison

        Surprised it took you so long to resort to ad homs fan, but you finally go there.

        Yup, the US military seems to believe that climate change is the biggest challenge they face. Is this same US government who thought there were WMD in Iraq as well? The same one that won’t allow a pipeline to be built that would lower energy costs and provide jobs even though they also have authored a report that it will have no negative environmental impact? Or the one that thought it could control wildfire risk in Colorado?

        Yeah, that same government that’s *always* right, eh?

        LOL

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Yeah! Carbon-based energy economies are OK, `cuz our astro-turfers say so!

        \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}\,\spadesuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\spadesuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • k scott denison

        Don’t forget, without that carbon based energy economy you wouldn’t be having this discussion. Guess its not all that bad, eh?

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        k scott denison (KSD) posts  “Without that carbon based energy economy you wouldn’t be having this discussion”

        Your posted claims are wrong yet again, KSD!

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

      • k scott denison

        WOW!!!!

        fan is powering the *entire internet* with solar panels on his roof! Thanks fan!

        But what’s your trick for powering it at night???

      • k scott denison

        Why fan produced those panels himself, and carried them to his roof. They are all made with organic materials grown in his garden, and made with tools hewn from already dead wood. He eats, wears, drinks, drives, and builds with nothing that requires the use of those evil carbon based fuels.

        St. Fan the First, patron saint of progressive green delusion.

      • Once unre-dated
        The vorpal blade went snicker,
        Redacted for real.
        ===========

  5. Totally different Subject: Drought conditions
    I have, from the U of MN archives, aerial pictures of lakes in southern MN taken in 1937. When compared to DNR contour maps, it shows lakes were down by as much as 20 ft. Attempts were made to farm many of the lakes. Some completely disappeared and some were merely pot holes.
    The drought lasted most of the thirties and was a significant contributor to the depression.
    Now, when according to model projections, we are supposed to be having warmer, wetter conditions, attributing the current minor drought to AGW seems more than silly.
    Upon request I can send anyone the pictures.

    • dennis adams

      A lot of these warmists seem to want to forget the truths about a lot of the weather and climate in the 1930s. It sort of destroys their myths about how this climate now is without precedent.

      • Lots of studies also identify major droughts in the 1100 to 1250 time frame in the Sierra lakes. Mono Lake has 100 feet deep remnants of tree stumps that show how low the water level was in that time.
        Plus some southwest Indians were devastated by drought at that time.
        Scott

    • It must be a fake photograph. Indeed, we now know that John Steinbeck was an outrageous liar. The 1930’s were much cooler in the whole of the Northern Hemisphere than present, and the USA was almost a degree cooler in the days of the ‘dust-bowl’ than present.

      Next time the GISS is updated we will find that the mid-West of the 30’s was under a glacier.

  6. “The real question, then, is when to start playing politics with science.

    Fracking, on the other hand, could never be studied enough to make them accept it.

    I happen to share that perspective.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/03/12/fracking_bans_let_politics_not_science_decide.html

    Salon and Slate are the only two flamingly progressive sites I know of that actually, occasionally, blurt out the truth about their agenda, and tactics.

    A 15-17 year “pause” in the reported GAT?
    The models incapable of predicting climate on even a short time scale?
    The hockey stick beaten down to the size of a number 2 pencil?
    No “science” that supports a ban on fracking?

    No worries. It’s not all about the science after all…it’s all about the politics. Which is of course what we conservative skeptics have been saying about them all along. Nice of at least one CAGW progressive to admit it though.

    Stephen Schneider would be so proud.

    • I thought it was pretty fair:
      When they say “let the science decide,” fracking opponents mean: “Let us score political victory by endlessly calling for more studies before fracking ever happens.” What fracking proponents mean is: “Let us win by endlessly calling for more studies after fracking is already happening.”

      The real question, then, is when to start playing politics with science.

      • It would be fair, if it were true. But that paragraph is just another soldier in the CAGW straw man army.

        Calling for endless studies is, and has for decades been, a tactic by which progressives have sought to stop any project that did not meet with their approval. Skeptics, however, have not been “endlessly calling for more studies after fracking is already happening.” It’s flat out dishonest. But I can see why a progressive would think that is fair.

  7. The ME could care less if the the US is energy independent. Most of humanity resides elsewhere so that monopoly has all of the pockets in the rest of the world to pick. The only people who want America to fail are Eurocommies. If Ayn Rand was alive to substitute modern-day personalities in science for protaganists in her novel The Fountainhead, Michael Mann would be Ellsworth Toohey and William Gray would be Howard Roark.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      LOL … the market-place has spoken:

      • 97% of the public loathe John Galt’s character
      • 03% of the public
      adore John Galt’s character

      All hail the infallible market-place!

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

      • John Galt is short for, ‘Welcome to the fall of Western civilization.’ Who would say they’re for that…?

      • John Galt is the best argument the left has against capitalism, but the libertines who call themselves Libertarians are too blinded by their adoration of Ayn Rand to see it.

        Howard Roark blows up property that belongs to someone else. John Galt leads a movement to leave society to fall apart so he can go elsewhere and follow his god of self absorbtion.

        Capitalism works because it is the system that best utilizes human freedom to create wealth. But the only reason any society would adopt such a system is because it is also the best system for improving the lives of those who are not the John Galts and Howard Roarks.

        It is not an accident that capitalism achieved its greatest success, and broadest expression, in a society governed by the Judeo Christian ethic, including the moral imperative of providing for those who cannot provide for themselves.

        Ayn Rand’s fictional characters are nothing but an argument for her religion of the self, and shining examples of what progressives claim conservative principles are all about.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        GaryM, your moral and economic views are essentially Rawlsian … which is a roundly sensible, practicable, and moral view (IMHO) …

        … provided that we all keep in mind that “corporations are not people”, and moreover that:

        “Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.”
           — Wendell Berry

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

      • fan,

        My views are more Smithian/Hayekian/Freedmanian with an equal dose of conservative Roman Catholicism. You may now reach for your pitchfork and torch.

      • To be more clear, Rawls is to progresivism what Rand is to conservatism. I think Rawls can fairly be blamed for raising “fairness” and “social justice” (the ultimate contentless tools of deception of government progressives) to the level of the credo on the left.

        He was just the latest attempt to try to find an excuse for having the benefits of a religious ethic, without all the cumbersome responsibilities that come with it. Principles? We don’t need no stinkin’ principles!

        So no, my views are anything but Rawlsian.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        GaryM posts  “My views are anything but Rawlsian”

        Perhaps you should rethink this view, because John Rawls’ moral and religious views are solidly grounded in your own Christian catholicism (and Wendell Berry’s too), GaryM!

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

      • Yes, Rawls’ views are “founded” on Christianity, the same way Rand’s views are founded on conservative principles of liberty and the free market. They are both examples of the bastardization of those initial principles. Which is why I equated Rawls to Rand in the first place.

        Mussolini’s view were “founded” on both principles of socialism, with an attempt to keep the benefits of capitalism. The result being fascism.

        Where you begin is irrelevant. All that matters is where you end up. Once you divorce yourself from basic principles, the only limits on where you go are your own wishes. All the rest is rationalization.

  8. omanuel I posted to you on the let’s play hockey thread but for some reason it was disjoined from your post, and my explanation that this was to you got lost in the system. https://judithcurry.com/2013/03/11/lets-play-hockey-again/#comment-302969
    This is a better place to discuss it however, so, I’ll repost here and hope you see it.

    From a link you posted here: http://forum.keshefoundation.org/showthread.php?30-Theory-on-how-the-sun-works/page1

    http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/running.htm
    It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. If that is true, then the sequential photos on the right and these types of high resolution running difference SOHO images speak volumes. These movies were created by “stringing together” a series of these running difference images from many consecutive days, and they show persisted rigid surface features.

    I can’t see it. It looks to me like a heavy liquid, moving slowly under gravity much like our ocean with convection currents (which can take hundreds of years to move any distance), but made of more ‘sticky’ fluid, which could be something like molten iron if it is iron. Could it be condensed plasma?

    • Here’s the video recording the TRACE satellite made of a mass ejection event on 28 August 2000 from an active region of the Sun (AR 9143), using the 171Å filter that is specifically sensitive to the iron ion (Fe IX/X) emissions. This shows the rigid, iron-rich structures from which the material is ejected:

      http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi

      • Rigidity may be induced in the iron-rich structures by deep-seated solar magnetic fields.

      • This shows the rigid, iron-rich structures from which the material is ejected:

        http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi

        omanuel | March 16, 2013 at 11:58 pm |
        Rigidity may be induced in the iron-rich structures by deep-seated solar magnetic fields.

        I found that difficult to watch, too short and not really sure how the bright flare was interfering in it. I’ve found the others posted on the original page, http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/running.htm? , more useful:

        “The SOHO satellite took a remarkable series of these running difference images from October 5th 2004 through October 15th 2004 which I have put together into movie form. You’ll notice as you watch these movies and view the chronological images on the right, that the surface features are consistent from image to image and the surface features rotate uniformly from left to right in the same direction and at the same speed as the sun’s rotation.

        “SOHO created a newer, more complete, and more methodical series of these images starting on May 26th of 2005. I have created a second movie from a series of these images collected from late May through early June of 2005.

        “As you can see from the series of snapshots on the right, and from the movies, we can make out more than just a single random pattern emerging from just one composite image. Instead we can see a CONSISTENT set of surface features in these images that MOVE from left to right as the sun rotates. These features are completely consistent and move UNIFORMLY across the surface. In other words, they do not move at different rates near the equator than than they move at the poles like the photosphere. Whatever this “structure” is, it absolutely cannot be the photosphere or the chromosphere because of it’s consistency. This photographic evidence stands in direct opposition to present theories of the sun which claim that the sun is a giant ball of gas and has no solid surface below the photosphere. ”

        I think he is confusing solid with fluid under immense pressure of gravity so dense it acts like a solid, the Sun’s core is 150 times denser than water. It is the next layer up from that which spins with the Sun, the radiative layer. The radiative layer transports out the 14,000,000°C heat from the Core.

        “2.) The Radiative Zone, from 25% to 70% of the solar radius, the Radiative material is hot and dense enough that thermal radiation (not fusion) transfers the intense heat of the Core outward. Heat is transferred by photon radiation.” http://solarcellcentral.com/sun_page.html

        I do hate all these garbled explanations because of AGWScienceFiction pc requirements.. by “thermal radiation” is fine, this is thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared, that is, heat. It then follows with the idiotic ‘photons travel in all directions’ meme from AGWSF, when this should remain properly with bog standard traditional physics of heat transfer via thermal radiation, heat flows from hotter to colder spontaneously, always.

        Anyway, rant over, it goes on to say: “The plasma density drops a hundredfold from the bottom to the top of the Radiative Zone. Between the Radiative Zone and the Convection Zone is a very narrow transition layer called the Tachocline. The Radiative Zone rotates like a normal solid body. The Tachocline is a region between the uniform solid rotation of the Radiative Zone and the conventional fluid rotation of the Convection Zone. The Tachocline’s plasma rotation rate changes very rapidly causing an extreme shear – a situation where successive horizontal layers slide past one another.”

        What these photos appear to show, to me, is the top of the radiative zone, appearing solid, where it meets the convection zone at the tachocline.

        The layer of the photosphere is often called the “surface”, but this is considered more correctly to be the first layer of the atmosphere. This is a very thin band only 300 miles wide and fairly insignificant compared with the rest of the Sun’s layers.

        My thoughts on this ‘problem’ some are arguing about wondering why the layers cool from the core to the photosphere and then heat up again, is that it is typical of the ratio of heat to light as given off by an incandescent bulb – which releases its energy mainly in heat and not in light – radiating only 5% in visible light and the rest 95% in heat, that is, 95% thermal radiation aka longwave infrared as the Sun is emitting.

        What is happening appears to me to be standard traditional physics, the heat transfer by thermal radiation from the 14millionC core is flowing outward from hot to cold – the photosphere isn’t a ‘layer of cold of 6000°C’, it’s merely the extent that light exists within the flow of the thermal radiation, heat, which is invisible. Just like the heat is constantly flowing from an incandescent bulb, there isn’t a ‘layer of colder visible and then heat flowing again’…

        Anyway, that’s where I think the confusion about “solid” surface comes from.

  9. http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Whitehouse-GT_Standstill.pdf
    @@@@@
    In retrospect, nobody predicted that in the age of global warming the annual average global temperature would remain unchanged for so long. It began as a tentative observation but has become one of the most important investigations in climate science, and one of the major talking points for others interested in the debate about what is happening to our planet, and what we should do about it.
    @@@@@
    Some argue that the duration of the standstill is too short to be meaningful. Thirty years is taken to be the baseline for observing climate changes and fifteen years is too short. This report argues that 15 years is not an insignificant period; what has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation. The period contains important information and should not be dismissed as having no climatic importance. The recent warming period began about 1980 after four decades of globally stable temperatures thus the years of constant temperature are about equal to years when temperatures increased. This is not a trivial observation.
    @@@@@

    I would love to see a discussion as to whether this report has a really sound scientific basis.

    • I am, shall we say, skeptical that “the annual average global temperature [has] remain[ed] unchanged for so long.” I don’t think we can actually accurately calculate the average global temperature, on a daily, monthly, annual, decadal or longer time frame, because we don;t actually know what it is on any given day.

      The danger in taking averages of incomplete, inaccurate, massaged temperature measurements, and arguing that they show a “pause,” is that they might not continue to do so. Those who are so confident that the Earth is cooling, or will remain at the current temperature for any length of time, are making the same error as the CAGW advocates.

      It does not seem arguable that there has been slow, consistent warming, since the LIA. And historical/anecdotal evidence suggests that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today. But no one can predict climate because we just don’t know enough.

      It is possible the CAGWers are correct. It is also possible that lukewarmers are correct. Ditto skeptics.

      To be frank, if natural variability is as strong a factor as skeptics believe it to be, how do we know how many years of a “pause” would prove that there is no risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? As a skeptic, I don’t think anyone knows.

      We shouldn’t argue that CAGW has been “falsified,” we should argue that it has simply not been shown to be a sufficient risk to justify (more) government intrusion into the economy.

      • Gary M,
        Good thoughts and well reasoned. We need more data and improvements to models based on their ability to simulate changes shown by the data.
        Scott

      • k scott denison

        +1 GaryM

      • Yup, Gary, that’s why I qualify ‘for how long even kim doesn’t know. This is a terribly double edged sword, or a Scylla and Charybdis, correct navigation of which will require knowledge of climate sensitivity to CO2 and understanding of all predictable natural climate processes. Also, the will to do what we can about it.

        We ain’t there yet, and should spend the money getting there, and preparing the 10 Billion of us for an iceberg strewn ride ahead.
        ======================

      • GaryM:

        Exactly! The ‘Annual Temperature of the Earth’ is tracked avidly by the Climatology Hierarchy and much furor is generated, including the predictable doomsday headlines, if the ‘annual temperature of year X’ is a few hundredths of a degree greater than the temperature of year (X-1).

        It would be difficult to convince me that two teams of of the creme de la creme of climate science can, acting independently, instrument a WV county of their choice, measure the temperature for a year, and have the two measurements of the annual temperature of their chosen county agree within +/- .01 degree, never mind convince me that the current planetary instrumentation system is capable of measuring the ‘annual temperature of the Earth’ (never defined, by the way)’ with hundredths of a degree precision.

        Of course the measured data, which is flogged unmercifully on this and numerous other similar sites in an attempt to ‘prove’ one point or another, is not all that important. After all it is apparent that climate has always changed and continues to do so. The real problem, and the reason that CAGW is an existential threat, is not in the effects of the changing climate per se but in the consequences of the political actions that are being taken using the excuse that the climate changes are the direct result of human activity, that the effects of ANY changes to climate vary from unpleasant to catastrophic, and that the changes can only be averted through concerted, coordinated control of all energy production and consumption by government. Now THAT is truly dangerous.

    • The “pause”, which is variously reported to be 15,16, and 17 years, is total BS. The “standstill” is 10 years, and it is quickly disappearing as the that powerful heat engine called ENSO neutral obliterates it. Perhaps we are in a new regime. One characterized by new record warm La Nina years, an occasional record hottest ENSO neutral year, and, of course, frequent new record hottest El Nino years. And no negative AMO.

      • This is just one more example why the term “global average temperature” is meaningless to me. If ENSO, a localized weather phenomenon, increases the global average without adding heat to the system, then there is something wrong with the way it (GAT) is calculated.

        Dr. Curry answered one of my questions about how ENSO, or the AMO for that matter, could actually increase the heat content of the atmosphere – by affecting cloud formation, trapping more heat. But since clouds can also reflect incoming radiation, the question still is the net effect. I have seen nothing that indicates anyone has even tried to quantify this. So the fact that another ENSO will increase the GAT does not strike me as an argument in favor of accepting the reported GAT as measuring anything worthwhile. Just the opposite.

      • k scott denison

        GaryM +2… You’re on a roll.

      • k scott denison,

        I’d prefer to be on a nice cheese danish.

      • JCH

        The “pause” is real. It has lasted (as you write) a bit more than 10 years today and is increasing month-by-month.

        There is no apparent shift back to a warming trend, as we had in the 1980s and 1990s.

        Rationalizations abound, but no one (including you and me and IPCC) really knows why it stopped warming around 2001 or why it warmed so sharply from around 1980 to 2000.

        Max

      • David Springer

        @manacker

        Hansen, who calls it a standstill, says

        The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade.

        That means it’s 15 years of no warming because it takes 5 years of no warming to establish the first data point of a flat 5-year mean which then continued for 10 more consecutive years and counting.

        If Hansen admits a standstill you can take it to the bank it’s standstill because I’m pretty sure he’d rather stick needles in his eyes than say global warming has stood still for 15-years. In fact he worded it such that to the uncritical ear it sounds like it’s only been 10 years. As far as weasel words go however it’s an improvement for Hansen. I wonder if his EAS (estimated arrest sensitivity) will increase due to the lessening of his ability to preach climate gospel connected to actual climate data? It must suck to be him right about now. It’s going to suck worse as time goes on. On the other hand he must might be laughing all the way to the bank and flipping the bird to the gullible progressives who made his acquisition of wealth possible. Of course he pales in comparison to the Mac Daddy of Climate Change (ka-ching) Opportunism the right honorable former Vice President of the United States and Co-Inventor of the Internet (I’m the other co-inventor thank you very much) Herr Doktor Professor Albert Gore.

      • David Springer @ 16 March 6.30 re your role in inventing the Internet:

        “The BBC reports: “Pioneers of the internet are the first recipients of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering.

        “Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc Andreessen will share the £1m award.”

        You’d better get online an demand your share.

  10. Helping us understand what amounts to purposeful ignorance in the face of easily observable phenomena Dr. Tim Ball observed, as follows:

    The analogy that I use is that my car is not running that well, so I’m going to ignore the engine (which is the sun) and I’m going to ignore the transmission (which is the water vapor) and I’m going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel (which is the human-produced CO2) … the science is that bad!

    • glad to see Dr Tim Ball acknowledging that the Earth’s climate system is not running that well and needs fixing.

      • The analogy is your bank account is not fat enough so you ignore that takes providing something of value to society that people will voluntariliy want to buy with their own earnings and just stab the productive in the back and take everything.

      • lolwot

        Yeah.

        But certainly not by turning the “CO2 control nut on the right rear wheel”.

        I’d say “the Earth’s climate system is not running that badly at all and doesn’t look like it needs fixing”

        In fact, in a “Goldilocks sense, I’d say the climate we have now and are likely to have over the next period is “jes’ right”.

        Besides, we cant change “the Earth’s climate” no matter how much money we throw at it, anyway.

        In your opinion:

        1. What “is not running well” in the Earth’s climate system?
        2. What specific actions do we need to undertake to make it “work well”?
        3. What would be the specific climate changes resulting from these actions?
        4. What would these actions cost us?

        Don’t be shy, lolwot. Step up to the plate.

        Max

      • Maybe a better analogy is that the engine is running well, but we are in an enclosed garage, and either we switch the engine off or wait for the fuel to run out.

    • Indeed, the best engine and transmission are no good when the wheels fall off.

      • k scott denison

        Huh. My car has 5 lug nuts per wheel, and I bet it’s for a reason. Didn’t realize JimD’s only had one.

        I now see why some are so afraid of climate change! They don’t have all their nuts!!

      • That’s about right. The effect we have seen so far is less than 20% of the effect we will see. The wheel hasn’t come off yet, we notice.

      • k scott denison

        What *exactly* is the 20% we’ve seen JimD? Cause up here in Wisconsin, we still pray daily for warmth!

      • 20% is the global temperature rise, CO2 addition, or forcing change from pre-industrial to now compared to a century from now. Take your pick. The big part is yet to come.

      • You really believe the Left can engineer the climate like a well-running car? Amazing.

      • k scott denison

        JimD, if that’s 20%, then bring on the other 80… hell, bring on 180, we need the warmth in Wisconsin!!

      • Jim D

        Indeed, the best engine and transmission are no good when the wheels fall off.

        As they are from the IPCC CAGW bandwagon today.

        Max

      • Jim D

        The big part is yet to come.

        Sounds like another version of, “it’s worse than we thought!”

        Max

        PS Let’s talk about the “big part” when it appears imminent that it is about to happen, not when it just a figment of your overactive imagination (and some IPCC model jockeys).

      • …more like, this is just the start, folks.

      • k scott denison

        JimD:
        “The big part is yet to come.” and “…more like, this is just the start, folks.”
        —————
        Hey Jim, some said the world was going to end last December as well. You’re beginning to sound like one of them!

        Please, describe to us exactly what “the big part” is and how we can prevent it. As max encouraged lolwot: “don’t be shy.” Give us the details of who, what, when, how much (cost) and how much (impact) we can have. Then we can all see the $ per degree C that your mitigation plans will cost.

        Thanks in advance… although this usually where the crickets start to chirp.

      • David Springer

        Jim D | March 16, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Reply

        “Indeed, the best engine and transmission are no good when the wheels fall off.”

        My sincere condolences at the loss of your nuts.

      • While I claim we are only at the beginning of the temperature change which will eventually exceed 5 C with business-as-usual CO2 production, I can only refer to reports like the World Bank report on a 4 C climate change, or the IPCC reports. I have yet to see a positive report on this size of temperature change, but if there is one, it should be interesting reading. Some “skeptics” are now in the Kubler-Ross bargaining phase where they accept some degrees of warming, but claim it might be good, but these people haven’t put that in a written document yet.

      • k scott denison

        JimD: “While I claim we are only at the beginning of the temperature change which will eventually exceed 5 C with business-as-usual CO2 production, I can only refer to reports like the World Bank report on a 4 C climate change, or the IPCC reports”
        —-
        Nice topic switch JimD… From WE HAVE TO ACT NOW to I HAVEN’T SEEN ONE REPORT THAT SAYS IF THERMAGGEDON HAPPENS IT WON’T BE CATASTROPHIC.

        Now back to our regularly scheduled program… please detail your plans, JimD, to SAVE US ALL FROM THERMAGGEDON.

        We will wait.

      • k scott denison

        Oh, and JimD, for extra credit, please tell us why, when we missed so horribly on SATURN, THE WINTER STORM THAT SHUT DOWN DC, we should believe any tales of THERMAGGEDON.

        Chirp, chirp, chirp.

      • ksd, if you read any of my posts, I am not saying act now, because I don’t know an action that stops the warming. I am more of the view ‘realize now’ what the temperatures are heading towards. Start thinking now of what the consequences and their costs would be. This doesn’t fall neatly into your political worldview that AGWers all want world government, does it? I think warming is a done deal. Preparation for adaptation is the key. But that’s just me. The rest want world government, I suppose. Go after them.

      • k scott denison

        JimD, since the beginning of recorded history, some men have tried to control the others using fear and doubt. It is human nature. Open your eyes.

        The beauty of the climate is it will not change quickly enough for today’s man, with all of our capabilities, to adapt. No need to panic, which is what the “soothsayers” of RealClimateScience would have us do in orde to impose their worldview.

      • Arrhenius didn’t have a political agenda a century ago (except, being in Sweden, he thought warming would be nice). The science follows from that rather neutral science-only view. “Skeptics” should follow the more realistic view that warming is coming, and try to justify that it may be ‘nice’ (at least for themselves). That is a more reasonable area to hold their ground than on the defeated ‘warming won’t happen’ view.

      • k scott denison

        JimD, do you really not understand the difference between a measurement, in the very controlled conditions of a lab, where all but one variable is held constant and what might happen in a world where not a single variable is constant?

        I can tell you from experience that there is a world of difference JimD.

      • ksd, yet, despite this complexity, we can see and measure the effects of even the very subtle solar cycle changes and volcanoes on earth’s temperature, and have some comprehension of the relative effects of changes in CO2 which are panning out in temperature measurements over the last century. Not so complex after all because it all fits together.

      • k scott denison

        So, JimD, if we can see it all so well and it fit together so nicely, why can’t we predict the results of a snow storm two days in advance, nor the rise in temperature over the past 30 years, nor the flattening of temperature more recently?

      • ksd, you must be a newbie if I have to explain the difference between weather and climate to you. Weather is like predicting every bubble in a boiling pot, while climate is like predicting how quickly the pot warms, an easier problem when you know the heat inputs and outputs, and it can be done much further ahead.
        The pause is also explainable, but hard to predict because solar changes and ocean circulations are not known far ahead, and those were the big factors in the short term. Volcanoes also fall into the unpredictable category. Decadal prediction is more like weather prediction in that way, but in the long term these factors are small compared to sustained CO2 forcing which is quite predictable.

      • k scott denison

        Nope, not a newbie JimS. Please pick your favorite, weather or climate, and point me to the predictions that are validated, verified and accurate at the appropriate time scale. That will prove I’m wrong and you’re right, that it’s just not that complex and we can predict (not explain after the fact) one and/or the other.

        I just don’t believe that Monday morning science is science so to speak. That is, once I know the answer I can tell you why it happened just ain’t science.

      • ksd, yes skill is measured when predictions come to pass. For weather this is a daily assessment that results in a measurable success rate at beating chance at least out to a few days, but not much beyond. For climate we have to wait 50 years to verify it. We can look at Hansen’s 1981 (Science article) forecast, which has worked out quite well for 30 years so far, where he predicted that CO2 warming would appear above the annual variability in the 90’s at a time in 1981 when the warming had paused for nearly two decades and some were still talking about ice ages.

      • k scott denison

        Hansen’s forecast was right? Please send me that link JimD. Cause his 1988 forecast ain’t doing so well: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/

      • http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
        This is Hansen’s 1981 paper. A simpler model back then. His later models ran at the hot end of the consensus, but this earlier one with 2.8 C per doubling was actually closer to what would now be the center of consensus. “Opening of the fabled Northwest passage” in the abstract. Also 4C warming by 2100.

      • k scott denison

        Ah, I see now. The old model was good (well at least up until 2000 which, interestingly, is about the time the warming went on hiatus) but the newer model not so much. Both from the same guy. Kinda sounds like Nostradamus. If I make enough and vague enough predicitons I’m bound to be right!

        Sounds more and more like religion to me.

      • The old one was closer to current consensus. Charney came up with 3 C per doubling as an early consensus in 1979, and it hasn’t changed much since then. You can complain about Hansen being warmer than consensus, but that implies that you would be happier with a consensus projection that actually did fit through 2010 quite well if you look at his 1981 paper, and you should have been unhappy with a projection of no warming if you are being consistent.

      • This is the Hansen 1981 model compared against what I get when I assume 2.8 C sensitivity with estimated carbon emissions and a fat-tail sequestering response. This is a fast-feedback model which needs to be plotted against land data, pointing to the high end of Hansen’s interval.

        It is becoming more clear that averaged ocean+land data corresponds to slower feedbacks. If one uses that data, it will map into the shaded region.

        Hansen, Lacis and company had it already figured out back then. Impressive.

      • Jim D

        You wrote:

        Charney came up with 3 C per doubling as an early consensus in 1979, and it hasn’t changed much since then

        Well, that may have been true up until recently.

        However, there have been several observation-based studies that now challenge the old model-predicted 3C per doubling estimate.

        These all seem to suggest a 2xCO2 ECS of around half of the older consensus value, which you cited.

        We’ll have to wait and see what IPCC choses to do in AR5 with these new data. Out hostess has suggested that “they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports”.
        https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/19/climate-sensitivity-in-the-ar5-sod/#more-10669

        I personally believe that this presents a dilemma for IPCC: acknowledge the new data and lose some of the AGW fear factor or “sweep them under the rug” at the risk of losing even more credibility and relevance.

        What do you think will be the IPCC response, Jim?

        Max

      • David Springer

        Jim D | March 17, 2013 at 12:58 am |

        “Opening of the fabled Northwest passage” in the abstract.”

        CAGW is dead, Jim.

        It may interest you to know that without the aid of satellite imagery and GPS navigation to pick their way through the ice there were 9 successful Northwest Crossing transits between the years 1940 and 1986. There were no transits again until the year 2000. In the past 13 years, aided by satellite imagery and GPS navigation, there have been 19 successful transits.

        It’s not exactly a traffic jam of commuters in the NW Passage and considering the modern navigation aids available now that weren’t available in the mid-20th century there would appear to be a dearth of transits now compared to mid-20th century. It should be a piece of cake and everyone doing it but that’s not the case even with the uber-safety of satellites to guide us. Yet there’s barely one crossing per year.

        In comparison as of 2010 there have been 5000 successful climbs of Mt. Everest to the summit and with sometimes now hundreds of teams making the summit in a single short climbing season there have been traffic jams there.

        So far the Northwest Passage opening up is a myth. It must have been just as open 60 years ago when people were doing it without modern navigation aids.

      • David Springer

        WebHubTelescope | March 17, 2013 at 1:53 am |

        This is the Hansen 1981 model compared against what I get when I assume 2.8 C sensitivity with estimated carbon emissions and a fat-tail sequestering response. This is a fast-feedback model which needs to be plotted against land data, pointing to the high end of Hansen’s interval.

        It is becoming more clear that averaged ocean+land data corresponds to slower feedbacks. If one uses that data, it will map into the shaded region.

        Hansen, Lacis and company had it already figured out back then. Impressive.

        It was impressive up to where that graph ends in the year 2000.

        Now extend that curve out for 13 more years and compare the predicted anomaly to the actual. It’s no longer in the ballpark, Webby. The land-sea anomaly should be between 0.6C and 0.9C right now and it’s actually 0.4C and falling.

        The past 15 years demolished all catastrophic global warming predictions Webby and you really, really need to incorporate this good news into your world view before you get so twisted and frustrated at things not going your way that it effects both your physical and mental health.

      • Jim D re the Northwest Sea Route, it was hardly ‘fabled’ as
        Hansen refers to it, but fficially opened after runs in 1933/34
        in 1935. The Northwest passage remainedin use into th 1940’s.

      • Beth, you write “The Northwest passage remained in use into the 1940′s.”

        Sorry to pick a nit, but it depends what ships you are talking about. The North West Passage is used routinely every year. The Canadian Coast Guard, using our icebreakers, escorts supply ships to ports in the Canadian Arctic every year, with the final visit to Eureka early in September.

        What many refer to as use of the NWP, is that by unescorted vessels. In recent years, there have been many occasions when unescorted vessels have traversed the NWP. Even more recently, there have been cruise ships going through.

        There is currently a proposed develoment of an iron mine on Baffin Island. So far as I can see, this will require vessels to operate year round in this part of the world. The Russians have the technology to do this; all we need to do is copy them.

      • “Now extend that curve out for 13 more years and compare the predicted anomaly to the actual. It’s no longer in the ballpark, Webby. The land-sea anomaly should be between 0.6C and 0.9C right now and it’s actually 0.4C and falling.”

        If you click on that link, you can see how the temperature anomaly is still above what Hansen predicted in 1981.

        Observational science is not that hard Springer. All you have to do is use your eyes and look at the data. I don’t know why you have such difficulty with comprehension.

        Hansen’s 1981 model would have been shaky had the current temperatures been below his shaded region, yet they still appear above that value, even with the recent downward fluctuations,

        “The past 15 years demolished all catastrophic global warming predictions Webby and you really, really need to incorporate this good news into your world view before you get so twisted and frustrated at things not going your way that it effects both your physical and mental health.”

        It’s called trying to simplifying climate science, not “catastrophic global warming predictions”. I don’t know why you get so blinkered by your own political agenda that you can no longer see straight.

        The consensus science refers to a 3 C sensitivity and that is what we are looking at by comparing Hansen’s 1981 paper (with a 2.8C sensitivity) and the current data. Lacis explained the energy balance in a comment to this blog:

        “One reason to separate the global climate change problem into the two components of (1) global warming, and (2) natural variability is to recognize that the model analysis of these two components has different modeling requirements. For global warming, the GHG forcing is globally uniform, and the modeling goal emphasis is on global energy balance and global temperature change. For this purpose, coarser model resolution is adequate since the advective transports of energy (latent and sensible heat, geopotential energy), which are an order of magnitude larger than the radiative terms, must by definition globally add to zero. Since the global energy balance and the greenhouse effect are all radiative quantities, the emphasis then is on assuring the accuracy of the radiation modeling.

        The natural variability component, which includes the unforced local, regional, and interannual climate changes is a more difficult problem to address, and requires higher model spatial resolution and greater care in dealing with horizontal enrgy transports and conversions.”

        Isn’t this a fascinating field of science Springer?

      • How doth it cool?
        =======

      • David Springer

        WebHubTelescope | March 17, 2013 at 10:25 am |

        “If you click on that link, you can see how the temperature anomaly is still above what Hansen predicted in 1981.”

        There is absolutely no indication of what that graph is showing other than time and temperature above an unknown baseline. You can’t seriously consider that making a point. It could be the temperature change of the of the pond water in Central Park for all I know.

        What I do know for sure is it bears no resemblance to HADCRUT4 global mean anomaly. The largest difference in 10-year mean going back to 1850 is less than 1C. It was the lowest in the record circa 1910 at not quite -0.5C and highest at not quite +0.5C in 2007.

        In other words you can’t even cherry pick any two times in HADCRUT4 where there’s been 1C of warming in the 10-year mean.

        Please provide an adequate description and provenance for your graphs or don’t bother using them.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/every/mean:120

      • “Please provide an adequate description and provenance for your graphs or don’t bother using them.”

        I said it was data from BEST which you can also get from the WoodForTrees.

        If you want to follow the full derivation, go to:
        http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-sensitivity-and-33c-discrepancy.html

        The key point was to compare against Hansen’s 1981 graph which started at 1880 with a zero temperature anomaly. I worked the problem all the way through using a 2.8C sensitivity. Hansen’s chart only went to 2000, so that is where I had to end it to make a nice overlay. I extended it by re-running the 2.8C model beyond 2000 and overlaid the BEST data to get it close to 2010.

        I think the last two or three years of BEST have been flat, but those were not available from WfT.

        So tell me what you see now.

      • WHT, the 1981 paper I saw has a Figure 7 that goes up to 2020. Reading it, I see that the temperature between 1980 and 2010 rises by about 0.4 degrees which is about in the middle of observations.

      • OK,
        Here is a very crude overlay of BEST data and a 2.8C sensitivity model onto Hansen’s 1981 chart.

        You can complain all you want but the data is pretty clear for land-based data. i.e. implying limited ocean heat capacity interfering with the fast transient warming.

        Hansen and Lacis either guessed right in 1981 or they built up the models of those before them and are revealing the primary cause of warming.

        And I could care less about CAGW. I want to understand the basics before I get to the outliers.


      • Jim D | March 17, 2013 at 4:52 pm |

        WHT, the 1981 paper I saw has a Figure 7 that goes up to 2020. Reading it, I see that the temperature between 1980 and 2010 rises by about 0.4 degrees which is about in the middle of observations.

        Yes, that is a pretty modest increase compared to the land-based increases we have seen in the last 30 years.

      • Jim D | March 16, 2013 at 11:13 pm | Arrhenius didn’t have a political agenda a century ago (except, being in Sweden, he thought warming would be nice). The science follows from that rather neutral science-only view.

        Do stop with the Arrhenius nonsense, he showed nothing about carbon dioxide, but was using carbonic acid which is primarily water. And, he didn’t understand what Fourier said, but made up his own peculiar idea of the atmosphere. And, that he didn’t have a polictical agenda doesn’t mean he didn’t have an agenda..

        As a chemist he warmed to his mistaken ideas about CO2 and the atmosphere and so preferred to believe that a trace gas was capable of heat transfer via radiation on the collosal scale of instigating the huge rises of temps into interglacials, rather than changes in the Sun’s orbit as was being explained by Croll at the time [http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/iceagetheories.html].

        Arrhenius had zilch sense of scale. As have all who support AGW/CAGW – you get a thermal insultating blanket from a trace gas which makes is pratically 100% hole and ignore the real gas thick heavy blanket of nitrogen and oxygen.

        Since it appears you, generic, can’t tell the difference in scale it is probably yet again a waste of time to explain that it is without our real gas atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen that the temps are minus18° C, in traditional physics, CAGW/AGW has taken this figure and applied it to their Greenhouse Effect fraud – claiming it is this temp only without ‘their ir imbibing greenhouse gases of mainly water and carbon dioxide’

        I’m not expecting you to understand the sleight of hand in this magic trick.., but I’ll tell you again that with the heavy under gravity real gas thermal blanket atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen in place, but without water, the temps would be 67°C.

        You have missed out the Water Cycle..

        Although Arrheniius did have a political agenda, he got himself onto the Nobel committee which then awarded him a prize.

        For his misunderstanding of Fourier see my links here: https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/#comment-274012

  11. k scott denison

    Mr. McIntyre’s demolition of Marcott continues, this time focusing on datng.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/

  12. David Springer

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

    Must read new technique using hydrophilic mineral crystal ‘ikaite’ locks in oxygen18 isotope in crystal lattice at time of formation giving wonderful record of water temperature. The crystal is destroyed by temperatures above 4C but in polar regions it’s preserved for thousands of years in ocean and lake bottom cores.

    Positively confirmed and corroborated by other records is that the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period both extended to the West Antarctic Penninsula which is known to be sensitive to climate change.

    The subject I’d like to discuss is the claim that if MWP was global it means that sensitivity is high. I don’t agree because we don’t know the nature of the forcing which caused it except that it wasn’t CO2 and that it didn’t runaway but rather was constrained within the temperature range of the rest of the Holocene.

    At any rate, for the sake of argument let’s say MWP was global and sensitivity is high. That also means, by the same proxy, the Little Ice Age was global. If a little bit more forcing causes something like the MWP then by the same token a little less forcing causes something like the LIA.

    Therefore, should we be contemplating reducing modern forcing when we know for certain that the consequences of another Little Ice Age would be very bad? And, given the average duration of interglacial periods is 10,000 years and the Holocene is now 11,500 years old, the older the interglacial period gets the more likely it is that a perfect storm of cooling events like a quiet sun, strato-volcano eruption, and cold side of multidecadal ocean cycle comes along to tip the balance and end the interglacial period?

    It is my opinion that anyone cognizant of the above and still advocating actions that would ostensibly cool the earth isn’t acting in a sane and reasonable manner with regard to risk of adverse climate change.

    • Current CO2 levels near 400 ppm preclude ice ages (or even much summer Arctic sea ice for that matter, which is where they start), as these levels were last seen well before Greenland even glaciated (which says something about Greenland’s long-term stability too). So I wouldn’t worry about ice ages unless we somehow drop back below 300 ppm.

      • Current CO2 levels = 1,000,000 sq km extra sea ice in Antarctica. If AGW causes that much extra sea ice then 500ppm should guarantee an ice age.

      • You have been fooled by your own extrapolation assumptions.

      • David Springer

        Actually Jim the mechanism of interglacials is colder winters and warmer summers in the northern hemisphere. In other words warmer winters and cooler summers are what makes glaciers advance. Orbital parameters (Milankovich Cycle) doesn’t change total solar energy reaching the earth it merely redistributes it between winter and summer.

        The mechanism is that warmer winters result in more total snowfall over land. Glaciers are land based. The more snow depth come spring the longer it takes for warm weather to melt it all away. When the summer is cooler less of it gets melted and the permanent snowline moves south latitude-wise and lower in elevation altitude-wise.

        As the permanent snowline advances it creates a positive feedback effect in two ways, both related to albedo. First of all snowcover reflects most sunlight so the more the snowcover and the longer lasting the snowcover the less energy is absorbed into the earth/atmosphere system in and around the snow covered area.

        Also, as more water gets locked up in permanent ice the ocean level falls. Ocean albedo is very low i.e. it absorbs almost all the sunlight that hits it. As the ocean level drops its surface area decreases exposing higher albedo rocks to the sun instead of lower albedo ocean surface. Thus less energy is absorbed by the ocean-atmosphere system even at the equator where there is no ice because even at the equator as sea level drops the higher albedo rocks are exposed.

        Now you know. Or at least I hope you do but I fear your ignorance is willful. I can spoonfeed this stuff to you but if you don’t stop making faces and spitting it out it won’t do you any good.

      • DS, yes, you have echoed the mainstream view of why the Antarctic is expected to be more snowy when the southern oceans warm. This may explain the sea-ice behavior there too. Normally the skeptics don’t like the mainstream view, but here is a case where they tend to agree.

      • DS, regarding your version of the Milankovitch mechanism, it doesn’t mention the summer sea-ice extent. I imagine that is just an oversight, or is your idea totally different to Milankovitch?

      • k scott denison

        Jim D | March 16, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
        You have been fooled by your own extrapolation assumptions.
        —–
        You have been fooled by tales of THERMAGGEDON.

      • ksd, your continued talk of Thermageddon is typical. Is a 5 C warming Thermageddon, and in what way, or is it more the gradual sea-level rise that you worry about? If 5 C warming is safe, how did you figure that out?

      • k scott denison

        JimD, you missed what I thought was an obvious point: predictions of catastrophes are most often incorrect. Hope this helps.

      • How often in the past have humans put the planet on a path like this? I would say never. Perhaps there are historical examples of races that did unsustainable things in their environment and didn’t heed warnings, and this is that type of thing. I don’t think we’ve had the predictive power before. How this works out, whether better or worse than predicted, will be interesting.

      • Jim D,

        Sometimes we’re wrong.
        We don’t know anything.

        USE ALL THE CAPS LOCKS!

        http://memegenerator.net/instance/36283184

      • k scott denison

        JimD, circular logic. It is only if you believe that man has set us on a course for THERMAGGEDON that you believe this is the first time in history that its been done.

        At least I now know that this is a religious belief you hold. Noted.

      • ksd, are you making biblical references? Because if so, I am not going to touch that for fear of offending someone.

      • I told you to break logical chains, Jim D.

        Now k’s going post hoc ergo propter hoc on you.

      • k scott denison

        Funny you jump to equating religious beliefs with the bible JimD. I don’t remember saying anything about the bible, just about your dogmatic beliefs.

      • ksd, you were referring to man putting the earth in danger before. Maybe it was nuclear bombs rather than Noah’s flood or Armageddon, come to think of it, but I had no idea what you were referring to. I think this is the first genuine global environmental effect.

      • David Springer

        re; sea ice

        I didn’t mention sea ice because in Quaternary glaciations only northern hemisphere land ice is vitally important. The ocean off the US northeast coast remains free of ice but inland at the same latitude is covered by a glacier a mile thick. The ocean is thought to have completely or almost completely frozen over to the equator a few times hundreds of millions of years in the past when the sun was substantially dimmer but nothing close to that has happened in the past few million years. In the Quaternary the tropics remain hot and the oceanic conveyor belt continues to transport warm water to the northern pole keeping sea ice at a safe retreat. The big deal is the continental interiors of north America, Europe, and Asia getting covered with glaciers a mile thick.

        What’s really interesting is the rapidity of the melt once it begins. Temperature shoots up like a rocket due to positive feedback high albedo ice turning into low albedo water and ocean surface area expanding. Then as the atmosphere warms up the rest of the hydrologic cycle kicks into full gear and clouds once again build up until they shade ~70% of the surface which brings further warming to a screeching halt. When glacial periods end the warming overshoots and hits a ceiling temperature that is almost exactly the same every time. Glaciers advance slowly but retreat rapidly.

        See figure 1.5 here:

        http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html

      • If you are looking at longer terms, paleo evidence suggests that vegetation spreading northwards darkens the albedo and acts as another positive feedback on the longer term, which when added to the complete ice loss explains the higher 6 C per doubling sensitivity derived from the change since 50 million years ago when CO2 levels were 1000 ppm.

      • David Springer

        Introduction to Micrometeorology pg. 35

        Albedo range for vegetation is 10% to 25% and for rock, sand, and soil surfaces 10% to 40%. Sand is the highest and wet soil the lowest. Wetting darkens everything. Rock is dependent on type with igneous (basalts, granites) usually low on the scale and sedimentary (limestone) somewhat higher. You really can’t tell by looking at it. The average albedo of the moon for instance is 0.12 which equates to the albedo of weathered asphalt here on earth.

        Vegetation needs to be considered differently at any rate because much of the energy it absorbs is given up insensibly through evapotranspiration so it doesn’t heat the air in contact with it like dry rocks & sand. Walk beneath a forest canopy vs. over dry sand in the same region and tell me where the air temperature is cooler. The answer doesn’t correspond to which has the lower albedo.

      • Jim D

        Current CO2 levels near 400 ppm preclude ice ages

        Great crystal ball you’ve got there, Jim, but could it be that it’s a bit cloudy?

        OK. It was a lo-o-o-ong time ago (650 million YBP), but “iceball Earth” occurred when atmospheric CO2 level was 3000 to 6000 ppmv.

        Looks like back then CO2 was NOT the “climate control knob”.

        Why should it be now?

        Max

      • Jim D

        Forgot to mention the Ordovician Ice Age, ~450 million YBP, when CO2 level was ~4000 ppmv.

        (Please don’t refer me to the “Skeptical Science” rationalization of this event.)

        Max

  13. Does anyone deny that the glaciers in the northern hemisphere are disappearing at a current rate of one trillion tons a year? The melting of the ice tends to keep the atmospheric temperature much lower than it would be otherwise. I believe all this heat comes from the energy we use. All energy goes to heat ultimately. Example: in 2008 we used 16 terrawatts of power which is equivalent to 50x10E16 btus per year. This alone is enough to raise the atmospheric temperature by 0.17*F per year. Since earth’s geothermal heat flow of 44 terrawatts will raise earth’s temperature to maintain the gradient between earth and atmosphere, the 16 TW we emit will go primarily to raise atmospheric temperature and to melt glaciers. I am tired of arguing whether it is heat or CO2 causing global warming. When fossil fuels are phased out, both CO2 and heat from that source will be gone. Too many people who believe CO2 is the cause are pushing nuclear power. Nuclear power produces twice the total heat as its electrical output so be careful of what you support as an acceptable power source.

    • 1. What is the net global ice loss?
      2. What is the basis for thinking we can calculate ice loss on such a large scale with any accuracy?
      3. What does the loss represent as a percentage of total global ice extent.
      4. (Repeat question 2)?
      5. How does this prove that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of any net global ice loss?
      5. How do we know that the loss will continue?
      6. How do we know that we can stop it by enacting national policies which will not impact global CO2 emissions much at all?

    • “The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

      The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.”

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

    • This is why I maintain a field guide to climate cranks. Some of them make seasonal appearances, such as PH here.

      If you don’t know the counter-argument to this specific argument, you have to spend valuable time to debunking it.

      To let the cat out of the bag, the heat emitted from combustion is real but since the heat is not retained year-to-year it is not acumulative effect and so does not build up like the cumulative GHG effects of not-easily-condensing CO2.

      PH will never listen to the counter arguments because he has an agenda and only will work backwards from the agenda to something that sounds plausible but is ultimately wrong.

      • Indeed, with the earth’s energy flow from the sun and out via IR, the combustion energy addition is like pouring water (or I could use a more colorful analogy) into a river and expecting its level to rise.

      • A climatist wants to know the average temperature of the water in your pitcher.

      • “To let the cat out of the bag, the heat emitted from combustion is real but since the heat is not retained year-to-year it is not acumulative effect and so does not build up like the cumulative GHG effects of not-easily-condensing CO2.”

        Not that I am a fan of CAGW theory, but why would emitted heat be any less cumulative than solar radiated heat? Why would CO2 retard the outward radiation of one, but not the other? I think I have a basic grasp of the GHG effect. Is “emitted” heat of the wrong wavelength? Is it all the same wave length?

      • Because of the negative feedbacks of Stefan-Boltzman law it doesn’t accumulate.
        Some of the excess heat will migrate to the ocean but the rest will radiate to outer space, proportional to how much it heats up. Heat or thermal energy is more easily sequestered than is CO2, simply because it has this escape mechanism. IOW, it can bleed off to outer space. And with a short residence time (except for heat in the ocean), the greatest the temperature can rise is relatively small.

      • GaryM | March 16, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
        “To let the cat out of the bag, the heat emitted from combustion is real but since the heat is not retained year-to-year it is not acumulative effect and so does not build up like the cumulative GHG effects of not-easily-condensing CO2.”

        Not that I am a fan of CAGW theory, but why would emitted heat be any less cumulative than solar radiated heat? Why would CO2 retard the outward radiation of one, but not the other? I think I have a basic grasp of the GHG effect. Is “emitted” heat of the wrong wavelength? Is it all the same wave length?

        WebHubTelescope | March 16, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
        Because of the negative feedbacks of Stefan-Boltzman law it doesn’t accumulate.
        Some of the excess heat will migrate to the ocean but the rest will radiate to outer space, proportional to how much it heats up. Heat or thermal energy is more easily sequestered than is CO2, simply because it has this escape mechanism. IOW, it can bleed off to outer space. And with a short residence time (except for heat in the ocean), the greatest the temperature can rise is relatively small.

        This is the funniest exchange I’ve seen in a long time – WHT, what are you saying here? That carbon dioxide doesn’t trap heat?

        So there is no “Greenhouse Effect” of “greenhouse gases trapping heat”?

      • Myrrhhh, You are another one of those pesky pranksters, trying to create an alternate universe where you can trip up some gullible marks and get some pathological satisfaction out of it.

      • Jim D

        No doubt, the ONLY (real) input of energy comes from the sun.

        But the outflow is provided by two factors: outgoing LW radiation (as you mention), as modified by the GHE, but also reflected incoming SW radiation (primarily from cloud cover). This represents around 30% of the incoming solar radiation. A 10% change in overall cloud cover has a greater impact than the theoretical GH impact of a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

        This is Nature’s “control knob”, and it is far more significant than the highly ballyhooed “CO2 control knob” (Lacey, Alley).

        And (as IPCC concedes) it represents “the largest source of uncertainty”.

        Max

      • manacker, we don’t have any evidence that a warmer world is a cloudier world. In fact the contrary seems to be better supported by the evidence.

      • We have considerable evidence that cloud changes from variations in ocean and atmospheric circulation causing much of the recent warming and most of the current pause.

      • WebHubTelescope | March 16, 2013 at 7:15 pm |
        Myrrhhh, You are another one of those pesky pranksters, trying to create an alternate universe where you can trip up some gullible marks and get some pathological satisfaction out of it.

        Not fair! That’s what you said. And so what, are you admitting that your marks are gullible? Well, yes, I say they are because CAGW/AGWScienceFiction has destroyed all understanding of the difference between heat and light. If you could understand why visible light from the Sun isn’t heat, isn’t capable of heating matter, you wouldn’t be tripping yourself up.

        What are you trying to say in your post?

      • Skippy, the evidence so far has been about anthropogenic cloud effects (aerosols), not clouds per se. Even though Spencer would like to attribute ENSO to cloud variations, I don’t think he proved it.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Jim,

        The aerosol effect has to do with cloud nucleation. In most cases there is no sparsity of particles around which moisture condenses.

        But Spencer did not claim that clouds cause ENSO. It is more that ENSO involves cloud feedbacks. https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/

        ‘El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on interannual time scales. Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C).’ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

      • CH, Dessler said yes there are cloud feedbacks with ENSO and they are positive. Spencer wasn’t able to prove otherwise except to dispute which one led.

      • No – Dessler said that there was reduced cloud with El Niño. As El Niño warm the planet it was said to suggest the possibility that warming will cause reduced cloud – a positive feedback. It may be not be all that simple – if you look at Zhu et al in the much earlier CE post I linked to – the suggestion is that there are different mechanisms for clouds in ENSO and warming.

      • Cheif Skip-a-along

        “No – Dessler said that there was reduced cloud with El Niño. As El Niño warm the planet it was said to suggest the possibility that warming will cause reduced cloud – a positive feedback. It may be not be all that simple – if you look at Zhu et al in the much earlier CE post I linked to – the suggestion is that there are different mechanisms for clouds in ENSO and warming.”

        Skeptical Science even had to pooh pooh the concept, but there is a definite link.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/Falling-Cloud-Height-In-the-Last-Decade-Is-It-Just-ENSO——-.html

        With a rough cloud base of 5000 meters, bringing CO2 up to 3000 ppm would only change the forcing at the rough ceiling by 1Wm-2. I think that would be effectively saturated at that altitude, nixing a significant portion of that water vapor feedback issue and boosting deep convection.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Dallas,

        From sks –

        Laken (2012) state:

        “We observe a net increase in cloud detected by MODIS over the past decade of ~0.58 %, arising from a combination of a reduction in high – middle level cloud (-0.31 %) and an increase in low level cloud (of 0.89%); these long term changes may be largely attributed to ENSO induced cloud variability”

        It is not how I would read the data. I would put a decrease in cloud cover down to moderate El Nino over most of the decade – with a bit of an untick in the more recent La Nina.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

        Go figure.

      • Chief, there are several things going on with clouds. The lowering of the cloud base and increased deep convection are probably due to a longer term tropical warming trend, the shift in the thermal equator that Toggweiler talked about. That mysterious 100 plus year trend that isn’t supposed to exist, likely related to a Bond type event I would suspect.

        So what Spencer was stating versus what Desser was defending is kind of muddled. .

      • Jim D

        NEITHER Dessler nor Spencer were able to PROVE their points (Spencer could at least point to some empirical data based on actual short-term CERES satellite observations over the tropics, which suggested a net negative cloud feedback with warming).

        But the real issue seemed to be whether or not clouds act ac a separate forcing based on some as yet ill-defined mechanism. And the two “agreed to disagree” on that, as I recall.

        Max

      • Jim D

        manacker, we don’t have any evidence that a warmer world is a cloudier world. In fact the contrary seems to be better supported by the evidence.

        Spencer & Braswell showed that over the short term, the net overall cloud feedback with warming over the tropics was negative.

        Model studies by Wyant et al. using superparameterization to better capture the behavior of clouds, also showed a net negative cloud feedback at all latitudes.

        So much for “cloud feedback” (so maybe a “warmer world” could become a “cloudier world”).

        “Cloud forcing” is another matter. Here it appears from Earthshine data (Palle et al) that decreased cloud cover over the 1980s and 1990s resulted in less incoming SW radiation being reflected back out to space and global warming, and this trend reversed itself around 2000 when the warming stopped.

        As I understand it Spencer has proposed that clouds act as a separate forcing.

        One mechanism proposed for this is the GCR cloud nucleation hypothesis of Svensmark et al., which is being tested under controlled conditions at CERN. (So maybe a “cloudier world” could become a “cooler world”).

        [I believe Kevin Trenberth once referred to “clouds” acting as a “natural thermostat”, which could fit both ways.]

        Max

    • David Springer

      A Watt is not a unit of power. It’s a rate. A Watt/hour is a unit of power.

      Write that down.

      A Joule is also a unit of power. Let’s run some numbers again. Or better yet let’s just let wickedpedia run them for us and then calculate a ratio of solar energy vs. anthropogenic energy to see how much influence the latter might have.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Energy_from_the_Sun

      The total solar energy absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[8] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.

      The number of hours in a year is 24*365 or 8760. So solar energy heating the earth is 8760 times the amount of anthropogenic energy heating the earth. In other words anthropogenic energy is 0.011% of the earth’s energy budget. A drop in the bucket once again, just a bit more than one part in ten thousand. It is significant in urban areas which is where the energy is mostly released though so it’s a significant contributor to urban heat islands.

      • “A Watt is not a unit of power”

        How does he manage to publish so much BS then?

      • We are talking about diferentials. The heat from combustion is approximately sufficient to warm the atmosphere to the new higher greenhouse gas equilibrium. At this higher temperature the emmission of IR at toa is as before the increase in gases and temperature – all else being equal. Apart from increased photon scattering in the atmosphere.

      • A Watt is a unit of power.
        A Joule is a unit of energy.
        Write that down.
        Memorise it.

      • I was leaving that one alone Phatboy – gee you’re brave.

      • Not brave, just on very solid ground.

      • Chief Hydrologist, Sideshow Bob Ellison wrote:

        “We are talking about diferentials. The heat from combustion is approximately sufficient to warm the atmosphere to the new higher greenhouse gas equilibrium. … “

        This statement is gibberish. Combustion of hydrocarbons won’t do anything of the sort.

        Why does anybody pay any attention to what he writes?

      • Webby is a very peculiar rum tum tugger – to continue an Elliot sub-theme.

        ‘The Rum Tum Tugger is a curious beast:
        His disobliging ways are a matter of habit.
        If you offer him fish then he always wants a feast;
        When there isn’t any fish then he won’t eat rabbit.
        If you offer him cream then he sniffs and sneers,
        For he only likes what he finds for himself;’

      • David Springer

        You guys are out to lunch re; Watts and Joules.

        How far will 750 Watts lift a one ton weight off the ground?

        You cannot answer because 750 Watts (approximately one horsepower) is the rate of power production not the total power produced. To know how much power is actually produced, i.e. how far that one ton weight will be hoisted, we need to know how long the power is applied. One horsepower will hoist one ton one foot in one second. Energy flow rates (such one horsepower or the equivalent 750 Watts) requires a unit of time to know how much power is expended. Write that down.

        Now, the context of this was that the commenter above stated the earth receives so many Watts then conflates that with how many Watt/hours humans produce burning fossil fuels. I then corrected it by using the Joule which is a unit of energy (total power generated) and compared annual Joules received by the sun to annual Joules produced by humans. It’s about 10,000:1. Write that down too.

      • A Watt is a unit of power
        A Joule is a unit of energy
        Power is the rate of energy flow
        1 Watt is 1 Joule/second
        Read any engineering or physics textbook – they’ll all tell you the same thing.
        You can’t make up your own definitions.

      • David Springer

        It was explicit in context in that total power is expressed in Watt/hours or Joules. “Total power” and “energy” are synonymous. I chose to use power contrasted with total power to help the original commenter understand the difference between power flow rate and total power flow over time which he had confused by quoting solar energy flow rate into the system vs. total power produced by fossil fuel burning per year. He was comparing different things.

        If that offended the pedant in you that’s just too bad.

      • In case you’ve forgotten what you wrote:

        “A Watt is not a unit of power. It’s a rate. A Watt/hour is a unit of power.”

        and:

        “A Joule is also a unit of power.”

        You were wrong. Get over it.

      • see I said you were brave…

    • Actually Spencer has a post on this and argues that in the US, its a significant effect. Probably in other parts of the world. Unlike the urban heat island effect, increasing energy usage will increase the effect. I think Spencer calculates it as 1/3 W/m2, which is he claims amplified by several other factors. Interesting reading and I haven’t seen anyone rebut it. Webby, since you are such a brilliant acolyte of conventional doctrine, why don’t you tell us why Spencer is wrong. If he’s right, we need to adjust US temps down significantly as a function of energy usage.

      • It 2006, total U.S. energy consumption was estimated (according to DOE/EIA) to be 97.1 quadrillion BTUs, which when converted to “watts” type measurements is equivalent to 3.25 x 1012 watts generated continuously over the course of a year.

        If we divide that by the surface area of the U.S. in meters, we get 0.33 watts per sq. meter. – R. Spencer …

        So out in the pasture where the cows are, it’s .33 watts per sq. meter?

        Spencer mentions this, but never puts a number on it.

      • David Springer

        Yes, Spencer is correct. A large fraction of anthropogenic power production occurs on a tiny fraction of the earth’s surface, primarily in urban/industrial complexes. So there’s a 1000:1 concentration of anthropogenic waste heat vs. total surface area of the earth. This is somewhat moderated by a portion of the fossil fuel power produced going into chemical bond energy in durable manufactured goods and thus doesn’t become waste heat going into the environment. Even so this is dwarfed by warming produced by impervious ground cover in urban areas. Rainfall over urban areas is largely funneled off into deep narrow streams either below or above ground. The greatly reduced wet surface area/time drastically retards evaporation which would otherwise cool the surface and thus we get the urban heat island which is typically 5F-10F higher temperature than surrounding areas which have much more evaporative cooling of the surface and near-surface air. Enthalpy is the same between urban and non-urban areas but thermometers only measure temperature. Looking at enthalpy instead of just temperature alone is much more revealing. Water’s ability to transport huge amounts of energy from surface to far above our heads insensibly as heat of vaporization is the most important factor in any analysis of near-surface climate except in sub-freezing or desert environments where evaporation at gound level and condensation thousands of meters above ground level is naturally curtailed.

    • We know little about the small planet Makemake discovered in 2005 except that it’s a cold and faraway place beyond Neptune. At its distance from the hub of our universe the amount of warmth Makemake gets from the Sun has been compared to the heat from a light bulb more than 30 feet away (about 100 watts at 10 meters).

      It is much easier to see what is happening right here on earth. The Earth is of course much closer to the Sun and a lot of solar energy coming our way is actually reflected away. The reflectivity of a glacier, for example, nears 100%. Clouds over the ocean that covers more than 70% of the planet increase as the ocean is warmed by the sun. Clouds reflect solar energy. The moisture in clouds also make rain and thunderstorms. All of these things have been visible to humanity for thousands of years. We call it weather and it changes. We refer to many years of weather as the climate and if humans have enough time on their hands they can find both warming and cooling trends.

    • Phillip Haddad

      Does anyone deny that the glaciers in the northern hemisphere are disappearing at a current rate of one trillion tons a year?

      Not to belabor the number of “tons per year” or the exceptional glaciers that are not receding, I think it is generally accepted knowledge that Northern Hemisphere glaciers are receding today.

      As we all know, glaciers are simply slow-flowing rivers of ice. As with a river of water, the net balance depends on what comes in and what flows out. If growth and melting balance, the glacier appears to be ‘stationary’. If precipitation exceeds melting the glacier advances: if melting exceeds precipitation the glacier recedes, but there will be a time lag between cause and effect. Air temperature itself (i.e. response to “global warming”) seems to play a secondary role, but prolonged periods of warming or cooling seem to have an effect long-term.

      Studies in the Swiss and Austrian Alps (Schlüchter 2005, Patzelt 2000) have shown that a) glaciers have gone through several periods of expansion and retreat over the past several thousand years, b) they have receded to much lower altitudes than today in the past, c) they were at lower levels than today for over half of the past 10,000 years, d) they reached their highest extent for 10,000 years around 1850, and d) they have generally been receding since 1850.

      These studies used actual physical evidence, i.e. carbon-dated remains of trees and other vegetation recovered under receding glaciers, high above today’s tree line.

      So the current glacier loss is neither unprecedented nor can it be attributed to higher CO2 levels (which did not exist during the past periods of glacial retreat).

      But you are right. They are (generally) retreating today.

      Max

  14. Southern Oscillation Index:
    The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has steadily increased over the past two weeks, mainly associated with higher than normal pressures in the tropical Pacific. This is considered to be largely a weather effect, and doesn’t necessarily reflect the boarder climate situation. The latest (10 March) 30-day SOI value is +9.5.
    Sustained positive values of the SOI above +8 may indicate a La Niña event,while sustained negative values below −8 may indicate an El Niño event. Values of between about +8 and −8 generally indicate neutral conditions.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    • Girma | March 16, 2013 at 4:38 pm |

      You, uh, left off the first and last line from your cite, which entirely reverses the meaning. I’m sure the oversight was unintentional.

      Atmospheric and oceanic indicators of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) generally continue within the neutral range.. The SOI is known to be volatile at this time of year.

      For a particular value of sure.

      Climate models indicate the tropical Pacific is likely to remain ENSO-neutral through the first part of the southern hemisphere autumn. While it is known that predictions from dynamical models during the April through June period have lower skill, all models agree that an ENSO-neutral state is the most likely scenario for the next season.

      In other words, past the next three days to three months, no one has the least clue what the weather will be; conversely, over the next 30-80 years, the climate can more reliably than the 3-day-to-3-month weather forecast be expected to sharply warm and exhibit higher levels of extreme events.

  15. Thanks, Professor Curry, for your efforts to unravel the Climategate mystery. The key to this mystery is:

    ““Fear of Humans – Pathology behind the Climate Change Movement”

    http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/fear-and-loathing-of-humans-the-pathology-behind-the-climate-change-movement/

    With kind regards,
    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  16. Chief Hydrologist

    ‘Atmospheric and oceanic indicators of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) generally continue within the neutral range. The recent increase in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has been due to persistent high pressure weather systems in the central Pacific Ocean, and is not considered indicative of the broadscale climate. The SOI is known to be volatile at this time of year. ‘ from your link Girma which I quite often visit.

    ‘Most models forecast Niño-3.4 SSTs to remain between 0°C and -0.5°C through Northern Hemisphere spring and to remain ENSO-neutral (between -0.5°C and +0.5°C) into the fall (Fig. 6). However, there is increasing model spread and overall less confidence in the forecast during the last half of the year, partly because of the so-called “spring barrier,” which historically leads to lower model skill beginning in late spring.’

    The spring barrier is also called the window of unpredictability. A full blown ENSO is essentially a SH summer phenomenon. But we are in a multi-decadal period of increased La Niña frequency and intensity – and there is every expectation that La Niña will dominate over the next thousand years.

    We know from various sources that ENSO frequency changes over very long timeframes. Cyclone frequency and intensity in north east Australia for instance- which is related to ENSO.

    ‘Prediction of future tropical cyclone climate scenarios requires identification of quasiperiodicities at a variety of temporal scales. Extension of records to identify trends at century and millennial scales is important, but to date the emerging field of paleotempestology has been hindered by the lack of a suitable methodology to discern the intensity of prehistoric storms. Here a technique to quantify the central pressure of prehistoric tropical cyclones is presented in detail and demonstrated for the tropical southwest Pacific region. The importance of extending records to century time scales is highlighted for northeast Australia, where a virtual absence of category 5 cyclones during the 20th century stands in contrast to an active period of severe cyclogenesis during the previous century.’ http://www.tesag.jcu.edu.au/staff/jnott/abstracts/jgr_paper.pdf

    Here’s another ink to Jonathon Nott – http://www.tesag.jcu.edu.au/staff/jnott/index.html

    We have this recent high resolution ENSO proxy from the Law Dome in the Antarctic.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim

    We know that ENSO+PDO is associated wth cloud changes in the Pacific – I have discussed it here – https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/

    Here are some observations in the north east Pacific – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=Clementetal2009.png

    The PDO and ENSO are influenced by shifts in polar SLP which may in fact be a top down effect resulting from interaction of solar UV and stratospheric ozone – e.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008

    So the question is – could this be a missing mechanism for millennial scale temperature variability? If so – it is indeed global.

  17. What is the point of all the discussion about temperatures and arguments about ideology?

    What is their relevance to recommending policy and where our wealth should be spent/wasted?

  18. Chief Hydrologist

    Judith,

    My most recent comment simply disappeared. It first of all appeared with a moderation note – presumably because of the number of links and now is nowhere to be seen. This was a comment 100% about climate – and on areas little known to most people ranging from cyclone frequency in northern Australia to UV/ozone interactions and suggesting a global mechanism for millennial temperature variation. A very serious and thoughtful comment and I object to it being disappeared.

    I’m not sure how long I took to write this – over a slow Sunday morning breakfast of coffee and French toast – but I don’t have a copy and that is time I will never recover.

    Robert I Ellison
    Chief Hydrologist

  19. Chief Hydrologist

    You may have noticed that I use a couple of handles. If I am using another handle you can be sure that I am stealing myself against abusive responses from some denizens. I will enter into the bad spirit of things but like to have the psychic barrier of a persona in place – just to remind myself not to take it at all seriously. It would be better to be able to take everything seriously in a civilised forum.

    The Chief Hydrologist handle derives from Cecil Terwilliger (brother to Sideshow Bob) who was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer. He opined that this was a sacred vocation in some cultures. The more I thought about this the more it resonated with me. I am an hydrologist by training, profession and (much more) through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. Given the importance of water to us practically and symbolically, there is more than an element of the sacred.

    To quote myself from a more civilised era of climate etc – snarky comments are not appreciated. Here, it is seeking of the sacred hydrological truth through dialogue. For this the required attitude is humor, patience, good will, honesty and good faith.

    I will leave you with the Boston Pops mixing up Pachebel with Jewell.

    • Skippy,

      On the 14 + hour flight from Sydney to Dallas-Fort Worth, reading Leonard Susskind’s “The Theoretical Minimum”, listening to a menu of songs, I became aware of the music I liked vs that that which made me punch to the next song: the synchrony and timing of vocalist with their instrumental accompaniment. Voice, background. Air and earth.

      Your posting Jewell with Pachebel reminded me of that enduring connectivity, the precision, the beat. The melodic pitch and tone, the nuances of that vocal instrument cast with the counterpoint of the orchestration. My mind’s eye pictured the musical treble and base cleft staffs, the printed notes, a pictured articulation of equations. I was both listening, seeing and feeling physics in motion.

      I again reminisce how enjoyable it is when we observe or mimic nature in that precise connection of voice and accompaniment, how satisfying and how “right” it all seems. When the vocalist is just a millisecond late, we know something is “off.”

      I wonder if our sensing this timing has anything to do with our “BS” detector when we hear or read climate science: models vs observations.
      Models, whether for ENSO events or for predicting future weather, cyclones, whatever, just seem to me to be a bit “off”, not quite having the timing right between atmosphere and earth’s surfaces.

      Standing with one foot in the Southern Ocean, facing a vertical escarpment, observing horizontal layer upon layer, the treble and base clefts with notes of songs we do not yet hear.

      • “I wonder if our sensing this timing has anything to do with our “BS” detector”

        Pretentiousness in writing is setting off my own BS detector.

      • WebHubTelescope

        As in Climate forcings, feedback is both positive and negative. The outcomes are what we observe. The interpretations are personal.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Pretention is something else – the urge to sing is a deep seated and primordial impulse. It is an urge to bridge the chasm of emotion and the world, experience and imagination, being and nothingness. It is a childs jungle gym on a sandy foreshore. You twist and somersault and fall to be captured to the breast of love – with love no daring is fatal.

    • Nice song.Such a pervasive human tendency, dear
      Chief, we erect barriers, adopt personnas, build walls.
      I myself am cow-girl, serf, and more besides. :)

      BC

      • This video is a bit like the Melbourne Cup in that it seems to stop traffic and change moods almost magically. The old feller was probably coming back from one of his breakdowns.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Nice line – notes of songs we have yet to hear has both promise and poignancy. I was reading the comments on Beth’s video – Frost is a wonder – ‘Robert Frost himself stated that a poem has a “life of its own” it is not so much invented as is discovered.’ Thanks Beth.

      So as a stranger in a strange land – discovering your footprints in the sand is revelatory.

    • David Springer

      What you’ve described with you consciously using multiple handles as a defense mechanism is exactly what the brain unconsciously does in multiple personality disorder. The psyche is subdivided into multiple partitions with limited communication between them. We should all just start calling you Sybil. Everyone here is exposed to exactly the same amount of abuse by others but hardly anyone responds to it the way you do by using a plethora of different names. I suggest that’s an abnormal, clinically psychotic response mechanism that deserves its own entry in the DSM-IV-TR.

      Just sayin’.

      • Do you think this puts you in a good light David? You suffer from smartest person in the room syndrome. It is characterised by bombastic didacticism and shouting down anyone who dares to disagree. They must be wrong after all. You – as you have said – can spend 10 minutes on the internet and become and become an instant expert on anything at all. Your natural mode is aggressive. It contrasts strongly with those of us who are open, creative, imaginative, reflective, communicative and self doubting. As Beth alluded to with her Robert Frost poem – a life without fences.

        Chief Hydrologist is a metaphor of the natural philosopher. An earnest seeker after truth – a patient worker in the vineyards of science with a heritage that is centuries if not millennia old. One milestone – for instance – in this long progression was the invention of the telescope some 400 years ago. That there have been people counting sunspots since then is a wonder of human perseverance – a triumph of spirit. I know who I am – I am Robert I Ellison – engineer, scientist, poet. I have no need of self aggrandisement – I have need of good food, a song and a friend.

        Captain Kangaroo – and then Generalissimo Skippy after seizing control of this blog – is a metaphor as well. Although I can neither confirm or deny his true identity. First of the entrenchment of positions in the climate war and then of the will to power that is informed by an overweening moral conviction. A will to power that has proved disastrous for ordinary humanity in the 20th century and may again this century if we are not careful.

        My problem – as I have stated before – is that I don’t think you are the smartest person in the room by a long way. And even if you were – your natural mode precludes any real modesty, self reflection, ability to learn from others and to build on common understanding. The difference is between individualism – doomed to failure because these problems are far too complex for individuals – and approaching the problems synergistically as environmental scientists are trained to do. ‘Environmental science is a multidisciplinary academic field that integrates physical and biological sciences, (including but not limited to ecology, physics, chemistry, biology, soil science, geology, atmospheric science and geography) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems. Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, and interdisciplinary approach to the study of environmental systems’. wikipedia

        Environments include both the natural and human spheres – and you can’t solve problems in one without considering the other.

      • Chief Wiggles of Oz, when people figure out the prank, it’s time to hang it up.

        This one is way past the expiration date

      • You are an instant expert on raising ignorance to an art form.

        Listen, Chief, why don’t you go into Wikipedia and yank all that stuff out that you disagree with? That would be the ultimate prank. Just place the quote of yours “It is quite likely that warming will cause a slowdown in MOC this century and the potential for threshhold change is quite unknown.” in the above Wikipedia entry and you can get your jollies that way.

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/03/10/new-perspectives-on-climate-sensitivity/#comment-303356

        And just to make sure you don’t miss it.

        ‘Overall, there is high confidence in predictions of a MOC slowdown during the 21st century, but low confidence in the scale of climate change that would cause an abrupt transition or the associated impacts. However, there is high confidence that the likelihood of large-scale and persistent MOC responses increases with the extent and rate of anthropogenic forcing.’

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/03/10/new-perspectives-on-climate-sensitivity/#comment-303360

        I think you are the dumbest person in the room. The speculation is rife as to why you are so inconsequential – nothing of any import or seriousness in a scientific sense but simply endlessly repeating the same old tired complaint, the sychophantic, self aggrandising trivial and childish abuse. It really is so tedious.

        Jut what is it that you think you have figured out? That there is a person called Robert I Ellison – who has a handle of Chief Hydrologist and actual knowledge of climate? Was that difficult for you? That there is a partisan right wing climate warrior named Skippy – who emerges when the ideologies are most entrenched. You could take it as a reminder to be less intransigent and self indulgent if you had any subtlety of intellect.

        You opportunistically agree with David? Really no surprise. You both have the same smartest person in the room syndrome. Your modes of interaction are fundamentaly agressive – you dictate and then abuse when questioned. Is this appreciatied by anyone? Shouldn’t think so.

      • Sloppy said “You opportunistically agree with David?”

        Springer is a pain but we all know people like him in engineering circles.
        Springer is the guy that the project leads bring in as a devil’s advocate during project reviews. He makes critical comments that you need to take heed of at the risk of making a design mistake. You might hate him, but ultimately thank him when he makes the product better.

        You Chief, on the other hand, would be completely shunned. A dead-ender and impediment to progress.

      • And just to make sure you don’t miss it.

        ‘Overall, there is high confidence in predictions of a MOC slowdown during the 21st century, but low confidence in the scale of climate change that would cause an abrupt transition or the associated impacts. However, there is high confidence that the likelihood of large-scale and persistent MOC responses increases with the extent and rate of anthropogenic forcing.’

        I am an engineer and environmental scientist at the leaing edge of my niche in environmental technlogy. You are a complete bonehead with little wit and no charm – and such a paucity of knowledge of climate in particular. David is an obsolete gamer who lives in a dry lake bed.

        I bet you have tracked down Tomas’s latest comment by now to apply your obsessive slime. Yes? Let’s see.

      • Sloopy said:

        “I bet you have tracked down Tomas’s latest comment by now to apply your obsessive slime. Yes? Let’s see.”

        Like Springer, I let technology do the tracking for me. I use an RSS blog feed you see.

        Document the atrocities, as Atrios would say. Go after the self-described queen-bees, “chiefs”, and those of you that claim intellectual leadership. It also keeps the logical arguments sharp — if you have something to challenge, have at it.

      • Webnutcolonoscope – oh wait that’s hardly new and so not funny anymore.

        I can’t be bothered with a feed – too much dross. Likewise I generally ignore you and springer if you are not actually being pests.

        If you have anything to say that isn’t totally moronic – have at it. Perhaps some science that doesn’t rely on climate being a log function – log (axb) = log(a) + log (b)

        Hell – that makes a lot of sense.

        And just to make sure you don’t miss it.

        ‘Overall, there is high confidence in predictions of a MOC slowdown during the 21st century, but low confidence in the scale of climate change that would cause an abrupt transition or the associated impacts. However, there is high confidence that the likelihood of large-scale and persistent MOC responses increases with the extent and rate of anthropogenic forcing.’

        Are you going to continue to ignore your laest boneheaded error? Then again you are a fool a liar and a fraud. Par for the course.

      • “Are you going to continue to ignore your laest boneheaded error?”

        Your mistake. You can’t point to it.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I keep pointing to it because it is so much fun.

        Listen, Chief, why don’t you go into Wikipedia and yank all that stuff out that you disagree with? That would be the ultimate prank. Just place the quote of yours “It is quite likely that warming will cause a slowdown in MOC this century and the potential for threshhold change is quite unknown.” in the above Wikipedia entry and you can get your jollies that way.

  20. Nick Stokes emulated Marcott & al and had this to say:

    My main criticism of the paper so far is that they do plot data in recent times with few proxies to back it. It shows a “hockey stick” which naturally causes excitement. I think they shouldn’t do this – the effect is fragile, and unnecessary. Over the last century we have good thermometer records and don’t need proxy reinforcement. Indeed the spikes shown are not in accord with the thermometer record, and I doubt if anyone thinks they are real.

    http://moyhu.blogspot.ca/2013/03/my-limited-emulation-of-marcott-et-al.html

    • Brandon Shollenberger

      Emulating a process requires using the same process. Nick Stokes didn’t even try to do much to replicate their work. Either he didn’t replicate anything, or their method has little difference from a straight average.

      Regardless, if the latest part of the reconstruction isn’t robust, that calls into question the entire reconstruction.

      • k scott denison

        +1 Brandon. Why is this so,hard to understand for some?

      • Emulation is not replication.

      • Well Brandon, I’m sorry if I’m not getting through it fast enough for you. But I have now done the calc with Marcott’s revised dating, and it does introduce a marked recent spike.

        But it makes not much difference elsewhere. Non-robustness of the recent reconstruction simply means that there are very few proxies that continue into recent times. They don’t need an overlap for calibration, so there is no reason why that should call into question the entire reconstruction.

      • The link leads nowhere, Nick.

      • k scott denison

        Nick, the sudden appearance of a “marked spike” in just the right time, with no significant differences elsewhere… does this set off any alarm bells for you?

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Nick Stokes, the authors provided the data as they used it. That means it was already re-dated. You’d have to go to a different source to get a version that wasn’t re-dated. You didn’t. You used their already re-dated data.

        Which is irrelevant to the point I was making here. The point I made here is you didn’t even try to do their Monte Carlo method. That means your approach either doesn’t offer much of an emulation, or their method isn’t very different than the (relatively) simple averaging you used. Either way, you’re offering next to no support for their method.

        If we accept your “emulation” was sufficient, the value of their Monte Carlo process is greatly reduced. If we don’t accept such, the value of your “emulation” is greatly reduced. It’s a weak case either way.

        And that doesn’t criticize you for anything. It just says you haven’t made much of a case for anything.

      • Willard,
        Here’s the link. Sorry about that. It’s the same as the one you gave above.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        By the way, I normally ignore willard, but since he made a semi-valid point, I’ll respond. He said:

        Emulation is not replication.

        This is true. Emulation is imitation not exact replication. One can emulate a process without using the exact same process. As such, when I said “same process,” I was somewhat unclear. The point I was making was thus:

        The authors used a Monte Carlo process which involved a thousand runs for each series. Nick Stokes did a single (weighted) average. Those two processes are very different, and one is not an emulation of the other.

        If people like willard want to argue some point of semantics as to how similar two processes have to be before one qualifies as an “emulation” of the other, they can. It doesn’t matter for my point. My point is what Nick Stokes did is greatly different than what the authors did. It is certainly far too different to qualify as an emulation no matter what semantic quibbling anyone wants to engage in.

      • Brandon,
        “Nick Stokes, the authors provided the data as they used it. That means it was already re-dated.”
        The authors spreadsheet provided, among other things:
        E: Published Age
        F: Published Temperature
        G: Marine09 Age
        G wasn’t always Marine09, but mostly. This is their re-date. I originally used E and F, in the update I used G and F.

        My post was titled: “My limited emulation of a Marcott et al reconstruction”.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Apparently I need to stop talking. For some reason I didn’t think the data release contained both the re-dated and originally dated data. This is weird because earlier I talked about about the effect of re-dating data. I guess I just saw a “Published age” column in each sheet and jumped to an assumption in my haste (it’s a weekend, and I’ve been out and about).

        That’s a pretty stupid screw up, but it has no bearing on the point at hand. Why are we talking about this when the point I made is something else entirely?

      • Brandon Shollenberger, “your response is about as pathetic as they come.”

        “Insult me all you want. It won’t change the fact you jumped to an incredibly stupid conclusion.”

        “And that’s ignoring how petty you are being.”

        Your words! :)

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Peter Lang, I hope you just lost track of your location and aren’t stalking me now. That’d be creepy.

        Regardless, if you have a point to make, you should just come out and state it. Until you do, it just seems like you’re portraying me as hypocritical for behavior that isn’t hypocritical in the slightest because you’re grossly distorting what I said.

      • Horatio Stokes.
        ==========

      • Who pumps from all stumps without end. What heart! What capacity!
        ======================

      • Speaking of semantics, to speak of “semi-valid point” has no semantical merit. One could speak of “semi-decidable” point, though.

        Chewbacca should know that emulation is not replication. He might even have studied this in more formal settings. We could also talk of simulation, which in one sense Chewbacca brings to the ClimateBall game, a sense by which computer theorists do not usually construct bi-simulations.

      • Steven Mosher

        At some point people will realize the importance of providing the
        data as used and the code as run.
        Hint: you dont know the data provided is the data as used unless you have the code as run.
        Instead smart men like Nick and Steve have to waste time trying to emulate what should have been shared and shared freely.
        It’s a waste of human capital and ingenuity. Failure to share is only defended in these instances on utterly ad hoc grounds.

  21. Favorite meme of the week:

    > UNIT TEST ALL THE THINGS !

    http://memegenerator.net/instance/23195178

  22. From Michealsp’s:

    David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people’s ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.

    As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, “very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is,” Dunning told Life’s Little Mysteries.

    He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. Whether the researchers are testing people’s ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess, the duo has found that people always assess their own performance as “above average” — even people who, when tested, actually perform at the very bottom of the pile. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It]

    http://planet3.org/2013/03/15/a-simple-agent-model-of-dunning-kruger/

    • blueice2hotsea

      willard –

      Classic (Beck 67).

      Most mentally healthy people overestimate their abilities. In contrast, the clinically depressed self-evaluate performance much more accurately in absolute terms. The result is a devaluation of their own performance relative to most others.

      It may be that depressed people project accurate self-assessment onto others and therefore readily accept others’ overblown self-estimates. The result is that depressed people conclude they are not as good as others.

      • This might be why ClimateBall acts like a depressant.

        How could anyone be as good as Big Dave?
        Even DS might have a tough time living up to his character.

        Reality is way overrated.

      • Here be luverly corolurries.
        ===========

      • blueice2hotsea

        If I can take this one step further without going a bridge too far.

        It may be that healthy people who have a knack for honest self-assessment risk becoming depressed – unless of course they maintain some awareness that most others lack similar ability.

      • A therapist I know told me that really problematic people rarely go on treatment by their own free will. His clientele are mainly people that need to come to realize that what they feel is real, that they can take action on most of these feelings, even if that entails accepting reality as it is. Therapy might only with an expansion of the serenity prayer.

        We all need contact, among one another and with reality. ClimateBall is juvenile. Gaslighting is evil.

      • blueice2hotsea

        willard – We all need contact, among one another and with reality. ClimateBall is juvenile. Gaslighting is evil.

        For you, do the 2nd two satisfy the first?

      • Good question, blue. I think it does, sometimes. Now, it does.

        What about you?

    • ‘Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able
      to judge it.’
      Pericles of Athens (about 430BC)

      ‘The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male
      or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the mind
      of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all
      on his own initiative; neither out of zeal nor even playfully.’
      Plato ( some eighty years later.)

      Note some pertinent comments on the confident prediction
      by ‘the expert’ and amnesia regarding experts’ previous
      unsuccessful predictions in ‘The Black Swan.’
      ( Nassim Taleb Introduction)

      Thankfully a modest concern re uncertainy is a strength
      some experts, like Judith Curry, do demonstrate .

      Jest sayin’

  23. If we are to make progress in a corporate way in counterimg the mistskes of the IPCC, we need to agree on a few fundamentals.
    (1) The IPCC has greatly exaggerated the affect
    of carbon dioxide on global temperature increase.
    (2) That human generared CO2 has caused some increased global temperature.
    (4) That the correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentration has been poor and sometimes zero or negative for periods of years.
    (5) Because climate is an averaged property of the atmosphere we should agree on a smoothing formula that is not too lomg oy too short to be a measure of climate.

    Other agreements are possible but would need to be negotiated e.g.what negative and positive feedbacks exist and their influence, the vibrational modes of CO2 and the power involved, the increased importance of heat islands on global temperature particularly in the N.hemisphere.

    • Alexander Biggs,

      It’s good to see a summary as you have done. However, from a policy perspective all this is next to irrelevant, If we want to inform policy we have to shows the steps from what you have listed to:

      Climate damages per degree of warming
      climate damages per tonne of GHG emissions
      GHG abatement costs per tonne GHG abated
      Policy options
      Probability a chosen policy will control the GHG emissions
      Or more importantly, that the chosen policy will control the climate within the selected design tolerances.

  24. Dick Deadeye

    Why p*** billions of dollars annually away on flaky models when these empirical basics haven’t been done yet ?

    (The empirical basics previously mentioned being deep ocean temperature and radiation balance at TOA. No doubt there are more too).

    Does seem to be a good question. Too difficult, or models more compliant in terms of desired results ?

    • BFJ Cricklewood

      Dick DeadEye
      +1

      Whether you are sitting on the fence, or on one side of it or the other, you cannot but agree that CO2 global warming is a vast and complex issue with any number of interwoven subplots and levels, much still highly speculative.

      It is though I think still agreed that the bottom line is the radiation budget; how much energy is being absorbed by the earth, versus how how much is being sent out again. Seems simple enough. If we knew this, we could easily see whether the net result moved with CO2 levels or not. End of complexity, doubt, endless quarrels, and the possibility of a genuine settled science (for practical policy purposes, at any rate).

      So WHY are climate scientists and their government funding agencies not prioritizing empirical measurement of the radiation budget ?

      • Only need to look at Andrew Lacis comments on this blog

        “One reason to separate the global climate change problem into the two components of (1) global warming, and (2) natural variability is to recognize that the model analysis of these two components has different modeling requirements. For global warming, the GHG forcing is globally uniform, and the modeling goal emphasis is on global energy balance and global temperature change. For this purpose, coarser model resolution is adequate since the advective transports of energy (latent and sensible heat, geopotential energy), which are an order of magnitude larger than the radiative terms, must by definition globally add to zero. Since the global energy balance and the greenhouse effect are all radiative quantities, the emphasis then is on assuring the accuracy of the radiation modeling.

        The natural variability component, which includes the unforced local, regional, and interannual climate changes is a more difficult problem to address, and requires higher model spatial resolution and greater care in dealing with horizontal enrgy transports and conversions.”

        But he does say that GCM models and simulations have benefits

        “All submodels have their own problems, and we have the problems of discretization, but even with all these problems the use of GCM type models brings improvements to what can be learned from overall constraints alone.”

      • BFJ Cricklewood

        Web,
        Thanks for that, but I don’t see how it addresses the question
        Which is – if we could only get a good fix on the radiation budget, we would have pinned down the whole AGW question, and then either proceed to either tackle or ignore it, depending on the outcome.

      • BFJ Cricklewood,

        if we could only get a good fix on the radiation budget, we would have pinned down the whole AGW question, and then either proceed to either tackle or ignore it, depending on the outcome.

        Radiation budget and climate sensitivity is one but not the only important parameter we need to understand if we to “either proceed to either tackle or ignore it, depending on the outcome.

        The damage function is at least as important. That is, what is the net benefit – damage of warming?

        Another important parameter is the decarbonisation rate. That is, at what rate will the world decabonise without mitigation strategies and with appropriate ‘No regrets’ policies?

        Lastly, something that seems to be not even considered, is: what is the probability that the chosen solution will deliver the expected benefits?

        It seems virtually all the research effort is on trying ti reduce the uncertainty of climate sensitivity. But, on its own, climate sensitivity is useless for effective policy options and analysis.

      • BFJ Cricklewood

        Peter Lang :
        Radiation budget and climate sensitivity is one but not the only important parameter we need to understand if we to “either proceed to either tackle or ignore it, depending on the outcome.”

        But is it the first one that needs to be settled. If the radiation budget turns out to vary very little as CO2 goes up, all the other questions can and should then be tossed into the bin. And if not, not.

        So what I’m saying is, for now put all/most of the research money into solving the radiation budget, since without it everything else is pretty much just hot air (as interesting as it clearly is).

  25. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    BFJ Cricklewood asks  “WHY are climate scientists and their government funding agencies not prioritizing empirical measurement of the radiation budget?”

    BFJ Cricklewood, you will be delighted to know that NASA’s chief climate scientists place a top priority upon in-depth observation and analysis of earth’s energy budget together with a multi-author multi-disciplinary analysis of its implications:

    “Appropriate measurements can quantify the major factors driving climate change, reveal how much additional global warming is already in the pipeline, and help define the reduction of climate forcing needed to stabilize climate.”

    “Understanding of the aerosol indirect forcing will require a combination of global observations, field measurements, and a range of modeling and analysis studies.”

    “Global observations to determine the aerosol direct and indirect climate forcings will need to include simultaneous measurements of reflected solar and emitted thermal radiation fields as described above.”

    “We also must quantify the causes of changes of Earth’s energy imbalance. The two dominant causes are changes of greenhouse gases, which are measured very precisely, and changes of atmospheric aerosols. It is remarkable and untenable that the second largest forcing that drives global climate change remains unmeasured.”

    It is regrettable these sensible & foresighted (albeit somewhat boring) scientific voices sometimes are drowned-out by an orgy of astro-turfing, cherry-picking, and scandal-mongering.

    It’s good that people like you are developing the patience to read-and-comprehend this scientific work, BFJ Cricklewood. There are far too many ideology-first know-nothings who lack the motivation and/or the competence to do so!

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

    • Fan seems to be from some distant planet. There is no group that more epitomises ideology-first, than the coterie of government lackey climate scientists and the IPCC, known to be corrupt by both Climategate etc, and their almost total lack of remorse or disapproval thereof. He is either being disingenuous in not noting this, or is the most gullible person alive today.

    • BFJ Cricklewood

      1. Is the radiation budget a priority though?
      2. Worryingly, there is more talk of models there, implying a continued fudge factor.

      There are far too many ideology-first know-nothings who lack the motivation and/or the competence to do so!

      Yes the IPCC does need to be de-politicized. But how?

    • > Yes the IPCC does need to be de-politicized. But how?

      As needed as that is, is that even possible ? … It’s a political body after all, and will thus inevitably tend to promote the cause of politics.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      BatedBreath, BFJ Cricklewood, and Vassily all assert:  “the IPCC does need to be de-politicized.”

      BatedBreath, BFJ Cricklewood, and Vassily, it is good that you appreciate this need …

      … because scientists increasingly appreciate that the IPCC consistently underestimates the long-term gravity of climate-change.

      As the IPCC becomes less political, the public will come to a more clear appreciation of the threat of climate-change to global civilization.

      This increased seriousness will be good, eh BatedBreath, BFJ Cricklewood, and Vassily?

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

      • I’m afraid to click on the link. It probably goes to some idiot like Naomi Oreskes.

      • Your’re right about FAN‘s links just being to his favorite crazies.
        He must be the gullible nitwit of the decade – actually thinks depoliticizing the IPCC will make it push for LESS less political correctness and alarmism Beat that!

    • You are detached from reality Fan. The IPCC is itself political, and hence politicized towards expanding government interference, not reducing it (whatever those activists you refer to say). De-politicising the IPCC may we well put CAGW off the agenda entirely. Which is why ultra-leftists like yourself don’t want that to happen.

    • BFJ Cricklewood asks “WHY are climate scientists and their government funding agencies not prioritizing empirical measurement of the radiation budget?”

      NASA’s chief climate scientists place a top priority upon in-depth observation and analysis of earth’s energy budget together with a multi-author multi-disciplinary analysis of its implications:

      “Appropriate measurements can quantify the major factors driving climate change, reveal how much additional global warming is already in the pipeline, and help define the reduction of climate forcing needed to stabilize climate.”

      But what percentage of the total climate budget does this alleged “top priority” get? 1%? 10%? 50%?

      Also the comments about “analysis of its implications”, “how much already in the pipeline”, and “stabilize climate”, sounds ominously like they have already broadly made up their minds about what to find
      – ie they are committed to the alarmist consensus (they too are after all politically funded). And allocate only a small budget to this, for fear it might reveal CO2 to not be the demon that political – their funder – would like it to be seen as.

  26. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    The sober voice of science:


    Death in Jurassic Park:
    global warming and ocean anoxia

    As any aquarium-keeper will know, a critical factor in the wellbeing of their collection involves the amount of oxygen in the water. … Take that dissolved oxygen down to zero – anoxia – and pretty much everything is dead, period.

    Marine hypoxic and anoxic events are well-known from the geological record and have been in some cases so widespread as to lead to mass-extinctions.

    The take-home message from all of this? By whatever means an initial atmospheric carbon spike is generated (be it gigantic volcanic episodes or humans burning fossil fuels), the knock-on effects can be substantial, leading to a portfolio of severe environmental stresses that manifest themselves in the fossil record as mass-extinctions.

    The events recorded in these Toarcian rocks once again warn us starkly of our peril.

    The demented voice of John Galt:


    John Galt’s Speech
    (from the book Atlas Shrugged)

    “Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think-not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know.”

    Is Death in Jurassic Park reminding us —fair and square! — that Nature will unhesitatingly and irretrievably punish humanity, for the sins that John Galt condemns: willful ignorance, ideology-driven cherry-picking, juvenile scandal-mongering, and unscientific motivism?

    Perhaps the (real-life) Wendell Berry is far wiser than the (utterly fictional) John Galt in soberly reminding us that:

    “Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.”

    Good on `yah, Wendell Berry!

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

  27. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    The sober voice citizen-science:


    Citizen-Science by the A-Team

    Below is what the ice has actually been doing the last 30 days. Note the central Arctic motion (per goat’s head buoy) has markedly accelerated the last 4-5 days.

    When someone’s ice classification conflicts with ice-penetrating structural radar, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong, just that they have some serious explaining to do. When they can’t or won’t or don’t, move on to something better.

    Good on `yah, A-Team! Incredible data! At this rate of ice-export, 2013 may witness open-sea voyages to the North Pole.

    Yikes  so perhaps death in Jurassic Park folks are correct-on-the-facts?

    Yeah … in the long run, the denialist astro-turfers, cherry-pickers, slogan-shouters, scandal-mongers, and abuse-hurlers are utterly helpless … in the face of solid citizen-science! Good on `yah, citizen-scientists!

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

  28. The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

    • Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.

    • Oddly, they don’t talk about the land temperature which rose 0.9 C in this period. May not warm for another two decades according to Judith in big letters, a distorted quote, I would think. David Rose is known for these shrill opinion pieces rather than actually reporting the science. Nice that David Bellamy is the star of this, as the person who got the glacier data wrong in his previous efforts at activism.

    • Jim D > Oddly, they don’t talk about the land temperature which rose 0.9 C in this period.

      If land temperature showed CAGW, activists like the IPCC would be trumpeting it from the rooftops. But they aren’t.

      > May not warm for another two decades according to Judith in big letters, a distorted quote, I would think. David Rose is known for these shrill opinion pieces rather than actually reporting the science.

      No, just your own distorted pause-denialist distortion kicking in.

      • It shows 0.3 degrees per decade lately. Do you call that CAGW already? They also don’t touch the subject of Arctic sea ice, probably hoping nobody will remember that bit if they don’t mention it. Makes for a better storyline without the inconvenient parts. I think Rose can fool people who aren’t really paying attention.

    • The UN and the IPCC, ( say, where is Hercules when
      yer need him ter clean out the Augean Stables?

      • The sad and remarkable irony is that only cold can cure this disease of fear of warmth. There would be no fear of warmth were there no hook to manipulation of human fear and guilt through the AnthroCO2 link, which allows for the sequestration of power.

        A terrible and historic mistake, tragedy and farce. Perhaps predictable enough to foresee the next one.
        ======================

  29. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Dave Springer asserts his faith:  “The past 15 years demolished all catastrophic global warming predictions.”

    Wrong.

    Yah know, Dave … when solidly conservative institutions all around the world — like the Roman Catholic Church and the US military and also alliances of hunters and fishers — unite against climate-change denialism … hmmm … perhaps its time for denialists to get a clue?

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

    • <i.ave Springer asserts his faith: “The past 15 years demolished all catastrophic global warming predictions.”

      Wrong.

      Agreed. The actual facts are not being allowed to interfere with official political-correctness-driven predictions.

    • David Springer

      The denialist is you. The catastrophic global warming narrative is in tatters. Mild, welcome anthropogenic warming in higher northern latitudes is still alive but that too may soon be an endangered species if the trend since 2010 continues for much longer.

      The most interesting thing about your ilk is that you’d be disappointed to learn that climate catastrophe was a false alarm because of your unvoiced misguided misanthropic world view. You believe that the threat of climate catastrophe is the only way to stop useless eaters (to take a phrase from a different facist people-hater) from overruning the earth which must be preserved for the elite enlightened group you imagine yourself to part of. Spare me.

      Now I’m quite sure I must be teetering on the edge of being the author of 5% of the last 1000 comments which I’ve obliged myself with our hostess to not exceed so I shan’t waste another on the pitiful , willfully ineducable likes of you, John Sidles.

      • JCH: A two-year trend isn’t too meaningful, but of the short lines you draw on the graph it’s the most sensible, and it’s down. Just looking at the graph you can clearly see that it’s lower now than it was two years ago: with the exception of the huge (99th percentile) spike in Jan 2013, no value has exceeded the first half of 2010.

      • Spinning spokes on a roulette wheel.
        =============

      • People throw out meaningless trends all the time. The “standstill” of 10 years is not very meaningful.

        If your candidate were more significant than the shorties, the 10-year trend would be flat or negative. It’s back to positive.

      • David Springer

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:2010/trend/detrend:-0.325

        Trend since 2010 is a bit more than -0.1C per year. PER YEAR! That’s negative 1.0C per decade if it persists. Imagine the hoots and hollers from the loony left if it was 1.0C/decade warming. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!</b

        At this rate global average temperature will be below the 1979-1998 baseline by the end of this coming winter. If it keeps up for 7 more years we'll be in a full blown global cooling panic. Pray it doesn't happen because global cooling is immediately bad news to agriculture and hence global food supply. No waiting for the year 2100 to roll around for a climate catastrophe on the cool side. No siree Bob.

      • David

        You comment on a negative trend.

        Cet is a reasonable, but not infallible proxy for global temperatures and seems to be a leading trend for what we can expect. Here is cet from 1772 to the present day

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
        Temperatures have dropped sharply in the uk for some 15 years or so and are currently now the same as those from around those of the 1730’s.

        Temperatures have dropped as sharply as energy prices have risen with obvious consequences on the ability of many people to keep themselves warm and out of debt. We do have the satisfaction of course of having the worlds first ‘ climate change act’ that is legally enforceable and will drive up prices sharply upwards in future decades.
        Tonyb

      • JCH > People throw out meaningless trends all the time. The “standstill” of 10 years is not very meaningful.

        The standstill is now at 16 years, more or less the same as the entire period of AGW (1980 – 1998). By your reckoning then, the entire AGW trend is also meaningless . Perhaps you’re right, this is all just a figment of motivated activism..

    • Wow, the military is using the fear of a perceived threat to try and get more funding? That’s never happened before.

    • @:Fan of more idiocy
      the Roman Catholic Church and the US military and also alliances of hunters and fishers unite against climate-change denialism … hmmm … perhaps its time for denialists to get a clue?

      Heck, if these guys say cagw is true, it must be. Everybody be alarmist now please.

  30. Yikes! I just found myself wearing both orange and green. What to do? What to do?

    Suddenly, I have some sympathy for the Once and Future Doctor Marcott.
    ========

  31. Auditors around the world might be glad to know that Eli, just before his 2000nd post (way to go, Mr. Hockey!), that they now can audit Christy’s and Spencer’s code:

    Well, it turns out that a recent poke at this by Eli, brought a pointer to a place where this was mentioned three years ago,

    Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer of UAH asking about the public availability of the source code used to process UAH data. Dr. Christy replied:

    We are in a program with NOAA to transfer the code to a certified system that will be mounted on a government site and where almost anyone should be able to run it. We actually tried this several years ago, but our code was so complicated that the transfer was eventually given up after six months.

    and in turn mentioned a name of someone who might have some information

    So UAH source code isn’t currently available, but they’re in the process of working with a NOAA program to make it available. I followed up asking if there was a general ETA for this availability. He replied:

    I talked with John Bates of NOAA two weeks ago and indicated I wanted to be early (I said the “first guinea pig”) in the program. He didn’t have a firm date on when his IT/programming team would be ready to start the transition, so I don’t know.

    So Eli googled John Bates and got a reply

    you can find details on code and download the code itself for Christy and for RSS MSU from this web page:

    http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2013/03/an-apology-from-eli.html

    Hopefully I have all the blockquotes right.

    This is the web page:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdr/operationalcdrs.html

    AUDIT ALL THE CODES!

  32. Cliff Mass has a post on Climate Tribes, check it out
    http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-tribes.html

  33. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    https://judithcurry.com/2013/03/16/open-thread-weekend-11/#comment-303390

    Girma froths:  “Global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along”

    Trish Roberts-Miller’s celebrated on-line essay Characteristics of Demagoguery vividly describes twelve key features of demagogic denialism:

        • 01  polarization,
        • 02  ingroup/outgroup thinking,
        • 03  scapegoating,
        • 04  motivism,
        • 05  personalizing,
        • 06  denial and/orrefusal,
        • 07  false dilemmas,
        • 08  ad personum arguments,
        • 09  conspiracy theories,
        • 10  pandering to prejudice,
        • 11  bad science, and
        • 12  anti-intellectualism

    However, Prof. Roberts-Miller omits a thirteenth key trait that is well illustrated by the frothing fervor of this weeks denialist demogoguery in regard to the Marcott et al 2013 hockey stick:

        • 13  quibbling  The emotional faith that cherry-picked refutations of weak climate-change science suffice to refute strong climate-change science.

    Conclusion  Though the dog may bark, the caravan (kafila) moves on!

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

    • Steven Mosher

      Good list FOMD.

      Let me suggest something to you. When I first finished reading the climategate mails ( about 2 days of reading) by friend Tom Fuller called and asked what I found. In a nutshell: “Well Tom, there is no smoking gun of any major wrong doing. But I will say this. They engaged in every form of bad behavior that they accused the skeptics of.” and then I went down the list, which frankly looked like your list below.Quite the inventory.

      And what is the point of these lists. You care about the planet. I care about the planet. Does the list get you any closer to agreement about what to do? Especially when that list can be turned around on you?
      Not a good tactic to demonize your opponent.. except to build solidarity within ranks.. So add item 14: makes lists of opponents bad behavior.
      who has been naughty and who has been nice.

      I was thinking of showing you examples of all 13. but that would merely perpetuate the list making.

    • Matthew R Marler

      a fan of *MORE* discourse: However, Prof. Roberts-Miller omits a thirteenth key trait that is well illustrated by the frothing fervor of this weeks denialist demogoguery in regard to the Marcott et al 2013 hockey stick:

      • 13 quibbling The emotional faith that cherry-picked refutations of weak climate-change science suffice to refute strong climate-change science.

      The careful analyses performed by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit show that there is no clear data audit trail from the raw data to the adjusted data to the final graph reported by Marcotte et al. That is not quibbling: the procedure is unclear, and there is no good explanation why the published paper gets such different results than Marcotte’s dissertation, which used seemingly the same data and similarly described methods. If you can clarify exactly how McIntyre and other posters there are wrong, you might post your explanations. I bet that you can’t. Until Marcotte et al publish their code and independent reviewers reproduce their result and show it to be reliable, that paper is in serious trouble.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Definition  • 13 Quibbling  The emotional faith that cherry-picked refutations of weak climate-change science suffice to refute strong climate-change science.

        I don’t think you quite get-it Matthew R Marler!

        The Marcott et al, analysis is NOT among the stronger pieces of evidence for the hockey-stick   it’s among the weaker pieces.

        Conclusion The cherry-picked WUWT/Climate Audit focus upon weaker hockey-stick evidence — coupled with studious avoidance of stronger hockey-stick evidence — is pathognomonic of demagogic denialism trait #13: Quibbling

        Isn’t that plain common-sense, Matthew R Marler?

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

    • Apologies if I’m not the first to notice this, but Gullible Nitwit* provides a list demagogue traits, which pretty much describe his own efforts to a T. Such projections in one so old.

      ——-
      * aka Fan of more deception

  34. Speaking of dating services, here’s something to consider:

    Two former employees of Global Personals have described to Channel 4 News how the company carried out industrial-scale deception to dupe innocent daters into parting with their cash.

    Ryan Pitcher and Tom (not his real name – he does not want to be identified) were recruited to join Global Personals’ 30-strong team of “pseudos” – a dedicated team of staff whose job it was to set up and run fake profiles on the company’s network of sites.

    The team members would scour social networking websites and steal people’s photos to use on their fake profiles.

    Ryan said: “You’d take Helga from Iceland and make her into Helen from Manchester and write a profile. You’d use her features and invent a whole new person.”

    Each team member would be running as many as 15 different personalities: old and young, male and female. They would use these fake profiles to send flirty messages to innocent users – as many as 400 messages an hour were sent by the team.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/fools-for-love-how-one-internet-dating-firm-dupes-clients

    What people would not do to have a conversation.

  35. Regarding my questions above about the effect of internal oscillations on global average temperatures, I asked the question at Real Climate on an open thread and got an answer that I think is as good as it’s going to get. It included a link to reported outgoing longwave radiation that correlates well with El Ninos.

    Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it is certainly evidence that, if accurate, supports a claim that an El Nino can increase cloud cover, thereby decreasing OLR, and increasing global average temperature.

    • Not quite so simple, because increased cloud cover works both ways, decreasing OLR for warming, reducing solar input for cooling. But yes, ENSO, seasonal changes, volcanoes, etc. all cause fluctuations in the energy budget.

      • Yes, that is exactly what I wrote in response to you earlier. The question is the net effect. The graph I was given a link to strongly suggests the net is positive. Not proof, but strongly suggestive.

      • It turns out that adding low clouds has a negative feedback, and high clouds have a neutral effect when longwave and shortwave are considered together.

    • Here’s a CERES/MODIS plot. Combining the earlier satellites with CERES is dubious at best.

      The top graph compares the MEI of Claus Wolter to tropical and global LW flux.

      The bottom one compares modeis cloud fraction with LW flux – cloud increases in La Nina and LW out decreases.

      Here is the SW and MODIS.

      As we are talking marine stratocumulous with ENSO for the most part the SW changes dominate.

      Here’s the data for completeness.

      Here’s the earlier ISCCP-FD cloud amount.

      The result was 2.4W/m2 warming in SW and 0.5W/m2 cooling in IR in the period – according to the data. – http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html

  36. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Bill trembles: “I’m afraid to click on the link [to IPCC scientific timidity]”

    Bill’s message, conveyed Jack Nicholson-style: “The truth? Climate-change denialists can’t handle the truth.”

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

  37. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Between them, Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre have now posted more than one hundred lead stories that vehemently deny the reality of a climate-change “Hockey Stick.” It appears that Anthony and Steve ain’t never heard Albert Einstein’s adage: If the theory were wrong, one would have been enough.”

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

    • Gullible Nitwit* > Between them, Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre have now posted more than one hundred lead stories that vehemently deny the reality of a climate-change “Hockey Stick.” It appears that Anthony and Steve ain’t never heard Albert Einstein’s adage: “If the theory were wrong, one would have been enough.”

      Not so strangely, Gullible Nitwit didn’t notice the incessant pushing of the Hockey Stick fraud that prompted these responses.

      —-
      * aka Fan of more Deception, for those new to her

  38. Herman Alexander Pope | March 17, 2013 at 2:41 pm |

    Elsethread, the claim is repeated: So we get a huge payback from fossil fuel subsidies and zilch from alternative fuel subsidies.

    http://www.awea.org/

    When the claim was first made, in 2007, it sounded very nearly true.

    Now, a mere six years later, we see the profitable fossil fuel industries — well able to have paid for what the government instead paid for and still remain the most profitable businesses in the world — give no improved payback to the taxpayers after the taxpayers’ investment than before. That would be.. let me do the math.. carry the zero.. aha.. Zilch.

    And the wind farm industry that barely existed six years ago now generates 10% of the electricity of nine states, and become more cost competitive with every passing month. That would make the miniscule investment taxpayers put into wind a great bargain, by any measure.

    Oh. Did the original claim exclude wind, and mean only fuel? Would those fuel subsidies be for biomass? Carbon-based biomass? How does that scam that benefits the fossil industry get lumped in with wind and solar?

    And solar is improving its returns even faster than wind.

    • Of course wind requires a back-up system as there is limited storage. Yep freeze in the dark.

      • Brian | March 17, 2013 at 8:16 pm |

        Enh. There’s enough backup in the 90% of the system that isn’t wind for wind to be worthwhile.

        Heck, there’s still some qualified electrical engineers who were educated to believe that more than 0.1% wind would crash the electrical system.

        We know you could replace half a grid with wind and not risk instability.

        What is so Catastrophic about Non-Carbon Energy that you are this irrationally panicked by it? Are you a CNCE monger?

      • HaHa you’e funny, strange but funny!

      • There’s one shift with a power dispatcher in his future.
        ==============

      • > We know you could replace half a grid with wind and not risk instability.

        No you couldn’t, you still need conventional equipment to be there as a backup every time the wind is low. So overall you need to spend more on equipment. And of course wind power is vastly more expensive per unit (hence the subsidies needed to pop it up).

      • @bart
        What is so Catastrophic about Non-Carbon Energy that you are this irrationally panicked by it?

        So it’s irrational to worry about the certainty of a massive hike in the cost of energy? And desecration of the countryside and threats to wildlife from windmills ?

      • Brian, with so many unemployed, you could line them up on stilts to blow the windmills. Though putting them on stationary bicycles to drive generators would probably be more effective.

      • @Faustino, and that would help with our obesity epidemic (not the one in science funding, I mean the usual one).

      • Tomcat | March 18, 2013 at 1:44 am |

        So it’s irrational to worry about the certainty of a massive hike in the cost of energy? And desecration of the countryside and threats to wildlife from windmills ?

        Tomcat | March 18, 2013 at 1:35 am |

        “Fossil fuels are not subsidised as such in the US according to the IEA. ”

        Except to the extent of defense commitments to sea lanes. Not sure how big that is in the overall picture though.

        “It is a progressive shibboleth”

        With the above exception, yes. A falsehood knowingly circulated, standard alarmist fare.

        And I’m guessing you don’t even see the irony of these two postings by you less than ten minutes apart, shown in aposition?

        Desecration of the countryside.. by windmills? So, high tension power line towers are so much prettier? Furnaces and chimneys are so beautiful? Or do you mean they’re sacred? Or healthy?

        These threats to wildlife from windmills, this denialist shibboleth, how does it stack up to threats to wildlife from housecats and off-leash dogs? To cars? To utility towers, skyscrapers, chimneys, ozone, smog, aerosol pollutants? Wildlife harm by windmills doesn’t even break into the top ten causes, and net reduces the harm function.

        Massive hike in the cost of energy? Let’s see what the experience of windmills has been according to AWEA in the USA:

        Oklahoma Gas & Electric, which in a filing in Arkansas, reported cost savings to its customers from the “clean, renewable energy” of its Crossroads wind farm:

        “From September 2011 through June 2012, fuel costs to Arkansas customers were approximately $1.2 million lower because of the incorporation of Crossroads into OG&E’s generation fleet. OG&E estimates that fuel savings to Arkansas customers from September 2011 through December of 2012 will be in the range of $2.2 million. Total Company production cost savings for the first five years of operation are estimated to be $268 million. Over the expected twenty-five-year life of the asset production cost, the savings are estimated to be $2.3 billion.

        What’s this? Carbon is the _more_ expensive option, the more wildlife hazardous, and if you think it’s the prettier option your taste in architecture is highly questionable, and your argument is to seek avoiding ‘certain’ massive hikes in energy costs? Well then, you’ve argued _for_ wind.

      • Vassily | March 18, 2013 at 12:18 am |

        > We know you could replace half a grid with wind and not risk instability.

        No you couldn’t, you still need conventional equipment to be there as a backup every time the wind is low. So overall you need to spend more on equipment. And of course wind power is vastly more expensive per unit (hence the subsidies needed to pop it up).

        The ‘conventional equipment’ that is there as backup every time the wind is low? That would be the same as is there now as part of the grid for every time demand is high and part of the grid is down for maintenance or repair or due being more expensive than the best deal on the grid at the time. That is to say, it’d be that other half of the grid mix that would need to be there anyway even if not for wind.

        Grids seldom run at full capacity in the USA. When they do, they generally do at times when wind is at peak efficiency; adding the wind option lowers the overall cost of having extra capacity, so grids become _more_, not _less_ stable for the same cost with wind, where wind is feasible.

        I’m not suggesting only wind. I’m not suggesting mainly wind. I’m saying that where subsidies are entirely equalized, where infant industries are not foxed by their well-subsidized obsolete competitors, where subsidies are removed and the playing field is level, and in places wind comes out as the most cost-effective, then it’s pure pandering to special interests to continue to choose more expensive carbon.

        So, yes, you can. You still have new conventional equipment, as opposed to expensive, unreliable obsolete equipment that is so old it breaks down without warning and needs massive parts shipped in from offshore because they just can’t produce them in America.

      • Bart R – when you, generic, put aside the hype and look at this objectively there are no benefits to introducing wind (or solar) into energy grids. They may have limited benefit for personal/small scale use, but until there is a breakthrough in storage, which has yet to be invented, I can’t see how claims of lower energy costs for consumers can be anything but creative accounting..

        http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

      • ” Myrrh | March 18, 2013 at 6:23 am |

        Bart R – when you, generic, put aside the hype and look at this objectively there are no benefits to introducing wind (or solar) into energy grids. “

        You always bet against the fake skeptics, of which the prankster Myrrh tops the list. Myrrh is wrong with regards anything he comments on and so is wrong here. See how that works?

      • Bah, power density. Such fools. Yeah, you.
        ==============

      • WebHubTelescope | March 18, 2013 at 8:54 am |

        I don’t understand what you mean. I frequently find Myrrh a worthy correspondent.

        Myrrh | March 18, 2013 at 6:23 am |

        I understand the concerns you express. So many so often make such claims, and back them up with elaborate and qualified argument, it would be difficult to not give these issues the full weight of consideration.

        My answer?

        Money. The bottom line. Balance sheets. Accountants. Accounts. Audits. Multiple state-regional grids all using wind, all enjoying superior financial outcomes, all rigorously testing their wind farms and related transfer stations and all making substantial financial profits on the ventures.

        In the Northwest, they’re up to 23.5% wind power on their grid, and they judge it cheaper and more stable.

        The creativity is in the untested claims of the expert doubters; that is a good and worthwhile and necessary role — we need our systems to test for imagined faults and failings, so we need imaginative engineers to suggest faults and failings. However, the true test is the true test, and nothing less.

        The true test has shown wind is economical in a wide variety of circumstances, up to significant levels.

        And wind and solar are mere infant industries, still with plenty of new efficiencies to be found and exploited. You are right to consider the future and what developments will, if invested in and researched, we will all benefit from. This is the opposite of the situation for carbon, which only uses subsidies — 80:1 the subsidies for solar and wind combined — to entrench a tired and obsolete technology that is profitable enough to pay for its own research.

      • Bart R | March 18, 2013 at 9:56 pm |
        WebHubTelescope | March 18, 2013 at 8:54 am |

        Myrrh | March 18, 2013 at 6:23 am |

        I understand the concerns you express. So many so often make such claims, and back them up with elaborate and qualified argument, it would be difficult to not give these issues the full weight of consideration.

        My answer?

        Money. The bottom line. Balance sheets. Accountants. Accounts. Audits. Multiple state-regional grids all using wind, all enjoying superior financial outcomes, all rigorously testing their wind farms and related transfer stations and all making substantial financial profits on the ventures.

        So, show me the figures for the Arkansas poster child – what’s the trick here?

        Here’s an example from Scotland: https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2013/02/07/warning-wind-farm-subsidies-are-pushing-scots-into-fuel-poverty/

        Warning wind farm subsidies are pushing Scots into fuel poverty
        Credit: By Mark Mackay, 7 February 2013 | http://www.thecourier.co.uk ~~

        A Scots politician has claimed wind farm subsidies are plunging Scots into fuel poverty.

        In a Scottish Government debate on fuel poverty, Mid-Scotland and Fife MSP Murdo Fraser attacked the SNP for its staunch backing of onshore wind projects.

        Opponents of the Government policy have claimed the generous grants awarded to wind farm developers have pushed electricity costs through the roof, leaving Scotland with some of the highest energy bills in Europe.

        The subsidies were introduced across the UK last year and are expected to have cost up to £1 billion.

        They offer a huge benefit to the energy companies as they push ahead with wind power projects but their cost in added on to household bills.

        The subsidies are said to be rising faster than inflation, with wages struggling to keep up.

        Almost 30% of Scottish residents are being left in fuel poverty and Energy Action Scotland claims the figure could be as high as 40%.

        “Each electricity bill has a rapidly increasing levy for paying the subsidies for wind turbines,” Mr Fraser said.

        “Every time we hear someone evangelising on behalf of the wind power industry, let us remember it is built on increasing fuel poverty.

        “Every time we hear wind farm developers talking about the sums they pay out in community benefit, let us remember every penny of community benefit is being robbed from the public, many of whom can barely afford to heat their homes.

        So how is your example, and I haven’t been able to find another, of “Oklahoma Gas & Electric, which in a filing in Arkansas, reported cost savings to its customers from the “clean, renewable energy” of its Crossroads wind farm:” managing to give saving to its customers? This is extraordinarily different from the rest of the industry where the customers are paying ever extortionate costs for this “renewable” greenie milch cow. Let’s see the accounts.

        Was this one poster child example manufactured to order because Arkansas was in the process of scrapping tax credits for this greenie milch cow? Or rather, this one poster child example manufactured to order in Arkansas because the whole industry was set to lose its tax credits? The dates fit.

        http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/03/congressional-inaction-may-halt-100m-arkansas-wind-manufacturing-plant-no-ptc-no-wind-turbine-plant
        15 March 2012

        Congressional Inaction May Halt $100M Arkansas Wind Manufacturing Plant: ‘No PTC, No Wind Turbine Plant’

        And so it begins. In January, wind turbine manufacturer Vestas announced that it would lay off up to 1,600 American workers if Congress cannot extend a key tax credit for the wind industry. And now, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, a large emerging player in manufacturing and project development, says it will scrap plans to build a new $100 million plant in Arkansas without the tax credit in place.

        Gosh, it was successful: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/01/02/congress-votes-extend-controversial-wind-power-subsidies

        As part of the deal to avoid tax increases and spending cuts required by the so-called fiscal cliff, Congress extended controversial wind power subsidies known as the Production Tax Credit. Taxpayers will have to hand over $12 billion to wind power companies in 2013 as a result.

        ‘Temporary’ Subsidies Continue

        Congress created the PTC in 1992 as a temporary subsidy designed to prop up the wind power industry until it met its promise to soon become cost-competitive with conventional energy sources. When the PTC expired in 1999 and wind power had still failed to become cost-competitive, Congress passed a series of temporary extensions. The most recent expired at the end of 2012.

        When the PTC expired in 1999 and wind power had still failed to become cost-competitive, Congress passed a series of temporary extensions. The most recent expired at the end of 2012.

        Taxpayers will have to hand over $12 billion to wind power companies in 2013 as a result.

        So, show how much the savings really will be for the customers in your example poster child in Arkansas..

      • “WebHubTelescope | March 18, 2013 at 8:54 am |

        I don’t understand what you mean. I frequently find Myrrh a worthy correspondent.”

        Ummm, not.

        In keeping with the impressive lead of today’s climate scientists, let’s analyze wind with an eye for detail
        http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/spatial-and-temporal-correlations-of.html
        instead of the clownish absurdity that Myrrrrhhhhh applies.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Fossil fuels are not subsidised as such in the US according to the IEA. It is a progressive shibboleth.

      But no one serious objects to either research funding for alternatives – something not being done to any great extent by government. I would suggest a billion dollar energy prize – that would change the landscape.

      What we might object to is premature deployment of immature technology.

      • “Fossil fuels are not subsidised as such in the US according to the IEA. ”

        Except to the extent of defense commitments to sea lanes. Not sure how big that is in the overall picture though.

        “It is a progressive shibboleth”

        With the above exception, yes. A falsehood knowingly circulated, standard alarmist fare.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The arguments are horrendously abstract. There is one argument that matters is a viable business plan that doesn’t rely on subsidies. Discussing technology is one thing – but there is little point in suggesting the technologies are ready to fly unless someone is willing to put the dollars down.

      Mind you – I have actually installed solar panels in a PNG village and invested my modest dollars in wind power.

  39. A great argument that Obama is about to approve the Keystone pipeline, while making it impossible to build. From Stanley Kurtz at National review Online:

    “Bloomberg reports that the Obama administration ‘is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects.’

    So the Obama administration could green-light the pipeline, file a report that stops short of calling Keystone a major global-warming hazard, and still find the project delayed for years by environmental groups bringing court challenges under the new NEPA guidelines.

    In this scenario, headlines loudly proclaiming Obama’s approval of Keystone would shield him from Republican attacks. Simultaneously, the president could mollify the left by claiming credit for guidelines that effectively allowed his allies to stop the pipeline. And that would be right. Obama can publicly ‘approve’ Keystone, while simultaneously handing the left the tool they need to put the project on semi-permanent hold. Environmentalists would take the political heat, while Obama would get off scot-free. Pretty clever.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343182/did-obama-just-block-keystone-stanley-kurtz

    • Q. What do you call someone who retards progress?

      • It depends whether the “progress” under consideration is good or bad for environment/society/business/commons and there will always be disagreement.

        Should there be general agreement that such progress is desirable then someone who retards this can only be labelled as self-interested (eg land owner not being adequately compensated) or psychotic.

      • David L. Hagen

        This action would directly harm the US national security by increasing reliance on oil and beneffiting the Middle East and Venezuela while harming the US’ good neighbor Canada.
        It would directly harm US economy by delaying global access to Canadian oil sands, thus increasing US fuel prices and reducing its GDP before replacement fuels can be developed that are less expensive.
        This will directly harm the US including environmentalists by lower wages and higher unemployment, directly harming those environmentalists and the poor.
        Those environmentalists worship nature and directly cause the greatest harm to the poor.
        That is directly antithetical to the Judeo-Christian principles foundational to the Western Civilization.

      • Peter Lang

        “Q. What do you call someone who retards progress?”

        A. Rainman. “I’m a very good scientist.”

  40. A. An anti-progressive; a retrograder; a ball-and-chainer; a poverty-entrencher (though you might have been looking for “Obama”).

  41. Peter Lang, A. ‘A platonist,’

    Plato on the hill:
    It’s ESSENTIAL we arrest that goddam flux, we gotta get
    back ter the Golden Age of perfect forms, stop the drift.
    Serfs, stay in yer place and do not think. Only we, true
    shamen, can interpet the reality behind appearance, we
    will tell you what ter think.

    • Thank you BC for that quote from Plato.
      :)

    • September 1, 1939
      by W. H. Auden

      I sit in one of the dives
      On Fifty-second Street
      Uncertain and afraid
      As the clever hopes expire
      Of a low dishonest decade:
      Waves of anger and fear
      Circulate over the bright
      And darkened lands of the earth,
      Obsessing our private lives;
      The unmentionable odour of death
      Offends the September night.

      Accurate scholarship can
      Unearth the whole offence
      From Luther until now
      That has driven a culture mad,
      Find what occurred at Linz,
      What huge imago made
      A psychopathic god:
      I and the public know
      What all schoolchildren learn,
      Those to whom evil is done
      Do evil in return.

      Exiled Thucydides knew
      All that a speech can say
      About Democracy,
      And what dictators do,
      The elderly rubbish they talk
      To an apathetic grave;
      Analysed all in his book,
      The enlightenment driven away,
      The habit-forming pain,
      Mismanagement and grief:
      We must suffer them all again.

      Into this neutral air
      Where blind skyscrapers use
      Their full height to proclaim
      The strength of Collective Man,
      Each language pours its vain
      Competitive excuse:
      But who can live for long
      In an euphoric dream;
      Out of the mirror they stare,
      Imperialism’s face
      And the international wrong.

      Faces along the bar
      Cling to their average day:
      The lights must never go out,
      The music must always play,
      All the conventions conspire
      To make this fort assume
      The furniture of home;
      Lest we should see where we are,
      Lost in a haunted wood,
      Children afraid of the night
      Who have never been happy or good.

      The windiest militant trash
      Important Persons shout
      Is not so crude as our wish:
      What mad Nijinsky wrote
      About Diaghilev
      Is true of the normal heart;
      For the error bred in the bone
      Of each woman and each man
      Craves what it cannot have,
      Not universal love
      But to be loved alone.

      From the conservative dark
      Into the ethical life
      The dense commuters come,
      Repeating their morning vow;
      “I will be true to the wife,
      I’ll concentrate more on my work,”
      And helpless governors wake
      To resume their compulsory game:
      Who can release them now,
      Who can reach the deaf,
      Who can speak for the dumb?

      All I have is a voice
      To undo the folded lie,
      The romantic lie in the brain
      Of the sensual man-in-the-street
      And the lie of Authority
      Whose buildings grope the sky:
      There is no such thing as the State
      And no one exists alone;
      Hunger allows no choice
      To the citizen or the police;
      We must love one another or die.

      Defenceless under the night
      Our world in stupor lies;
      Yet, dotted everywhere,
      Ironic points of light
      Flash out wherever the Just
      Exchange their messages:
      May I, composed like them
      Of Eros and of dust,
      Beleaguered by the same
      Negation and despair,
      Show an affirming flame.

      • Great citation Bart. Why do I keep thinking about climate science and world politics while reading this? Does humananity and the hubris thereof ever change?

    • Huh.

      All this fuss about Auden, when it was merely posted to note the coincidence of the 52nd street with the (often mis-reported) interview a half century later in the same neighborhood of Dr. James Hansen by Bob Reiss:

      “When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm.”

      So, if CO2 had doubled from 1988 levels (to 700 ppmv from 350 ppmv) in 1988, Reiss asked hypothetically, Hansen answered hypothetically about like this:

      Reiss went over to the window with Hansen and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, ‘If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, suppose CO2 doubled. Is anything going to look different down there in 40 years?’
      Hansen looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, ‘Well, there will be more traffic.’

      Reiss, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then Hansen explained, ‘The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.’

      See the teleconnections of the Auden cant and this event?

  42. Peter Lang,

    I am preparing a scenario* which will involve Socratic dialogue,
    Popper’s Open Society, Hayek (!!1) Nassim Taleb on outliers
    and our – human – pro – pen – sity – ter- fergit – our – failed –
    pre – diict – ions ( say where is Mike?) I miss his witty hypher-
    nated- hyperbol! He and Max Anaker con – trib- ute a sane, –
    almost – Montaigne – esque sanity ter Judith’s e – salon.
    Judith, of course.is sane and enlightened, ter a high degree!
    She also happens ter be bew – ti – ful )

    BC

    * It will take some time. I shall call it ” A Cowgirl’s Musings on
    the Open Society and its Enemies.”

    • Beth,

      Your quote from Plato gave me insight to the source of your spelling. It has Greek roots.

    • Somewhat related comment: I notice that the EU and Greek Cypriot government has decided to adopt the policy the Australian Government is threatening to introduce in the May Budget – i.e. rob savers’ savings to reduce the government’s deficit (and waste more on climate policies).

      • Debt which they borrowed at interest from the banking cartel which creates money out of nothing and lends it to goverments who collect the interest from the hoi polloi.

        “You are a den of vipers! I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.” —U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)

        The money supply, created out of nothing in the fractional reserve scheme sanctioned by governments, is in the private hands of a few banking families which have created a ponzi/pyramid scheme to give other banks a bit of the fraud pickings to keep them on board. Though the banking cartel will throw these oik banks into the sacrificial flames when it suits them.

        The EU and euro, and the IMF and World Bank, was set up by them to achieve the same control of sovereign nations which they perfected in setting up their privately owned Federal Reserve.

        All taxes payed to the IRS, which is the banking cartels private collection agency, goes to paying interest on the loans the bank makes to the government – which government is complicit in the fraud because it can take control of its own money, which it doesn’t have to lend out at interest..

        http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/09/24/10-ways-youre-being-fleeced-by-the-banking-cartel/

        “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” —Thomas Jefferson (1816)

        The above quotes and more:
        http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Federal%20Reserve%20Scam/federal_reserve.htm

        Read the letter to Dear Americans for background, and it’s this banking cartel which now has Europe in its grip – http://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html

        If you could put your salary into your bank account and times it by ten and claim that your 100,000 per annum was now one million, which you could then lend out at interest, or could call the iou from someone borrowing from you to be actual money which again you could times by ten and lend out at interest, you’d soon accrue so much wealth created out of nothing that you would set about buying up the world…

        ..wouldn’t you?

        The EU has taken control of the sovereignty of its member states, it has never produced an independently audited financial account of its dealings. It is run by unelected officials working to the banking cartel.

        We’re screwed.

      • Myrrh,

        Do you have a view on CAGW?

      • Peter Lang | March 18, 2013 at 7:23 am |
        Myrrh,

        Do you have a view on CAGW?

        What is it?

        Besides an illusion created by sleights of hand using science terms?

      • Robber barons all, Peter. Time fer another article by
        u and Faustino. Bc

        The ‘quote’ from Plato, Peter? Say, plenty more where
        that came from, some in rhyming couplets. )

  43. Heh, Bart, Auden ! :)
    Beth

    • If you liked the Auden, then may I commend to you Mark Twain’s, “My First Lie”?

      It’s a bit long, but I find it worthwhile.

  44. ‘The universal conspiracy of the silent assertion.’ Pretty
    unadorned serious commentary fer MarkTwain, I reckon,
    Bart. Pervasive consensus behavior.

    • What about this from Auden?

      _

      Warm are the still and lucky miles,
      White shores of longing stretch away,
      A light of recognition fills
      The whole great day, and bright
      The tiny world of lovers’ arms.

      Silence invades the breathing wood
      Where drowsy limbs a treasure keep,
      Now greenly falls the learned shade
      Across the sleeping brows
      And stirs their secret to a smile.

      Restored! Returned! The lost are borne
      On seas of shipwreck home at last:
      See! In a fire of praising burns
      The dry dumb past, and we
      Our life-day long shall part no more.

      _

      Read the above, and you presume you’ve been reading rhymed verse. But look hard. No rhymes! Huh? Then look harder. Or hear harder.

      The first stressed word of the third line in each stanza rhymes with the last of the fourth.

      The first and third lines end in consonant rhyme: it’s delicate, but perceptible.

      Even more devilish is the way the second line rhymes fully with the front half of the fourth. (In tricky Auden fashion, there’s no caesura in “Across the sleeping brows”, but the ear still picks up the rhyme because of the quantity of the rhyming syllable, sleep-, and the weakness of the surrounding syllables.)

      As if that’s not enough, check out the quasi-rhymes of the middle of the first lines and the ends of the third lines. And the fainter consonant rhymes at the end of each caesura in the first line of each stanza: still-miles, invades-wood, returned-borne. Subtle but audible – and he meant to do it.

      All very deliberate…and all quite wonderful. And there’s more deliberate music, beyond those half-buried rhymes and assonances. There are metrical intricacies, too, and much attention to syllabic quantity. Note the slight bump in the metre at the penultimate line, with an alliteration right on the bump.

      So clever. So pretty. Why does nobody talk about these things?

      • +1 ter Auden fer imbedded patterns of rhyme and alliteration
        less obvious than Tennyson, that seduce the reader in such
        a clever way. I love to see how a poem or some other literature
        works. Thx fer the analysis, mosmoso.

      • Beth, I read and half-remembered that piece for years, and never realised there was no conventional rhyme scheme. Finally I checked the line endings. Maybe I should’ve done that forty years before? As you know, I’m not into lit-crit, but the way Auden crams so many musical effects into this short piece just screams out for some comment – and praise!

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        TonyB and mosomoso, please reflect that Wendell Berry respects the dignity of work, has children, and cares for the future … and his poetry reflects this.

        Auden personal life reflected none of Berry’s personal virtues … and Auden’s poetry reflects this lack.

        Hence the relevance to climate change: Berry’s poems authorize us to reflect upon the historical development of climate-change physics, and ask ourselves whether future generations will “look on our peace, and rejoice” (per Berry), versus curse our generation for creating “the darkened lands of the earth” (per Auden).

        It’s not complicated, eh TonyB and mosomoso?

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

      • Fan

        So the earnestness and airiness Of berry takes precedence over quality, accuracy and construction?
        Quite how you manage to turn this into a statement on climate change beats me though
        Tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        mosomoso asks “Does earnestness [in poetry] take precedence over quality, accuracy and construction?”

        LOL  not “earnestness”, but rather the admixing of “gravitas and levitas” is what chiefly matters in poetry!

        Answer  The only people who value poetry chiefly for its quality, accuracy and construction are ivory-tower critics … and their graduate students!

        By which academic standard, the BOB is a poetic work of superbly ingenious construction, eh mosomoso? Even though BOB says … nothing?

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

      • mosomoso, “Why does nobody talk about these things?” Well, in my case because they are much too subtle for me. I might appreciate the overall effect, but never analyse what creates it.

      • It’s just that in universities and lit-crit circles they produce chaff bags of analysis and comment on poetry, but you’d be laughed at for looking hard at the musicality that makes it work (or not!). I dunno, maybe it’s just me. I’m into nice sound and don’t mind a bit of contrivance to achieve it. When it’s less contrived but still sounds lovely – as with Heine – that’s even better.

        Faustino, I’d love a look at your letter to the Oz. I checked the net yesterday but no luck. Some way of pointing us to it?

      • Mosomoso, some letters recently published in The Australian FYI.

        Sent 16/3, published 19/3: Australia is in a drawn-out election campaign in which an appalling government is facing annihilation. This same government is about to rush through legislation under which it would appoint a stooge who will have enormous power over the media. This stooge will be beholden to one of the worst ministers in recent history, Senator Conroy, a fierce partisan with no respect for freedom, due process or the public interest.

        There is a great danger that Conroy and his media tsar will attempt to shackle any media coverage which they feel diminishes the ALP’s chances, and that we will not have a free and fair election. Senator Carr decries this approach in Fiji. He and those of his colleagues who wish to maintain their integrity must ensure the withdrawal of this anti-democratic measure.

        15/3: I fear that some of your free speech-defending letter writers do not protest enough. Michael Schilling says that “any attempt to control and curtail it should be carefully and thoroughly considered before turning it into law.” John Piper says that we are being offered a compromise “to ensure media diversity and balance.” The ALP government has no interest in diversity or balance, and any attempt to restrict freedom of speech should be summarily rejected.

        7/3: I sat across the Cabinet table from Hawke and Keating at EPAC meetings from 1985-91, then worked for Kevin Rudd from 1991-93, so am in a position to endorse much of what Paul Kelly says in his perceptive article (“Hawke’s secret: he knew how to rule,” 6/3). However, while Keating played a great part in the success of the excellent Hawke government, I did not think he was fit to be Prime Minister, and consider that the ALP has gone downhill ever since Keating’s first challenge to Hawke.

        Yet the extent of the ALP‘s collapse still surprises me. Like many others who knew Rudd, I did not think he was fit to be Prime Minister, but his successor Gillard has taken us from calamity to utter disaster. It is difficult to see how the party can ever recover.

        26/2: Letters, columns and news reports in The Australian have long conveyed serious concerns about threats to freedom of speech in Australia. Yet in that very journal GillianTriggs [Human Rights Commissioner] denies that Australians have such fears (Opinion, 25/2). She also says that, by contrast, we – Australians at large – are “justly concerned that they and their families will be racially abused in a public place,” something which holds no fear for the vast majority of the population, who are neither abusers nor abused.

        I fear that, like some in the government, Professor Triggs gives insufficient weight to the critical importance of freedom of speech relative to potential abuses of it, and to abuses of power which flourish in darkness.

        *** I do write on other topics too! And sometimes with more restraint.

      • Faustino. Your letters alone would make buying the Australian a worthwhile exercise! Unfortunately I don’t read newspapers, being on a relatively remote piece of rural real estate and disengaged with consumerism.

      • Faustino, please do something with your hitherto useless WordPress blogsite and CC your thoughts/letters/posts, etc there so that you may have a following to which I would unashamedly belong?

      • Peter has a point there. Bestir yourself, remittance man!

      • Well said, Faustino. I hope you keep the letters and comments rolling in. Of course, there is one subject on which your opinion is not sought, but you have plenty to keep you busy.

        Is Conroy the first minister ever to cry over unspilt English milk which may or may not have been irradiated six years before he was born? I was raised not to trust weepers or men who wear brown suits. (I have no explanation for the brown suit thing, but I’ve discovered that blubberers tend to be self-absorbed rather than tender-hearted.)

      • This is a lengthy nesting and I’m referring to Peter Davies
        comment to Faustino re keeping records
        Say, Faustino,you would be more aware than I am, that
        THE RECORD is our protection against the memory hole
        and tyranny of the myth..

        The record is what tony b presents in his long climate data
        history, farmers’ almanacs, sunspot records, shipping data etc.
        I do hope you are putting your career memoirs on the record,
        Faustino. Private correspondence, memorandum of details of
        decision making give the valuable historical context that public pronouncements do not reveal, may even conceal. )

        Yer can tape yer memoirs fer starters, Faustino, if work
        interferes with blogging, with writing pertinent letters ter The
        Australian newspaper and walking by the purling river, tirra lirra
        )…say, what a cheek fer a know – nothing serf ter be fergettin’
        her lowly position and givin’ yer advice, bur serfs are like that,
        we’re an ignorant lot.
        BC

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Mosomoso asks: “Why does nobody talk about these things?”

      LOL … Mosomoso, for someone who self-professedly “doesn’t want contribute yo tonnage of comment on the works of W. H. Auden” … you haven’t scrupled to do just that — by recycling your own prose — have you?

      Mosomoso, you need to let go of delicate Oxford-academic poetry! The sure-cure for “too-pretty too-clever” academic versification is robust Yankee poetry:

      Testament

      Beneath this stone a Berry is planted
      In his home land, as he wanted.

      He has come to the gathering of his kin,
      Among whom some were worthy men,

      Farmers mostly, who lived by hand,
      But one was a cobbler from Ireland,

      Another played the eternal fool
      By riding on a circus mule

      To be remembered in grateful laughter
      Longer than the rest. After

      Doing that they had to do
      They are at ease here. Let all of you

      Who yet for pain find force and voice
      Look on their peace, and rejoice.

      Aye, Climate Etc lassies and laddies, that’s solid Yankee poetry for `yah!

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

      • It’s okay. That’s as much as I’ve ever written on Auden, just some observations on the musicality of that one piece. I wouldn’t want to change, extend or shorten it by much. So, no danger of tonnage. Thanks for your interest and for your hit on my old site.

        As to the Berry piece you quote, you seem to enjoy it. It’s a fine thing to be able to enjoy verses, regardless of what others think of them.

      • Mosomoso

        You have a fine career stretching ahead of you as a diplomat. I am glad fan enjoyed the berry piece.
        Tonyb

      • fan oh fan, if the quality of a poet’s work depended on his living
        a conventional model life where would we be? Shakespeare …
        ‘Fail,’ Lord Byron, Percy Shelley, Robert Burns, all ‘Fail,’
        Dylan Thomas, Sylvia Plath, Rimbaud, fail, fail, fail.
        Well, fan, at least we’d still have Wendell Berry.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Beth Cooper asks  “Fan oh fan, if the quality of a poet’s work depended on his living a [more-or-less] conventional model life where would we be?”

        LOL  Beth Cooper, we’d be “stuck” not only with Wendell Berry, together with Carl Sandberg, Robert Frost, and William Carlos Williams. Not mention Alexander Pope, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Robert Burns, and William Wordsworth!

        To use one of Mark Twain’s favorite words: “So-clever so-pretty so-precious academic poetry (like Auden’s) gives me the fantods!”

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

      • Fan

        Ah! I see now why you drew attention to Auden by referencing the lesser poet, Berry. It must be because Auden was born in York which was of course the centre for Viking rule in Britain during the MWP.

        He then moved to Birningham which is the centre point of CET, which as you know demonstrates a warming trend throughout its 350 year instrumental record (what does Dr Hansen say about this warming that predates the start of giss by 200 years?) and finally, Auden was most active during the early 20th century warm period, which in Greenland demonstrates the warmest two consecutive decades in the instrumental record.

        Thank you Fan, for pointing out the great relevance of WH Auden to the climate debate where he is able, through his life, to demonstrate that todays warmth is nothing new at all.
        tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        William Carlos Williams on academic poetry: “I felt at once that [Eliot’s “The Waste Land“] had set me back twenty years and I’m sure it did. Critically, Eliot returned us to the classroom just at the moment when I felt we were on a point to escape to matters much closer to the essence of a new art form itself—rooted in the locality which should give it fruit.”

        Williams disdained the poetry of depression and despair:

                It is difficult
          to get the news from poems
                yet men die miserably every day
                      for lack
          of what is found there.

        As a practicing physician, Williams knew what his poetry was about. As a practicing farmer, Berry knows what his poetry is about. As for academic poets (like Eliot and Auden), they generally have no clue whatsoever as to what they are writing about.

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

      • Please, the society of dead poets does not deserve this.

      • Steven Mosher

        Frost? you haven’t read his letters or his biography. read some of his daughters accounts and the horrors she awakened to.
        Williams.. worked himself to death trying to serve both art and mammon.
        Coleridge.. addict.
        Pope.. hunchbacked freemason
        wordsworth, egotistical prick

      • Smart move Fan, poetry obviously way way more in your domain and skillset than climate.

      • Fan oh fan, if’n I’ve told yer once w/out exaggeration, I’ve
        told yer a hundred times, poetry is about the whole range
        of human experience, A ter Z, tragedy and comedy, virtue
        and vice. employing a lot of techniques, rhyme rhythm.
        metaphor, sound patterns et al as a means ter a total
        con – centrat – ion of meaning, part emotion-al, part
        in – tellect-ual, it’s an ordered representation to commun –
        icate some perception of a partic-u-lar aspect of the human
        con -dish-on, fan. Human preferences of course apply.
        Censorship is kinda like telling the sea to obey a command…)
        Kind regards,
        Beth

      • Steven Mosher

        Beth, poetry like all art more about chaos than order.

        http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4552798-man-s-rage-for-chaos

      • Grafitti on a bikepath bridge leading to the Isla Vista:

        ‘THOUGH logic choppers rule the town,
        And every man and maid and boy
        Has marked a distant object down,
        An aimless joy is a pure joy,’
        Or so did Tom O’Roughley say
        That saw the surges running by,
        ‘And wisdom is a butterfly
        And not a gloomy bird of prey.

      • Steven Mosher says, 19/3 @11.21 pm.. ‘Poetry like all art
        is more about chaos than order.’

        I hestitate ter disagree with some one of yer formidable logic
        SM but herewith:
        Yes I will read the book and yes poetry is ‘about disorder,’…
        ‘disorderly’ human behaviour and ‘nature’ a word response
        by a poet some particular remembering or visualization, eg

        Keat’s Ode on a Grecian Urn.
        ‘Thou still unravished bride of quietness,
        Thou foster child of silence and slow time…’

        or Roethke’s Root Cellar,
        ‘Bulbs broke out of boxes hunting for chinks in the dark.. ‘

        Some, even many poems are subversive and employ
        subversive processes. Look at the way e e cummings
        sets up expectations eg.
        in jest
        spring…

        only to upset them, in language metre, patterning et al.

        The process of creating a poem has its disorder also. Its a
        process involving impulse, risk, not knowing from that initial
        beginning quite whwere it’s going, BUT then it’s also an
        ordering, arranging, excluding, creating a form, selecting
        from an armory of dramatic elements,to produce what you
        hope is not a falsification of reality, but a poet’s ordered,
        (out of disorder,) repesentation in which the poet’s perception
        stands out more clearly than it does in everyday life.

        No room or time here, SM, but you might enjoy reading
        Robert Frost’s essay on the process, ‘A Figure A Poem
        Makes’. ‘a momentary stay against confusion.’

        Beth – who – tries – ter – make – something – that – works –
        a – unity.

        (My sister is a painter who has work in all our main collections
        and her processes in paint are also about an artist’s ordered
        making though not a ‘mirror image’ of reality.)

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Beth – don’t forget Baudelaire, Villon, Whitman…

      “What’s madness but nobility of soul / At odds with circumstance?” Theodore Roethke

      Weird Al was of course a parody of Bob Dylan’s Subterranean Homesick Blues – but this is my favourite Weird Al song.

      • Chief,

        Weird Al uses an abbreviation of the tune by the singer/song writer Don McLean’s “American Pie” better known as “the day the music died” a tribute to Buddy Holly who died in a plane crash.

        Whereas Yankovic parodies Star Wars and the storyline holds together, McLean’s lyrics are more enigmatic, likely a lyrical abstract of his own life, with an occasional nod to the musical talent loss that went down with the plane.

        The connection for me between this abstract autobiographical lyrical poetry and weather is the mood within ourselves that each creates. Not any one specific musical passage or turn of a phrase; not any one overcast day or snow flurry, just something that envelopes you and stays for a while.

        I wonder if, as we may be touched by the sights and sounds of our every day life, that our perspective on topics, like climate, tempers the information we assimilate, and mood influences our interpretation; it is not all cognition.

        If dialogue and understanding are what we seek, the tone of such an endeavor should probably match our objectives.

        Learning, for me, is my objective. I am distress when learning is not on everyone’s agenda.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        American Pie is a great example of what poetry can bring to us – a gestalt as you suggest. A vision that encompasses life, thought and emotions. If it was easy to explain we wouldn’t need poetry.

        Here’s something in the spirit of Wendell Berry – written not 5 minutes ago.

        My Grandmother’s Mulberry Tree

        The tree filled almost all of the small back yard of my grandmother’s cottage. The trunk was inclined and the branches spread to fill the space. In my mind’s eye both she and the tree are rooted there – both gnarled and rough – arms with immense strength, solidity and endurance. In season the tree would be festooned with children like berry stained ornaments in a misshapen Christmas tree. After – she would turn what was left of the fruit into mulberry pies as I watched impatient but intrigued by the process.

        Ultimately we would be piled into the bath with the woodchip heater to be doused and the berry stains perfunctorily scrubbed at. In later seasons I would ring my grandmother on the telephone.

        “Hi Nan – it’s me Rob.”
        “Rob? Rob’s at university.”
        “No Nan – it’s me Rob.”

        Much later I realised that she remembered this about me with love and pride – and even now the tears well in my eyes with love and gratitude. Thanks for the pies Nan.

      • That’s Aussie pie Chief and a nice tale of the importance of family and of love. That’s all that really matters. Years down the track, people will look at this whole AGW debate and wonder what all the fuss was about!

  45. When it comes to the saturation of the absorption of CO2, it seems to me that I can make two statemements, one of which is clearly wrong.

    1. There is a limited amount of energy in the spectrum where CO2 absorbs.

    2. There is an unlimited amount of energy that CO2 can absorb.

    I would argue that, res ipsa loquitur, 1 is correct, and therefore 2 is wrong.

    If 2 is wrong then the absorption of CO2 can be saturated.

    Where am I wrong?

  46. I just received confirmation that Apr 25 is the rescheduled date for the Congressional hearing where I will testify

    • We shall all be there, where do we park the charabanc?
      Tonyb

    • That date is not acceptable. It will. have to be rescheduled. It is ANZAC day!

      • :)

        Just booked to go to Anzac Cove on Anzac Day in 2015. The tours are nearly booked already out I’m told. Must remember to take a box or two of tissues. Then a cruise around the Greek Islands afterwards.

      • Peter Davies,

        Are you going to visit Cyprus? Transfer your holiday funds to a Cypriot bank? But a Cypriot bank?

      • Probably will be visiting Cyprus but will not be transferring any funds to any foreign bank that I can think of! I have paid a 25% deposit to a Turkish travel agency but the balance will not need to be paid until early 2015. The overall cost is quite modest in any case and in fact Turkey is very good value for money compared with other mainland European destinations.

  47. Jim Cripwell | March 18, 2013 at 9:08 am |

    Where am I wrong?

    In framing the wrong question.

    Suppose a hypothetical saturating atmosphere, where all eligible radiation (ie radiation in the bands absorbed by said atmosphere) could be predicted to be absorbed by height X0 from the surface.

    It is unlikely X0 exactly corresponds with the total height of the atmosphere. (We don’t, for the purposes of this exercise, need to know much about X0.)

    Treating altitude X0 as equivalent to the surface, we know all eligible radiation could be predicted to be absorbed by height X1 from X0, until like the layers of an onion we reach an atmosphere with some Xn where at least some eligible escapes TOA.

    As concentration of absorbing molecules increases in a well-mixed atmosphere, every X demonstrably becomes shorter, and the value of n increases, while the atmosphere warms. Of course concentration is measured in terms of volume while X is height and there is certain to be a surface-area dependency term if you work out the details, but the result is mathematically inescapable.

    The saturation that would have to happen in some aphysical way is the opposite of what we do see in physics: a limit on absorbtion that renders the atmosphere increasingly transparent to eligible radiation as concentration increases.

    Hence, “at current levels” is a needless condition on proof or measurement of AGW of any variety. And while “The Oxygen Catastrophe” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event) is a real term relevant to science, prefixing “Catastrophic” needlessly to a real phenomenon likewise increases the complexity and ambiguity of a much simpler subject, so too ought be dropped.

    • Log/not on\gol.
      ============

    • Bart R. you write “Where am I wrong?
      In framing the wrong question.”

      OK let me rephrase the question. For the incoming radiation, is there a limit as to how much energy CO2 can absorb?

      • Jim Cripwell | March 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm |

        Whoa. Hold on there, pard. That’s not a rephrasing of the question. That’s an entirely different question.

        The answer is, we don’t care.

        We’re not near the temperature of Venus, which though it’s further from the Sun than Mercury, is warmer than Mercury, due unquestionably to its high-CO2-concentration atmosphere.

        As we don’t have to worry about the limit to how much energy CO2 can absorb in a thermally equilibrating atmosphere until we’re much nearer the temperature of Venus — which no one here appears to be suggesting will happen — it’s an impractical boundary question to explore.

        Can you show me a reason why I’d care to answer this new, entirely different question (“For the incoming radiation, is there a limit as to how much energy CO2 can absorb?“), given that we’re talking about real AGW, and not some fantasy version of it?

      • Jim Cripwell | March 19, 2013 at 7:01 am |

        You’re quite welcome.

        So, to recap:

        Socrates was an illiterate suicide of dubious character.

        Plato’s writings are so riddled with error in the parts that can be validated and verified (i.e. the spectacularly fantastical Natural Philosophy with its four-legged ants and humours and zodiacism) that we cannot rely on anything Plato says in any of his writings such as, say, The Republic.

        “At current levels” is a needless, that is to say superfluous, condition in the question you had been posing; absent significant new evidence supporting a different idea, “at current levels” will remain superfluous. We don’t need address “at current levels” again.

        Direct instrumental measurement is extraordinarily rare, and therefore not a valid objection, as so much that has no direct instrumental measurement is accepted, and especially due the principles underlying the philosophy of science as set out 300 years ago by Newton.

        Climate sensitivity as derived ought be regarded as accurate, or very nearly true, until observation and reason support newer and better measures.

        The variable nature of Climate Sensitivity pending initial conditions, to use Tomas’ formulation “Climate dynamics = f (global warming,natural variability)” means we can satisfy no single linear equation for sensitivity, as sensitivity varies with f (global warming,natural variability,initial conditions, time scale)/g(ln(CO2E))), where g is a function of f..

        We can agree that X, which you define as CO2 added, has been measured (however imperfectly) many ways through adequate proxies.

        While we wish for more robust measures of global temperature, the ones we have — made full use of with full precautions against overconfidence — are fit to some uses, such as correspond to your Y.

        The Z value remains a policy question. In decision-making under uncertainty, there are many valid approaches given Z. None of the valid approaches are to pretend we don’t know there is a relationship of X and Y, or to give X exclusion from responsibility for outcomes of Y.

        And all of this is just about warming, merely one symptom of a much larger issue.

      • Bart. What to do? I participate on blogs for my own education. I can put my ideas up, and intelligent people comment. I have learned a lot in the past and hope to learn more in the future.

        We had an interesting discussion, even though we did not always agree. I had learned all I was going to. I tried to end the discussion peacefully by putting up a short post with a deliberate error in it. I hoped you would correct my error, which you did, I could say “Thank you”, and that would be that.

        For some reason which I do not understand, you chose to continue the discussion. I am not going to participate. From now on, I will ignore you. I am sure this will be of no interest to you, since I am an ignorant non-scientist who does not know his *rse from a hole in the ground.

      • Bart R

        Climate sensitivity as derived ought be regarded as accurate, or very nearly true, until observation and reason support newer and better measures.

        Looks like we agree.

        For decades the old model-derived mean prediction for 2xCO2 ECS remained unchanged at 3.2C – almost like an unquestioned “holy writ of dogma” – except for debates on “how fat the tail was” (reminiscent of the old “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” debate of earlier times).

        But now there have been a few newer (at least partially observation-based studies, all showing that the likely value is around 1.6C, or half of the earlier model-based estimate.

        So I believe we can agree that the moment has arrived that “observation and reason support newer and better measures”, namely those of the recent observation-based studies.

        Do we agree?

        Max

      • Bart R

        I am aware that Jim Cripwell is not prepared to accept that the latest 2xCO2 ECS estimates are correct, because they are only partially based on empirical data from real physical observations, with assumptions for the natural forcing and variability impacts. (We observe a total change in CO2 and temperature, we assume a natural forcing and variability impact, and assign the rest to anthropogenic forcing, which we then break down into various pieces, including CO2.)

        IOW, even though these latest estimates are better than the earlier ones, as they are at least partially based on real observations while the earlier ones are based on model predictions alone, they are still not fully corroborated by empirical evidence in the scientific sense.

        But I am willing to provisionally accept their validity until something better (i.e. more empirically based) comes along.

        Can 2xCO2 ECS be determined by reproducible experimentation under conditions simulating our planet’s atmosphere?

        I do not know the answer to that question, but I cannot imaging that this would be totally impossible (CERN is going to do the same for the Svensmark hypothesis under reproducible controlled conditions simulating our atmosphere, so why should it be impossible for the GHE of CO2?).

        I am hopeful, Bart – and if/when we have these empirical data, you and I and Jim Cripwell can agree on the magnitude of the 2xCO2 ECS.

        Max

      • Max, I am afraid you are making a fundamental error. It depends on what use the value of CS is going to be put. If it is a philosophical discussion, which has no impact on world politics, then any old number is good enough. If it is used to waste my taxpayer dollars, trying to solve a problem that does not exist, then I demand an EXTREMELY, ASTRONOMICALLY, high scientific basis before I will accept ANY number.

      • manacker | March 20, 2013 at 1:17 am |

        For decades the old model-derived mean prediction for 2xCO2 ECS remained unchanged at 3.2C – almost like an unquestioned “holy writ of dogma” – except for debates on “how fat the tail was” (reminiscent of the old “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” debate of earlier times).

        But now there have been a few newer (at least partially observation-based studies, all showing that the likely value is around 1.6C, or half of the earlier model-based estimate.

        So I believe we can agree that the moment has arrived that “observation and reason support newer and better measures”,namely those of the recent observation-based studies.

        Do we agree?

        We’re getting much closer. The error is mine, for merely paraphrasing Newton, when his words express much more clearly what we ought do when newer and better measures change the picture.

        4. “We are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phaenomena as accurately or very nearly true … till such time as other phaenomena occur by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.” (http://philosophynow.org/issues/88/Hypotheses_Non_Fingo)

        Is 1.6 a ‘more accurate’ climate sensitivity than any other value? No. We can clearly see 1.6 is an exception, as are negative climate sensitivity values, as are very high climate sensitivity values above 4.5, as might any value in the range be considered.

        If we learn only one thing from the excellent words of Tomas Milanovic, it ought be that “But the generic guy unless he is able to get out of the linear thinking will never understand that C=A+B and C=f(A,B) are 2 very different paradigms where in presence of strong coupling the former can never be an approximation of the latter.” However inaccurately characterised.

        manacker | March 20, 2013 at 1:34 am |

        I am aware that Jim Cripwell is not prepared to accept that the latest 2xCO2 ECS estimates are correct, ..
        I am hopeful, Bart – and if/when we have these empirical data, you and I and Jim Cripwell can agree on the magnitude of the 2xCO2 ECS.

        Climate sensitivity in a future period depends on the conditions that brought about the climate sensitivity of the current period, and they in turn depend on each other both in the current period and the previous period as well as outside forcings. We can’t say “+/- Natural Variability” because Natural Variability is influence by both temperature and CO2 level in any number of ways, often differing with the region.

        The best we can get is that it appears Climate Sensitivity continues to rise over time to some value above the median estimate of 3.4 until some event interrupts a rising temperature trend, at which point the Climate Sensitivity curve falls dramatically before resuming its slow and irregular climb. That’s Fat Tail response, isn’t it?

        We don’t have a good way to predict the length between sudden cooling events. Some of them appear triggered by some subset of volcanic activity near the equator with ejecta above the tropopause, which isn’t terribly liable to long range prediction or characterisation.

        So Climate Sensitivity remains a “Strange” number.

        Jim Cripwell | March 20, 2013 at 9:16 am |

        Max, I am afraid you are making a fundamental error. It depends on what use the value of CS is going to be put. If it is a philosophical discussion, which has no impact on world politics, then any old number is good enough. If it is used to waste my taxpayer dollars, trying to solve a problem that does not exist, then I demand an EXTREMELY, ASTRONOMICALLY, high scientific basis before I will accept ANY number.

        See how neatly the Strangeness of CS resolves Jim Cripwell’s concerns?

        There is no correlation between spending taxpayer dollars and CS. Spending, or preferably not, taxpayer dollars ought be reserved for things that aren’t quite so Strange, perhaps.. or perhaps not, that’s a philosophical discussion.

        As you know, I’m not into whether or not increasing CO2E levels or emissions increase global temperature. It results in perturbation, that’s all I need know as perturbation increases Risk and creates Key Vulnerabilities. As these are expensive, and no one pays the cost of these expenses, my issue is pricing CO2E and paying those who bear the Risk and Vulnerability.

  48. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    BREAKING RESEARCH NEWS: Yet Another Hockey Stick


    New Study, Same Result:
    Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming

    A new study by Jones, Stott, and Christidis examines the causes of global warming.

    The climate model runs consider all external influences on global surface temperatures (mainly greenhouse gases, aerosols, the sun, and volcanic eruptions).

    The results of this study are consistent with the wide body of evidence supporting the settled science that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of the current global warming.

    And for the 100th++ consecutive time, WUWT/ClimateAudit have responded by posting quibbling/smearing/motivistic/conspiracy-theoretic essays that vehemently deny the reality of 20th-21st century “hockey stick” climate-change!

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

    • Matthew R Marler

      fan of *MORE* discourse: And for the 100th++ consecutive time, WUWT/ClimateAudit have responded by posting quibbling/smearing/motivistic/conspiracy-theoretic essays that vehemently deny the reality of 20th-21st century “hockey stick” climate-change!

      I don’t suppose you’d want, in the service of more “discourse”, to quote them exactly and rebut them?

    • Fan, are some of the models used to attribute this paper the same ones that produce enough non-forced variability to explain all the warming of the last century? Did they determine the oscillation was real? If so what stage are we in? Did they find their error creating the oscillation that isn’t real? If so what was the error? Are they just fudging the oscillation out? If so how do they know the error doesn’t affect the forced response?

      http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2012_jclim_karnauskasetal.pdf

    • Models prove nothing.

      • Since the ‘CO2 is plant food crowd’ includes the whole human race, one must distinguish among them as to desire for AGW. Obviously, some climate scientists desire it with all their soul. I’m all for AGW so long as it’s weak enough not to be catastrophic and strong enough to buffer us into the next glaciation. So, you see, you think so exclusively. Sorry ’bout dat.
        =========

      • Hmmmf. This was supposed to go below after willard sneers at the ‘CO2 is plant food’ crowd. That is all of us, of course. Par for the course.
        ==========

      • Plants, OK, small mammals, OK, reptiles, OK, medium-sized mammals equatorwards of 30 degrees, not so comfortable.

      • Jim D wrote: 2Plants, OK, small mammals, OK, reptiles, OK, medium-sized mammals equatorwards of 30 degrees, not so comfortable.”
        ————————————————————————————
        You’re assuming that convection, which removes the vast bulk of heat from the surface in the tropics, is magically going to stay constant as surface temperatures increase?

      • Jim D

        You seem to forget that GH theory (for what it’s worth) predicts that warming will take place primarily in the winter months and at higher latitudes.

        Just the places that could use a bit of winter warming, increased crop land surface area, longer growing seasons, improved crop yields, etc. This is an immense swath of real estate, from North America across Europe and Asia, home to hundreds of millions of people.

        Adverse impact at lower latitudes have been highly speculative, with some of the ones in AR4 (African crop loss and famine, etc.) shown to be based on bogus data).

        So I’d agree with kim – it looks like more “winners” than “losers” within the warming range that is physically possible to reach as constrained by total fossil fuel availability.

        Max

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Matthew R Marler asks: “I don’t suppose you’d want, in the service of more “discourse”, to quote them [WUWT‘s recent and older hockey-stick denials] exactly and rebut them?”

      LOL … it is sufficient to note that WUWT‘s writers/commenters:

      • plainly exhibit the characteristics of denialist demagoguery, and

      • studiously ignore multiple independent scientific affirmations of a 20th-21st century “hockey-stick.”

      Why else would conservative/citizen-science institutions like Roman Catholic Church, the US military, and global alliances of hunters and fishers all conclude that AGW is real, Matthew R Marler?

      Uhhhh … unless AGW is all a gigantic conspiracy, of course!

      Kudos to WUWT/ClimateAudit (and their readers) for sustained commitment to exhibiting all 12 traits of denialist demagoguery (plus quibbling as a bonus trait)!

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

      • Matthew R Marler

        a fan of *MORE* discourse: LOL … it is sufficient to note that WUWT‘s writers/commenters:

        Sufficient for what? For baseless calumny?

        And relatedly, Do you have a definition of “quibbling”, or some characteristics by which to identify it? Some of the readers at WUWT have graphed all of the data that Marcotte et al submitted with their supporting online material, and so far no one has been able to use those data to produce Marcotte et al’s main graphical claim. Something is clearly wrong, or at least insufficiently documented, perhaps the artificial selection of series by Marcotte et al, perhaps the obscure redating of some of the data (a large majority of the data have been redated, without Marcotte et al describing in detail the redating process.) Is it, in your usage, “quibbling” to point out that the main claim of Marcotte et al is not substantiated by the data that they provide?

        Is it “quibbling” to point out that, contrary to its written and recently affirmed policy of requiring the deposit of the computer code, Science magazine accepted and published Marcotte et al without Marcotte et al actually sharing their computer code?

      • Matthew R Marler

        a fan of *MORE* discourse: Why else would conservative/citizen-science institutions like Roman Catholic Church, the US military, and global alliances of hunters and fishers all conclude that AGW is real, Matthew R Marler?

        Why? I am the last person to understand the motives behind other people’s decisions.

        Would you care to substantiate your claims that the criticisms of the Marcotte et al paper are baseless? I am a lot more interested in the question of whether a statement is in accordance with evidence than I am in the question of whether someone or some many believe the statement.

      • > Do you have a definition of “quibbling”, or some characteristics by which to identify it?

        There you go.

        Sorry, MattStat, ICNR.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Matthew R Marler asks  “Would you care to substantiate your claims that the criticisms of the Marcotte et al paper are baseless?”

        LOL  Matthew R Marler, the specific claim for which you’re requesting evidence is much stronger than that! The specific claim in-question is this one:

        “For the 100th++ consecutive time, WUWT/ClimateAudit posted quibbling/smearing/motivistic/conspiracy-theoretic essays that vehemently deny the reality of 20th-21st century “hockey stick” climate-change!”

        …  and Climate Etc readers are invited to verify for themselves that this claim is factually correct!

        Bonus Assertion  Climate Etc readers are further invited to verify for themselves the ongoing WUWT/Willis Eschenbach quibbles regarding the Second Law of thermodynamics!

        The comically willful ignorance of demagogic denialism is on full display this week!

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

      • Of course, Fan, you realize you’re just tap dancing. You make it fun to be a low down “denialist” practicing the black arts of “denialism.”

        Thanks and a tip of the hat to A Fan of *More* discourse!!

      • Matthew R Marler

        willard(@nevaudit): Sorry, MattStat, ICNR.

        What does that mean?

      • Matthew R Marler

        A fan of *MORE* discourse: LOL Matthew R Marler, the specific claim for which you’re requesting evidence is much stronger than that! The specific claim in-question is this one:

        “For the 100th++ consecutive time, WUWT/ClimateAudit posted quibbling/smearing/motivistic/conspiracy-theoretic essays that vehemently deny the reality of 20th-21st century “hockey stick” climate-change!”

        … and Climate Etc readers are invited to verify for themselves that this claim is factually correct!

        I’ll have to let you have the last word on that.

      • > What does that mean?

        I believe your question is as fine example of what you were asking, MattStat.

        ICNR means “I Could Not Resist”.

        Since you had to scratch your head to understand that, here’s what Nick says about all this that may be reconciled with Fan’s point:

        > [T]here’s a lot of pointless argument about 20C proxy aberrations, when no-one seriously believes they should be preferred to the thermometer record.

        http://moyhu.blogspot.ca/2013/03/my-limited-emulation-of-marcott-et-al.html

        Reality might matter more than iconography.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Matthew R Marler asks  “I am the last person to understand the motives behind other people’s decisions.”

        LOL  Matthew R Marler, thank you for illustrating the fourth of Trish Roberts-Miller’s Characteristics of Demagoguery:

        • 04 motivism,

        Please be encouraged to reflect, Matthew R Marler, that sufficient justification to appreciate the reality of AGW is that the mathematics and science of AGW is strong and growing ever-stronger.

        Personal and political motivations need not enter — indeed, that’s substantially the point of mathematics and science, eh Matthew R Marler?

        Isn’t that why increasingly few climate-change denialists are found among Catholic, military, and nature-loving scientists and mathematicians? For one simple reason: Nature cannot be fooled.

        That’s simple common sense, eh Matthew R Marler?

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

      • Matthew R Marler

        willard(@nevaudit): I believe your question is as fine example of what you were asking, MattStat.

        About quibbling? Among other things, scientific knowledge depends upon extreme attention to detail. In the case of Marcotte et al, the data that they supplied online do not support the graph that they produced and the numerous quotes from the authors about “fastest” warming and such. Is it “quibbling” (as I think FOMD asserted) to point that out?

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        LOL … Moyhu’s blog-spot lays it all out for everyone to see (including run-it-yourself code):

        •  the climate-change hockey stick blade is real, and
        •  the instrument record is strong evidence of it, and
        •  the paleo (Marcott) record is weak evidence of it.

        Conclusion  Focusing exclusively upon the Marcott “blade” is demagogic denialism strategy #13, eh Matthew R Marler?

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

      • If someone says that you’re quibbling, asking for a definition of “quibbling” looks a lot like quibbling, MattStat. You must admit that your response provides circumstancial evidence.

        Science is about minute details alright, and the auditing sciences are about minuter details for sure. But are these auditing details really about science? They look to me more about iconography than anything else.

        Perhaps we should settle a date between all the interested parties. To make this even more objective, we might try a blind date.

      • Matthew R Marler

        willard(@nevaudit): But are these auditing details really about science?

        In the case of the Marcotte et al paper in Science, yes. Despite the publication requirements of the journal, it is not possible to reproduce the graph that represents their main claim from the material that they posted on line. Until they publish their code, thus clarifying what they have done, in line with the Science policy, their claim is not supported by their data.

        Back to “quibble”.

        Is it a quibble to point out that, as often in the past, a pro AGW editorial board has permitted publication of a paper in violation of its standard?

        Is it a quibble to note that the most widely cited claim in the report is not supported by the data?

        To me, neither is a quibble.

        Will it be a quibble to point out (as may yet happen) that the authors do not share their code with other members of the AAAS? Right now a bunch of us are on tenterhooks.

      • Matthew R Marler

        In case anybody is wondering, this is the policy that so far Science has permitted Marcotte et al to evade:

        All data necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science. All computer codes involved in the creation or analysis of data must also be available to any reader of Science. After publication, all reasonable requests for data and materials must be fulfilled. Any restrictions on the availability of data, codes, or materials, including fees and original data obtained from other sources (Materials Transfer Agreements), must be disclosed to the editors upon submission

      • MattStat,

        However justified might be your indignation, your cheek tone being a sufficient one to me, it won’t hide the fact that something else is going on with these ClimateBall episodes than “we only want Good Science”. For instance, I believe that to speak of a “pro AGW editorial board” does not sound much like this is all about science. And if you think about this, I believe nobody’s for AGW except the “CO2’s plant food” crowd.

        Naming and shaming might not be the best strategy to settle a date with anyone.

      • Matthew R Marler

        willard(@nevaudit): However justified might be your indignation, your cheek tone being a sufficient one to me,

        Now I am mystified.

        On a later point, are you maintaining that the editorial staff of Science is uncommitted on the theory of AGW?

      • I’m not saying anything like that, MattStat. I’m saying that your remark bears on something else than Science

        Speaking of which, it seems that Marcott made the Auditor do it:

        > Over the years, I’ve tried very hard to stay away from criticizing articles by young career scientists and to limit my commentary to established figures (Mann, Briffa, Jones, Hansen, etc.) I’m not particularly comfortable with that aspect of the present commentary, though I’m not sure how it could have been avoided, once the article itself got so much play. Marcott unwisely invited this sort of focus by pre-labeling potential critics as a “fully mobilized troll army” and expressing “curiosity” about how potential critics would respond: […]

        http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/17/hiding-the-decline-the-md01-2421-splice/#comment-405838

        Please tell me more about your “We just want better Science”, MattStat.

      • willard –

        Marcott unwisely invited this sort of focus by pre-labeling potential critics as a “fully mobilized troll army” ..

        Why is that term in quotation marks and attributed to Marcott? Has evidence appeared that he actually said that? Please tell me that the much beloved “skeptic” Stevie-mac didn’t fail to exercise basic skeptical scrutiny before reaching a conclusion.

        I implore you, say it ain’t so, Willard, say it ain’t so.

      • > I implore you, say it ain’t so, Willard, say it ain’t so.

        On their next date, the Auditor might feel intimate enough to settle such a sensitive matter.

      • joshua and willard have a faint chance of insight about troll armies, once they’ve fully mobilized.
        ==================

      • Matthew R Marler

        willard(@nevaudit), the link you provided includes a quote: Marcott admitted he was apprehensive about charging into the fully-mobilized troll army, but said he was grateful scientists like Mann had “gone through hell” before him to build a support network for harassed climate scientists. “When Michael came along there was a lot more skepticism about global warming, but the public has come a long way,” he said. “I’m curious to see how the skeptics are going to take this paper.”

        So far, Marcotte has not complied with the Science policy of providing his code, so it remains a mystery how he got the result he published from the data he provided.

      • willard’s all for intimate audits of sensitive parts until he finds his army fallen in under the bridge, all scratching their privates.
        ===================

      • A ditty seems to have brought “comfort” to the Auditor:

        And when they make… the grand announcement,
        That things are worse than they’ve ever been…
        You can be sure… the Junior Birdmen
        Have bent their core tops in.
        Up in the air… the Junior Birdmen
        Up in the air and upside down
        UP in the air… the Junior Birdmen
        Keep their helmets to the ground

        http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/19/bent-their-core-tops-in/

        People send me stuff. Some wonder if the Auditor will sing that ditty to Marcott & al’s authors during their next date.

        ***

        Now, what were you saying again about “We only want Good Science?”

      • Steven Mosher

        Matthew,

        when someone accuses you of quibbling, they are basically assuming without proof that the distinction you are raising is unimportant. It is a form of bad faith.It violates the principle of charity:

        “Since the time of Quine et al., other philosophers[who?] have formulated at least four versions of the principle of charity. These alternatives may conflict with one another, so which principle to use may depend on the goal of the conversation. The four principles are:
        The other uses words in the ordinary way;
        The other makes true statements;
        The other makes valid arguments;
        The other says something interesting.”

        To say you are quibbling means that

        1.To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.
        2. To find fault or criticize for petty reasons;

        So you see accusing you of quibbling is violating the principle of charity and also the principle of humanity. That doesnt stop people from doing it.

        One way to test if something really is quibbling is to do the following.

        Suppose you suggest the uptick is a flaw. And somebody responds that you are quibbling. That means they think your distinction is trivial.
        The rejoinder is easy: If the uptick is trivial and unimportant then remove it. A difference that makes no difference makes no diffrence. What yu will find is that folks want to preserve the differences at the same time they call it trivial. which means of course that it is not trivial.

      • It goes beyond charity. Quibbling, whatever its precise definition, and all the other characteristics of fan’s list run against the cooperation principle:

        > Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

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

        It might be tough to have a real conversation without something like this principle.

        Me and MattStat provided a nice example of that.

        ClimateBall is a just another comedy of menace.

      • An example of cooperation:

        The authors are aware that there are issues with their chronologies – I wrote to inform the lead author of a specific problem with a core I am familiar with and he replied that the error would be corrected.

        This is perfectly proper material for a correction. Those here and elsewhere arguing for a retraction should read the COPE guidelines on retractions.

        http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/19/bent-their-core-tops-in/#comment-406146

    • > A new hockey stick fraud by Jones, Stott, and Christidis examines the causes of global warming

      Gad, Gullible Dimwit falls for it the 1000+th time. No surprise he can’t give the rationale.

      (is this Jones the Climategate Crook btw?)

    • New Study, Same Result:
      Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming

      Yes, more motivated alarmism from the same funding source, faithfully reported by our very own poster Gullible Dimwit, who claims insight into the “reality of 20th-21st century “hockey stick” climate-change!”.
      That exclamation mark is the clincher, will doubtless add to his legion of converts swept up by his reliably vaccous outbursts and silly squiggles.

  49. If Iran gets nukes and tries to obliterate Israel, guess who gets the blame?

    Ahmedinejahd? Nope.
    The Muslim Brotherhood? Nope.
    Hamas? Nope.
    The Pakistanis and Koreans for transferring technology? Nope.

    You guessed it – globalclimatewarmngchange

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-scary-hidden-stressor.html?ref=thomaslfriedman

    You just can’t fix stupid.

  50. In other news:

    Reuters’ Matthew Keys indicted for conspiring with hacker group ‘Anonymous’

    Matthew Keys, a deputy social media editor at Thomson Reuters, has been charged in a federal indictment for allegedly conspiring with members of the hacker group “Anonymous” to hack into the Los Angeles Times, the Justice Department announced today.

    Keys, a former web producer for the Tribune Co-owned television station KTXL FOX 40, in Sacramento, Calif., was charged with providing members of the group with log-in credentials for a computer server belonging to the Tribune Co., the L.A. Times parent company, according to the DoJ’s press release.

    “According to the indictment, Keys identified himself on an Internet chat forum as a former Tribune Company employee and provided members of Anonymous with a login and password to the Tribune Company server,” the DoJ press release reads. “After providing log-in credentials, Keys allegedly encouraged the Anonymous members to disrupt the website. According to the indictment, at least one of the computer hackers used the credentials provided by Keys to log into the Tribune Company server, and ultimately that hacker made changes to the web version of a Los Angeles Times news feature.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/03/reuters-matthew-keys-indicted-for-conspiring-with-159358.html

  51. Mosher writes: “Frost? you haven’t read his letters or his biography. read some of his daughters accounts and the horrors she awakened to.
    Williams.. worked himself to death trying to serve both art and mammon.
    Coleridge.. addict.
    Pope.. hunchbacked freemason
    wordsworth, egotistical prick”

    If I didn’t know these were poets, I’d have thought you were describing a bunch of climate scientists.

  52. I’m getting the impression people are bored with climate alarmism. They seem to be over it. What will be the next scare?

    • Ocean acidification?

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Peter Lang asks  “I’m getting the impression people are bored with climate alarmism.”

      Hmmmm … more than one billion Catholics feel different, eh Peter Lang?

      •  “Prudence requires us to act to protect the common good by addressing climate change at home and abroad.”

      •  “The consequences of climate change will be borne by the world’s most vulnerable people and inaction will worsen their suffering.”

      •  “Policies addressing global climate change should enhance rather than diminish the economic situation of people in poverty.”

      •  “Policies should create new resources to assist poor and adversely affected communities to adapt and respond to the effects of global climate change in the U.S. and in vulnerable developing countries.”

      •  “Policies to address climate change should include measures to protect poor and vulnerable communities from the health impacts of climate change, including increased exposure to climate-sensitive diseases, heat waves and diminished air quality.”

      •  “Participation by local affected communities in shaping policy responses to address climate change and programs for adapting to climate change is essential.”

      •  “Technology should be made available to people in the most vulnerable developing countries to help them adapt to the effects of climate change (adaptation) and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation).”

      ————————

      The Catholic Church got a new pope on Wednesday — Pope Francis, who has taken his new name from the patron saint of animals and the environment. But will the man formerly known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina live up to the ideals of his 13th-century Italian namesake?

      Good on `yah, Pope Francis!

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

    • Actually it may well be true that Catholics are highly gullible about global warming, and so overlook that, given the large and increasing uncertainty over AGW, the real danger to the poor comes from political policies enforcing expensive and stupid energy sources like wind power.

  53. It appears we’re perennially having to go through the debunking of but-antarctic-extent at this time of year.

    1. The Southern Hemisphere climate is not cooling. Please stop asserting it is cooling.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut3sh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut4sh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/crutem4vsh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/crutem3vsh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut3vsh/last:384/trend/plot/hadcrut3sh/last:384/trend/plot/hadcrut4sh/last:384/trend/plot/crutem4vsh/last:384/trend/plot/crutem3vsh/last:384/trend

    2. The Antarctic is more or less steadily losing ice mass on an annualized basis, both on the continent and on the seas:

    Antarctic ice sheet mass loss estimates using Modified Antarctic Mapping Mission surface flow observations

    Diandong Ren1,3,*,
    Lance M. Leslie2,
    Mervyn J. Lynch1
    Article first published online: 4 MAR 2013

    DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50222

    ©2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

    Abstract

    The long residence time of ice and the relatively gentle slopes of the Antarctica Ice Sheet make basal sliding a unique positive feedback mechanism in enhancing ice discharge along preferred routes. The highly organized ice stream channels extending to the interior from the lower reach of the outlets are a manifestation of the role of basal granular material in enhancing the ice flow. In this study, constraining the model-simulated year 2000 ice flow fields with surface velocities obtained from InSAR measurements permits retrieval of the basal sliding parameters. Forward integrations of the ice model driven by atmospheric and oceanic parameters from coupled general circulation models under different emission scenarios provide a range of estimates of total ice mass loss during the 21st century. The total mass loss rate has a small intermodel and interscenario spread, rising from approximately −160 km3/yr at present to approximately −220 km3/yr by 2100. The accelerated mass loss rate of the Antarctica Ice Sheet in a warming climate is due primarily to a dynamic response in the form of an increase in ice flow speed. Ice shelves contribute to this feedback through a reduced buttressing effect due to more frequent systematic, tabular calving events. For example, by 2100 the Ross Ice Shelf is projected to shed ~40 km3 during each systematic tabular calving. After the frontal section’s attrition, the remaining shelf will rebound. Consequently, the submerged cross-sectional area will reduce, as will the buttressing stress. Longitudinal differential warming of ocean temperature contributes to tabular calving. Because of the prevalence of fringe ice shelves, oceanic effects likely will play a very important role in the future mass balance of the Antarctica Ice Sheet, under a possible future warming climate.

    3. The net global ice coverage is falling on an annualized basis, this despite the occassional spreading of Antarctic extent (accompanied by thinning due to ice volume loss) during the Antarctic night, with its marginal impact on ice albedo.

    4. We heard the same story last year at this time of year, when WUWTites paraded about hooting that the sea ice had returned to traditional levels. And the year before. And the year before. And the year before. And every year the mass of sea ice continued to fall. Fool yourself once, shame on you. Fool yourself 27 times in a row.. shame on.. shame on.. uh.. who you gonna blame for that?

    • “We really do not know why this stagnation is taking place at the moment. I hardly know a colleague who would deny that it has not got warmer in recent years.” ~Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Plank Institute for Meteorology

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Wagathon cuts-and-pastes  “[a 2010 GWPF press release]”

        Gosh Wagathon … are you quoting verbatim press releases from the same GWPF that hides its financial ties to Europest largest-and-dirtiest coal producers?

        The world wonders!

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

      • Wagathon | March 18, 2013 at 10:31 pm |

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut3sh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut4sh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/crutem4vsh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/crutem3vsh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut3vsh/last:384/trend/plot/hadcrut3sh/last:384/trend/plot/hadcrut4sh/last:384/trend/plot/crutem4vsh/last:384/trend/plot/crutem3vsh/last:384/trend/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:191/mean:193/derivative/normalise/plot/hadcrut4sh/mean:191/mean:193/derivative/normalise

        I have provided the link to the graph of available SH running 32-year (i.e. “climate”) temperature trends, with derivatives superimposed for the principle datasets.

        Show us what specific stagnation on the Southern Hemisphere climate trend line Jochem Marotzke is referring to, by all means.

        That would be a point where the derivative is below zero, and the trend line is downward sloping on a mean curve of 30 years or longer, just in case you missed the definition of climate.

      • Fan makes a baseless claim the GWPF receives fossil money.

        No doubt he would prefer it that the only money in climate should be the money that taxpayers are forced to cough up, which is four or five orders of magnitude larger than everyone put together, and almost all of which is earmarked for motivated studies with settled alarmist conclusions. Having reality intrude into his poltiics just won’t do.

      • Punksta | March 19, 2013 at 3:42 am |

        I’m in full agreement. Fossil created the problem. Fossil should pay for it entirely.

        We need research to understand just what fossil has done and continues to do to us. Fossil can be sent the bill. After all, fossil’s motivated profits exceed the spending on climate science by orders of magnitude, and all of it, on both sides, is due to fossil’s favored position, created by the government.

      • Ah, carbon dioxide, the once and future fossil.
        =============

      • Perhaps, BartR, but ought that not risk making Fossil research obese?

      • Wait a minute –

        Just a few weeks ago, the Climate Etc. theme was that questions about the validity of studies examining the health impact of obesity proved that AGW is a hoax.

        And now the Climate Etc. theme is that AGW is a hoax because climate science is obese?

        I have to admit – that’s some world class irony.

      • @bart
        Fossil created the problem
        As you well know we of course still don’t even know with any certainty if we have a problem of any gravity.

        Fossil should pay for it entirely.

        If indeed we do have one, all users of fossil of course.

        We need research to understand just what fossil has done and continues to do to us.

        The issue certainly merits investigation. Proper science though, not the sort of science you recommend – ie pre-programmed to only find how bad fossil is (ie exactly the anti-science practiced by the government ‘consensus’ established)

        Government favors should indeed be scrapped. But your continued pretense that fossil gets government favors is long-discredited.

      • Punksta | March 19, 2013 at 10:37 am |

        As you well know we of course still don’t even know with any certainty if we have a problem of any gravity. /

        You appear mistaken. We have the problem of all this spending. I’d say that is a pretty grave problem. Fossil caused the problem. So I repeat, “Fossil should pay for it entirely.:

        If indeed we do have one, all users of fossil of course.

        Of course. But your implication is not lost. You’re implying there’s some equity in impacts; there isn’t. Where people pay for fossil’s impacts even in some small token way, and where people are paid back from that token pool for the impact to them, we know over 70% of people come out substantially ahead, it’s a wash for about 20% of people, and about 10% of people — the ones who benefited the most in the past without paying for the benefits they obtained at the grace of government — start having to pay their fair share. We all know what happens when free riders are faced with the bill: they stop their free-spending wastrel ways, and everyone benefits.

        Hence, I said, “We need research to understand just what fossil has done and continues to do to us. ”

        The issue certainly merits investigation. Proper science though, not the sort of science you recommend – ie pre-programmed to only find how bad fossil is (ie exactly the anti-science practiced by the government ‘consensus’ established)

        “Proper science”? I’ve heard claim after claim of impropriety. I’ve sat down and combed through the decisions of eight review panels on Climategate alone, and scanned IPCC report after IPCC report, plowed through Idsos’ websites and Climate Audit and once upon a time through WUWT and find a fraction of a percent accuracy in the claim you make at any level. Certainly not so much accuracy resides in this pre-programmed claim as to result in perceptible bias. Which is only rational: given the rate of success of government programs, you’d have to be surprised if there were a plan, much less one that worked and was kept secret.

        In any event, it’s not the job of the prosecution to seek causes for leniency; what sort of soft-on-crime philosophy are you espousing, that not only ought the government give fossil special priviledges (which fossile has thoroughly abused time and again), but also pay for fossils’ mess, while also paying to defend fossil from the consequences of fossils’ action?

        Government favors should indeed be scrapped. But your continued pretense that fossil gets government favors is long-discredited.

        Yeah. Because http://www.iisd.org/gsi/ is so poorly documented. Because the Canadian government hasn’t invested over $1.6 billion in developing tarsands and hasn’t put on a full court press to get Keystone approved by the USA.. which incidentally, they’re doing to move the outlet for tarsands from a landlocked domestic US destination at the US price to a sea port where they can obtain the world price instead of selling at lower cost to America.. and they expect the USA to pick up the tab for driving up the price of US oil.

        Discredited? You need to become more skeptical. And less soft on crime. All it takes is a bit of courage and self-discipline.

      • In our modern-day ‘Fountainhead’ the federally-funded finger-pointers of global warming doom are academia’s corrupt monks spreading seeds of self-defeatism. All humanity must fight against and overcome the use by the government of the peoples’ own money to put the people out of business.

      • Why not let the free enterprise system spend what it wants to invent a Perpetual Motion Fabrication Machine and leave government out of it? The nonsense of a ‘greenhouse’ is nothing more than AL-le-GORY –i.e., a tale told by an scientific idiot that politicians find useful to fleece the sheep.

      • Bart

        You simply repeat your earlier error, pretending that we have a god idea of what if any effect CO2 us having. So the rest of your comment – that rests on that blunder – simply collapses.

      • Continuing anyway with the few bits that don’t rest on that blunder:

        So in your fantasy world, Bart, Climategate and the organized coverups of it that followed, and the dogged refusal of the climate establishment to distance itself from the perpetrators thereof, are no evidence of crookedness and bias.
        That makes you part of the problem.

        Government subsidies for fossil :
        Because http://www.iisd.org/gsi/ is so poorly documented.
        Documented – oh no, I don’t doubt it lists the same tripe you were peddling here a few months ago.

        Because the Canadian government hasn’t invested over $1.6 billion in developing tarsands. and hasn’t put on a full court press to get Keystone approved by the USA.

        The odd scheme, perhaps, nothing systematic as you would have us believe.

        You really need to get that fossil bee out of your bonnet.

      • The real question is, does sane person really believe that the self-righteous, anti-capitalist, edamame-eating eco-whackpots of global warming alarmism are actually losing sleep worrying about–e.g., polar bears suffering from the heat?

      • Bart

        Don’t be a dumbbell.

        “Fossil fuel” should pay the bill?

        Duh!

        This would only be passed on directly to the consumer of energy or any product or service with an energy component.

        You and I and everyone else here would pay the bill – not “fossil fuel”.

        And the ruling class would sock it in, to be redistributed at its discretion.

        Think a little before you make silly statements, Bart.

        Max

      • David Springer

        Wagathon | March 19, 2013 at 1:06 pm |

        “self-righteous, anti-capitalist, edamame-eating eco-whackpots of global warming alarmism”

        Don’t go bagging on edamame. That’s good stuff. Boil in salted water, let cool, and then eat it as a snack, like peanuts-in-the-shell, with beer. Yum. I wish you could buy it in regular grocery stores. I have to go an Asian food store for it. As a matter of fact there’s a bag of edamame in my freezer and a 12 pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon in the fridge calling my name even as I write this. It’s only 4:20PM but you know what they say, it’s 5 o’clock somewhere. Cheers.

      • In the modern age of Growlers from indy brewers, Pabst really declasse, no?

      • I have to agree with David Springer.

        Edamame should not be dissed.

        Don’t eat the stuff myself, but it’s just ad hom to pick on someone for their food choices.

        I also must agree with manacker | March 19, 2013 at 4:36 pm |

        “Fossil fuel” should pay the bill?
        ..
        This would only be passed on directly to the consumer of energy or any product or service with an energy component.

        You and I and everyone else here would pay the bill – not “fossil fuel”.

        The consumers of energy, getting the price signal of the research cost of their choices in the Market, would then decide based on research-included costs which budget choices they want to make. See, that’s what the whole Capitalism idea is about.

      • Does anyone have the slightest appreciation for the number of edamame’s that give up their lives for a nut bag?

      • Generalissimo Skippy

        1.3 billion people will not turn on the lights on Saturday night. Nor will they turn them on any other night because these people don’t have access to electricity.

        Bart believes in a magic whereby the substitution of higher priced enrgy -the objective of a carbon tax whether redistributed or not – doesn’t make access to electricity any more difficult and doesn’t decease productivity by making input costs higher.

        It is neither rational economics or good policy. Lucky it is also pointless claptrap to keep mindlessly pursuing a chimera. What was that definition of madness again?

      • As Philip Stott reminds us, if you have clean water you have energy. As you understand, many have neither nor even the juice to refrigerate a few life-saving drugs. That is the inhumanity of the Left that they pretend to care about whales when their true motive is to tax fuel like tea so they can live off government revenues like entitled gentry living in Downton Abbey looking down their effete noses at those who actually bring value to society.

      • Who can remember
        Those days of September
        When a case of PBR
        Was five bucks returnable?
        ====================

      • Anyone who ever bought Brown Derby at FedMart might remember…

      • Put another nickel on,
        Katz lick da foam yon.
        ==============

      • “Watt found by experiment in 1782 that a ‘brewery horse’ was able to produce 32,400 foot-pounds per minute.” (wiki)

        The consensus is — after pulling an all-nighter at the invention wheel and sharing a pony keg with Matthew Boulton, James Watt decided to round off the figure for horsepower at 33,000…

      • Robert I Ellison | March 20, 2013 at 1:50 am |

        1.3 billion people will not turn on the lights on Saturday night. Nor will they turn them on any other night because these people don’t have access to electricity.

        A different 1.3 billion people will turn on lights tonight without emitting a gram of carbon. And they’ll reliably and cost-effectively turn them on any other night they want, all while emitting less carbon per capita for light than the 1.3 billion without electricity. Why? Because having electricity doesn’t equal burning oil. It doesn’t equal megaprojects. It doesn’t equal driving up Risk and Key Vulnerabilities.

        This practice of false equivalences you do.. is this from engineering college, or just a hobby?

      • willard (@nevaudit) | March 19, 2013 at 10:14 am |

        Perhaps, BartR, but ought that not risk making Fossil research obese?

        It already employs so many denizens, perhaps you may wish to amend from “obese” to “more obese”?

      • Generalissimo Skippy

        ‘Renewable energy is energy that comes from resources which are continually replenished such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves and geothermal heat. About 16% of global final energy consumption comes from renewable resources, with 10% of all energy from traditional biomass, mainly used for heating, and 3.4% from hydroelectricity. New renewables (small hydro, modern biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels) accounted for another 3% and are growing very rapidly. The share of renewables in electricity generation is around 19%, with 16% of electricity coming from hydroelectricity and 3% from new renewables.’

        So you are technically correct but morally and intellectually bankrupt – unless you can find another 16% of hydroelectricity for todays need let alone tomorrow.

      • … or, sentence them to renewable resources like burning mesquite and cow chips in sod huts with dir floors.

      • The Arctic sea ice appears to be past its tipping point. Now, even with global temperatures quite steady, it is undergoing a self-amplifying, even accelerating, albedo feedback. It might be zero by the summer of 2020 taking the volume changes into account.

      • ‘Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline
        circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.’ op. cit.

        Everything is different? Don’t think so – but I am prepared to wait and see instead of indulging in crazy narrative about tipping points. The tipping point when it comes is likely to involve MOC slowdown and abrupt cooling. But by all means quote science and link to sources instead of your usual content free narrative.

      • It’s a real-live bifurcation, Skippy. We are on the dotted line between a stable sea-ice state and none in the summer.

      • But again – no actual science is possible – so you don’t have any. Just tales of the unexpected. In the meantime amplification of the warming and cooling modes seems quite likely.

      • [The Arctic region did warm considerably faster during the 1910–1940]

        Exactly…

        Based on the historical evidence the IPCC’s prediction of a 0.3°C rise in global average temperature per decade would be an unusual figure if it had happened; however, a lower figure would not have been unusual. That is why the IPCC picked a high number: a lower estimate is easily explained by natural factors alone. A lower figure is to be expected and shouldn’t alarm anyone because it has happened before –e.g., the period 1910 to 1940. What is of interest is that there has been no global warming for the last 15 years.

        Looking at the spread of predictions of the climate models used in the IPCC’s AR4, the forecast for average warming is 0.2°C per decade centered on a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of about 0.14°C per decade. Thus, if one regards a measure of spread of climate models as a reasonable basis for prediction (even though different models contain different physics; they are not simply ‘samples’ drawn from a random distribution) there is an 8% probability of getting no increase in a ten-year period and a less than 1% chance of twenty years with no trend. At the moment, the chances of 15 years of no trend are about 4%. Importantly, the 0.2°C per decade warming predicted by the IPCC has never been met. Rates have always been lower. (Dr David Whitehouse, ‘The Global Warming Standstill’)

    • Bart – your facts are wrong – http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/global-warming-antarctic-ice-growing-thicker/7056

      The Antarctic continues to grow thicker, and, the paper you mention about increased rates of slides is actually confirming this; ice slides faster the more it accumulates, as the weight of ice increases. The more ice they measure sliding means that more is being formed..

      Please read the whole piece I link to, notice how it seeks to brush this aside to continue making the ‘scary story told to children’ of ‘ice melting and we’ll all drown’. “Ice losses have increased” is not showing melting in Antarctica, but increase of ice, and they have added Arctic ice which could all melt and not show any rise in sea level – it’s an ice cube sitting in water..

      The Antarctic is gaining ice –
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/11/poles-scientists-antarctic-sea-ice

      Two decades of measurements show that changing wind patterns around Antarctica have caused a small increase in sea ice, the result of cold winds off the continent blowing ice away from the coastline.

      “Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon using computer models,” said Paul Holland at the British Antarctic Survey. “Our study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change.

      “The Arctic is losing sea ice five times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it, so, on average, the Earth is losing sea ice very quickly. There is no inconsistency between our results and global warming.”

      Again, they can’t simply say that all their great scary predictions and years of claims that the Antarctic was melting were complete and utter BS, but still try to put a scary melting scenario as last word by tricksy wording. This is what you have bought into.

      These people are shysters.

      *COD – shyster = person without professional honour.

      • Myrrh | March 20, 2013 at 5:58 am |

        I must admit to having trouble following what you say here. Facts don’t belong to anyone.

        Your source supporting your view that the Antarctic is gaining ice mass is a four-month old blog post on a BBC video report titled “Rate of polar ice sheets melting has accelerated“?

        And even your first source is ambiguous on your question, pointing out “The overall condition of all polar ice, is, you guessed it, melting. That takes into account considerable thawing in the Arctic, as well as in coastal areas of western Antarctica that buck the continent’s hardening trend.

        But that’s okay, you follow up with an even more out-dated pop culture online source that.. also confirms the complexity of the question, citing a report from Natue Geoscience and adding layers of interpretation.

        The source I cited, published only last week in a mostly reputable science journal, doesn’t dispute what your sources say on fact. It merely explains how the Antarctic can be ‘gaining’ sea ice (surface area) while losing sea ice (mass), and getting thicker in places (eastern continent) while thinning (sea ice). And it’s all extremely skimpy interpretation of extremely skimpy data yet, given how little effort has been made to gauge these things.

        See, I’m not overly invested in the whole Antarctic loss/gain question. To me, the idea that single digit warming a pole that averages -40C would have a simple predictable effect on ice mass is absurd. It ought have a complicated outcome, as ice carried away from the margins (as we see in coastal areas of western Antarctica) is counterbalanced by snow accumulation caused by increased water vapor capacity of warmer air even below 0C.

        I’m just a stickler for details and taking into account useful reports. Your sources are useful, however deficient the BBC and even the better of online British media may be in science; it doesn’t discredit the sources I’ve seen, given the ambiguities.

        It just means we ought not exhibit too much certainty, and where we do claim certainty.. ought take into account all the latest facts.

        Meanwhile, the Southern Hemisphere continued to warm up to at least 2005. After that, linear trendology suggests it has warmed, but linear trendology on sub-decadal spans is crap, so there’s no telling. Until I find an adequate high-atmosphere aerosols data set and see some analyses other than my own SWAG correlating that data with weather, I believe no one can say what the climate has done with regards hemispheric temperature more recently than 2004, when both hemispheres were warming — NH more rapidly than SH.

      • Facts don’t belong to anyone so just sharing: Matt Ridley says, the true result is that fossil fuel burning is adding 0.002%, and it appears to be a fact that has so far stood up to smear review.

      • … that is, is adding 0.002% to natural precipitation, not 0.001%.

      • Wagathon | March 21, 2013 at 10:57 am |

        I don’t mean to be blunt.

        Well, I do.

        Lord Ridley’s words do not match well his track record; his actions — such as singlehandedly destroying one of the biggest and oldest banks in the history of his Lordship’s realm — do not inspire an American to have terribly much faith in the ‘rational’ optimism his Lordship emits.

        Lords Ridley, Monckton, Lawson.. their titles mean nothing to an American. It is unseemly that any American ought bend knee to any Lord but one.. and that Lord doesn’t go around missing the point.

        Lord Ridley’s point? That the H2O resulting directly from burning fossil fuels is a small percentage of rain?

        Kinda misses the point of the documented humidity increase in the atmosphere as a response to AGW.

  54. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    (Ice) Breaking News: Yet Another Hockey-Stick

    Yet another hockey stick has been posted on Neven’s redoubtably science-oriented Arctic Sea Ice weblog

    Conclusion  Mother Nature casts yet another vote against climate-change denialism.

    The “quibblers” and “astro-turfers” are having a hard time keeping up, eh?

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

    • Yet another hockey stick has been posted on Neven’s redoubtably science-oriented Arctic Sea Ice weblog </i??

      Nah, just another hockey stick illusion coming over Gullible Dimwit.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Whoops! graphic linky!

      Thanks to Neven’s Sea Ice weblog … a fantastic science-oriented website!

    • Yes, this would be the same Neven’s redoubtably science-oriented Arctic Sea Ice weblog that even now posts a pathetic Pause Denialism thread.

      It is indeed the ideal site for gullible dimwits. No wonder Fan is a fan.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Now the US Navy is contributing stunning animations of this week’s accelerating Arctic ice out-flow.

        Out flew the web and floated wide
        The mirror crack’d from side to side;
        “The curse is come upon me,” cried
          The Lady of Shalott.

        In the stormy eastwind straining
        The pale-yellow woods were waning,
        The broad stream in his banks complaining,
        Heavily the low sky raining
          Over towered Camelot:

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

      • Hi Fan

        That was a great graphic by Andy Robinson that you (eventually) managed to link to.That isn’t the same Andy Robinson who tried to become an MP in the UK general Election a couple of years ago was it?

        He has real talent for putting over a tiny snapshot of the Arctic ice history since 1979. What do you think he would make of the 1920-1940 period which-as you know from the follow up information I supplied about WH Auden-(said he was a major climate figure didn’t I?) contained the two warmest consecutive decades in Greenland? We will need to wait until 2020 to see if the current two decades beat it.

        tonyb

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      tonybclimatereason posts  “[demagogic denialism traits #4: motivism, #8: ad personum arguments, and #11 bad science]”

      The plotted scientific data derive from Christophe Kinnard et al., Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years (Nature<, 2012).

      It is a pleasure to respond to your specific request for further "hockey-stick" data …it is regretred that the demagogic elements of your comment were infeasible to parse in any rational way, tonybclimatereason!

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

      • Fan

        You really must read things better. Earlier you attributed a post I made to mosomoso, then proceeded to link to skeptical science and called it Neven.

        Ad personum’ What? Do you mean ad personam? So its Ok for you to mention Neven by name but not for me to mention Andy Robinson who was clearly noted in your link as providing the chart, which I duly praised. Perhaps Trish can add ‘hypocrisy’ to her list and you can give yourself a telling off for practising it.

        Motivism? How?

        Bad science? I have provided a link to Phil Jones piece on Greenland temperatures before. If you think its ‘bad science’ I can provide you with his email address and you can take it up with him. What has Kinnards sweeping and highy generalised graphic covering the last 1450 years have anything to do with two decades in Greenland in the early 20th century?
        tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        AFAICT, Andy Robinson is an utterly harmless private citizen whose chief claim to fame is that Joe Romm admires his graphical talents.

        If you sincerely believe, climatereason, that Andy’s artwork reflects some sort of conspiracy, then please go nuts and tell Climate Etc readers all about it!

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

      • Fan

        Do you need to get some sleep or something? I am quite worried for your well being when you can read my post then write this;

        “If you sincerely believe, climatereason, that Andy’s artwork reflects some sort of conspiracy, then please go nuts and tell Climate Etc readers all about it!”

        Where on earth did I EVER mention ANYTHING about Andy’s artwork being any sort of conspiracy? Where did that come from? Have a nice rest. If you are at work have a strong coffee.
        tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        ClimateReason, it’s good to know that you, and Joe Romm, and Neven Acropolis —and the mysterious A-Team too! — are united in your appreciation of Any Robinson’s outstanding citizen-science contributions!

        Andy Robinson’s latest hockey-stick:  Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed

        Andy Robinson, we readers of Climate Etc are grateful for your many outstanding citizen-science contributions!

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

  55. “The Young Scientist Marcott”

    Over the web and floating wide,
    The science cracked from side to side,
    “The Mannian curse upon me,” cried,
    the young scientist Marcott,

    O’er the “net come skeptics training
    their sights on findings waning,
    team members all complaining,
    “We really never had a shot.”

    • Just to add, above lines dedicated to Fan who has offered for our reading pleasure, “The LAdy of Shalott”. My apologies of course to Tennyson.

      Fan, I’ve a new theory. You’re Steve McIntyre in disguise. YOu’ve become such an effective advocate for the “denialists” that you have to be doing it on purpose.

      The world wonders, A Fan of *More* Discourse!!

  56. Models of carbon dioxide in the world’s oceans need to be revised…

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130317154758.htm

    • Particularly amusing the manner in which the author says that the Redfield Ratio remains a central tenet of ocean biology and chemistry, but that it is no longer a constant. I expect similar wording from climate science, soon.
      ========

    • Chief Hydrologist

      They probably don’t need revising – the various carbon compartments are not known well enough to require it.

      Ah the Redfield ratio – now that brings back memories. One of them is that no one ever considerd it a hard and fast rule

  57. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    This Week’s Breaking Examples of Demagogic Denialism

    Anthony Watts denies  “Joe Romm has a new post up, pushing yet again his hilarious projection of the future [Romm’s post is non-hilariously titled Carbon Pollution Set To End Era Of Stable Climate]”

    Willis Eschenbach requests (rhetorically)  “Let me know when you’ve come up with the figures on how much energy it takes to push a liquid through a filter one molecule thick, and can discuss its effects on pretreatment stage of reverse osmosis plants, and we’ll continue the discussion.”

    This week’s posts by WUWT‘s Anthony Watts and Willis Eschenbach are wonderfully exemplary of Trish Roberts-Miller’s thirteen traits of demagogic climate-change denialism

    •  Anthony Watts characterizes as “hilarious” the same concerns that one billion Catholics regard seriously, thus exemplifying Roberts-Miller’s demagogic traits #01 (polarization), #06 (refusal), and #13 (quibbling).

    •  Willis Eschenbach illustrates Roberts-Miller’s demagogic traits #11 (bad science) #12 (anti-intellectualism) — aka the Dunning–Kruger effect — by first ignoring, then outright censoring, comments asserting the well-known quantitative answer (for seawater) of 27 MJ/m^3, which reflects the well-understood and thoroughly validated scientific principle that thermodynamic/osmotic pressure differentials arise from entropic mechanisms that are independent of membrane thickness.

    Climate Etc readers can hope that the new Pope Francis will assist — seriously, not “hilariously” — forums like WUWT to a morally mature appreciation that denialism need not cling so fiercely to juvenile demagogic tactics of polarization, refusal, quibbling, bad science, and anti-intellectualism.

    Summary  Heed Pope Francis’ example in the coming year, Anthony and Willis!

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

    • Fan

      Reading your post, a wonderful image came to me of the Pope sitting in front of his computer trying to convert Anthony Watts and Willis to the cult of warmism.

      Incidentally,I suspect you are the only one who believes Trish’s list is renowned or in any way meaningful. Don’t you think they are rather tiresome? If that is ‘ad personam’ then so be it, although no doubt you will continue to believe that your attacks on Watts and Willis are perfectly acceptable and fall into an altogether more benign category.
      tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        LOL  climatereason, at least we agree on two objectively verifiable points: (1) Anthony’s hockey-stick rhetoric has been irrational, and (2) Willis’ grasp of thermodynamic principles has been feeble!

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

      • Fan

        I am intrigued. IF the Pope is leading only 1 billion Roman Catholics (your figure) who believe in warmism, are the other 200, 000 sceptics?
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21443313

        Should they be excommunicated for failing to follow the Popes teachings? Where do they live?

        tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        climatereason asks: “Fan, should [the Catholic faithful] be excommunicated for failing to follow the Popes teachings?”

        ClimateReason, the (literal!) good-faith answer is that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences exists to inform the understanding of the faithful.

        ClimateReason, please accept my sincere hope that your appreciation of climate-change science — and the appreciation of many here on Climate Etc — will continue to gain in wisdom and stature, now with the guidance of Pope Francis!

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

    • Tony,
      They should be given a chance to recant. Failing that, I bet there’s an old rack or two still gathering dust somewhere from the last Inquisition.

      • I doubt it, pokerguy. A rack can make any data set resemble a hockey stick if applied properly.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        pokerguy asserts “Tony, they [whose science is wrong] should be given a chance to recant.”

        You are right, pokerguy!

        Example  Over on WUWT, poster JT is very gently explaining to Willis Eschenbach — using simple no-equation high-school-level physics — why Willis’ understanding of thermodynamics is mistaken.

        Question  Will Willis/WUWT graciously thank JT for his clear, patient and polite clarification … then recant the mistaken WUWT post? The world wonders!

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

  58. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    BREAKING NEWS: (GRAPHIC HERE)
    THE MOST AMAZING HOCKEY-STICK MASHUP YET!

    The two epochs of Marcott

    A famous SF series of long ago always began with: “To boldly go where no man has gone before” Indeed, we are entering a new era boldly where no man has been. Whether our descendants will be so delighted, I doubt. (Google-translated from the Dutch)

    Dang  with citizen-scientists publishing new hockey-sticks thick-and-fast … the spinning-quibbling-denying business just keeps getting tougher, eh?

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

    • Fan

      Ah! The silly stick! Earlier I suggested you needed a strong coffee. I think you might have overdone it. Do you really believe this to be an accurate representation of things that will come to pass?
      Tonyb

  59. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    TonyB wonders  “[Is the Hockey Stick] an accurate representation of things that will come to pass?

    What does thermodynamics predict, and the paleo data affirm, TonyB?

    What outcome is it that concerns the Pontifical Academy of Science?

    Admittedly, the Catholic disciples of Christ *DO* take the long view.

    Unlike (for example) this forum’s short-sighted disciples of free-market libertarianism, eh?

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}\,\spadesuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\spadesuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fan

      Your link to the pontifical Academy left my I-pad lying on the floor wheezing for breath. My grown up computer is sullenly refusing to visit the site. How large is the download for heavens sake (pun intended) Is it worth my while to try to visit the site or is it pretty dull?
      tonyb

  60. Fan

    Do you chek your links before you post them or think that none of us will bother to follow them?

    The thermodynamics link I was referring to (your 3.45) leads to skeptical science. It is not the same article as the one you have now referenced ‘the future etc’

    I will try your new link to the Vatican site
    Tonyb

    • Tonyb,
      please let us know about the Vatican site when you look at it. I trust your judgement about science links and respect Jesuits work on science issues. I am curious about their position on AGW or CAGW vs spending scarce resources on the poor in the third world. As Wagathon says only so many resources to spend and what are the priorties?
      Scott

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Scott asks “Tonyb, please let us know about the Vatican site when you look at it. I trust your judgement about science links and respect Jesuits work on science issues.”

        Second the motion! And TonyB, please do not overlook also the next Pontifical Academy conference:

        Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature
        Joint Workshop of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
        and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences
        2-6 May 2014

        Macroeconomic forecasts routinely exclude natural capital. Accounting for Nature, if it comes into the calculus at all, is usually an afterthought. The rhetoric has been so successful, that if someone exclaims, “Economic growth!”, one does not need to ask, “Growth in what?” – we all know they mean growth in gross domestic product (GDP).

        The rogue word in GDP is “gross”. GDP, being the market value of all final goods and services, ignores the degradation of natural capital. If fish harvests rise, GDP increases even if the stock declines. If logging intensifies, GDP increases even if the forests are denuded. And so on.

        The moral is significant though banal: GDP is impervious to Nature’s constraints. There should be no question that Humanity needs urgently to redirect our relationship with Nature so as to promote a sustainable pattern of economic and social development.

        Pope Francis’ long-term vision for the Creation surely will be reflected in this certain-to-be-celebrated 2014 Vatican conference! Good!

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

  61. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    TonyB, please let me apologize for any past and future link-errors … a valid link to the (outstanding!) survey article The Future of Seawater Desalination: Energy, Technology, and the Environment was previously supplied in this Climate Etc comment.

    • Fan

      I tried to go to your second Vatican link but it never managed to load and after two minutes I lost the network connection. I have never had this problem before. Rather than embedding it in a phrase can you just post the URL and I will try again.
      Tonyb

    • Fan, always fun. I appreciate the opportunity to recant. Very generous. Of course, you could always just toss me into some lake with my hands tied. If I sink, I’ll have proven my innocence, but unfortunately be dead. On the other hand, if I float then my evil denialism will have been revealed to the whole world… in which case of course, I’ll be done it anyway.

      That win/win approach actually reminds of the alarmist M.O.. No matter what happens, it’s supportive of The Hypothesis.

      All hail the great and wondrous hypothesis, eh Fan of *More* Discourse??!!!

      The world is left to wink appreciatively, eh Fan of *more* Discourse??!!!

      • Or is it the other way around? If I float I’m innocent, and if I sink I’m a damned denialist?

        Oh well, it all comes to the same thing…

  62. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Theological reasoning need not be complicated, PokerGuy! You are instructed to memorize this exposition!

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

  63. Chief Hydrologist

    Does either side know with any confidence what the impacts of human CO2 emissions will be? Perhaps so – but I suggest it is a false confidence.

    • Chief

      Footprints in the sands of time.

    • Does either side know with any confidence what the impacts of human CO2 emissions will be? Perhaps so – but I suggest it is a false confidence.

      Exactly so. Certainly virtually all alarmism is driven by political motives, and/or political money. Some deniers aren’t much better (though deniers are very few in number).
      Hence both hate skeptics; for them an objective science by scientists with integrity is just a nuisance that gets in the damn way

  64. A poem dedicated to the Chief and kim (and Beth, of course), plus to the positive philosophy of Fanny.

    El Niño y su hermanita, La Niña

    The sunny boy that kept us warm
    Has vanished like a summer storm

    His little sister took his place
    And showed us all her teary face

    Gone are the days that seemed so hot
    For clouds and rain are all we’ve got

    The sister giggles, “Now I’m blamed.
    Big brother, though, was never named.”

    Wise model gurus ponder, “Why?”
    And gaze up hopeless to the sky

    One pundit mutters, “Woe is me!
    I can’t explain this tra-ves-tee!”

    While others tell us, “Can’tcha see?
    It’s climate var-ya-bi-li-tee!”

    And yet another expert bawls
    “It’s all them Chinese ae-ro-sols!”

    They thought it all was C-O-2
    And now they just don’t have a clue

    The Chief, who’s studied this for years
    Has now confirmed our darkest fears

    “It could last a decade or three,
    We’ll all just have to wait and see.”

    So buy long-handled B-V-D’s
    And fur-lined boots up to your knees

    Break out your woollies, brace for snow
    For how long even kim don’t know.

    Max

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Well done Max – poetry slam.

      Song of a Climate Zombie

      Am I some poor merchant of doubt selling shopworn and
      threadbare wares on the ebays of the ideas marketplace?
      Let me take stock then in a dismal reiteration of my poor
      argument that is my faint hope to delude and dismay you.

      Unless we can count on some mad and unprovable theory,
      then the unholy carbon ghost must grasp the photon closely
      in warming arms for a period of no less than 80 years or so.
      Or until judgement day – whichever comes before the cart.

      My stock in trade must then be: the power of ENSO twins,
      abrupt shifts in the PDO, the fickleness of the PNA, the
      slow pendulum of the AMO and the SAM with its storms
      freewheeling off the Southern Ocean to smash on the shore.

      These standard bearers of doubt engage in a global dance.
      Occasionally, they pirouette towards a grand crescendo and,
      then fly wildly to the ends of Earth in a new choreography.
      Tremendous energies cascading though powerful systems.

      Unless I miss my mark then this is the mark of chaos and
      a danger in its own right as climate system components
      jostle unpredictably and things settle into whatever pattern
      emerges – mayhaps a cold, cold, cold day on planet Earth.

      So, you are 90% sure we caused warming over 50 years?
      But the only global warming was between 1977 and 1998.
      By more than chance, it was the last period when the boy
      child, El Niño, reigned over climate in the Pacific Ocean.

      His influence can be seen in the record of Earth radiance.
      A slow decline in reflected short wave as cloud dissipated
      over the warm ocean and let in more of the Sun’s energy.
      Ten times more powerful than a gaseous embrace of photons.

      Before that time and since his sister, the girl child La Niña,
      ruled the waves with winds and cold, cold water rising in the
      eastern Pacific – with cool cloud spreading over cold seas –
      she will rule for some decades yet before ceding power again.

      • Rob

        A nice post. Thank you.

      • Not bad at all, serf, though your piece shamelessly exploits the emotional vulnerabilities of certain Sydney/South Melbourne people.

        No wall? I thought we were going to get a wall.

      • Gee thanks Generalissimo,
        I will pack warm as kim has given due warnin …
        re coolin’. I would wear me fur coat ( but due ter
        some marsupial sensitivities here, I’ll go fer cashmire
        sweaters and a trench coat.
        B-t-S

    • How strong the need for rhythmic dancing,
      Chaos curling, frothing, glancing.
      =========

      • Swans and uncertainty …

        Black swan, ebony gleaming,
        gliding artlessly on
        a mirrored lake. Unaware
        that you’re an oddity exposed
        by northern ornithologists.
        Glossy bird, you’d be surprised
        to learn you are compared
        to Hume’s thanks-giving turkey,
        symbol of the out-liar event,
        the single observation that exposes
        how fragile is our human knowledge.

        Black swan, you have become
        a symbol too …
        so much less and more
        than a mere black-bird … you.

        Beth the serf.

      • Beth

        Thank yew fer ritin’ a mahty purty pom.

        Yore Swiss Serf.

      • Thank yew swiss serf. I’m doin’ the ill-u-stray-shuns fer me
        ‘Book of Feathers ‘ now and when it’s finished I’ll send yew
        and tony b a copy. Got ideas from yew on fenghuang birds.

        jest-one-of-the-serfs.

      • My critique of the serf’s verses ended up in the previous comment run. I missed the gap in the fence line. You know what they say about good fences.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Laudes Creaturarum
      Canticle of the Sun
      (St. Francis’ Hymm)

      The heavens are telling the glory of God,
      And all creation is shouting for joy!
      Come, dance in the forest, come, play in the field,
         and sing, sing to the glory of the Lord!

      Praise for the wind that blows through the trees,
      the seas’ mighty storms, the gentlest breeze;
      they blow where they will, they blow where they please
         to please the Lord!

      Praise for the rain that waters our fields,
      and blesses our crops so all the earth yields;
      from death unto life her mystery revealed
         springs forth in joy!

      Praise for the fire who gives us his light,
      the warmth of the sun to brighten our night;
      he dances with joy, his spirit so bright,
         he sings of you!

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

      Note:  The Canticle of the Sun, also known as the Laudes Creaturarum (Praise of the Creatures), is a religious song composed by Saint Francis of Assisi. It was written in the Umbrian dialect of Italian but has since been translated into many languages. It is believed to be among the first works of literature, if not the first, written in the Italian language.

      • Generalissimo Skippy

        Much as I appreciate the Canticle – the rules of a poetry slam specify original poetry and you will have to be disqualified.

        Beth wins – and the prize is a one way, all expenses paid trip to UNtopia Minnesota where she will be re-educated slash entertained by Webby.

        Beth is advised to pack warm.

      • Fan, the message there is to celebrate the Earth and its bounty, in all its boundless variations. It is life-affirming, no cause for doom-sayers and population-reducers.

  65. Chief

    +100

    (But I’m not too happy about the prediction for “some decades yet”.)

    Max

  66. Enough of this poetry!

    The day before Spring the ground is covered in snow; the Winter temperature max is 23 F when the expected is 43 F. Large flurried snowflakes dance in the gusty winds: I have seen these before 5 months ago. No warming winters to be had.

    I pay no mind to what forecasters say as they have been wrong throughout our Winter’s stay. So too, our climate clan. False endings to a proxy plan make Marcott a symbol of our diminishing credulity.

    Is there a way I can reconcile this gap? maybe a carbon cap? Not really I’m afraid, climate scientists won’t come out and play, standing on their feet of clay.

    In a decade or more, when surface temperatures don’t reach three, who claims the mantel, when the shiny orb has her way, and we descend into winter, and ice, again.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Sigh … OK enough poetry:

      Global February temperatures were ninth highest on record
      According to NOAA scientists, the globally averaged temperature for February 2013 tied with 2003 as the ninth warmest February since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 28th consecutive February and 336th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th-century average.

      It appears the Vatican scientists have plenty of data to reflect soberly upon, eh RiHo08?

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

      • Imagine having to choose between poetry and keeping track of how many months it’s been above the average of last century.
        ================

      • kim

        A sobering choice.

        Let’s ask Webby.

        He usually has a balanced view of things and a good way with words.

        Max

      • He’s missing a real opportunity by not making an effort to calculate how many months in a row we’ve been above the average temperature of the 19th, or, heavenly, the 18th Century. If he wanted to wax poetic, he could calculate the number of months in a row we’ve been above the average of the last few glacial/deglaciations; the number approaches 100,000 months.

        Whoa, don’t tell the chirruns.
        =========

      • er, ‘exceeds 100,000 months’. Now, I’m petrified.
        ========

      • What would Goldilocks say?

        What would be her “jes’ right” globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly?

  67. Today through strange internet links I happened across a conspiracy theorist forum focused on the disappearance of Madeline McCann. I would have clicked away but I thought it might be a nice backwards-test of Lewandowsky’s theories to see what these conspiracy theory folk felt about global warming.

    Tada

    • lolwot still desperately trying to revive the old “conspiracy theory” strawman I see.

      In what sense is the state pursuing its own interests – in this case by bankrolling climate alarmism, so it can cash in on the added taxes and powers this would justify – evidence of a belief in a “conspiracy” on the part of those who observe this obvious fact of the state acting to advance its own interests?

      It isn’t evidence, it’s a strawman. A completely wanked-out one.

  68. lolwot

    You’ll have to ask someone who lives in the UK, where they have “A-levels” (I do not), but have seen similar references to CAGW bias among educators in the UK on a now-defunct thread on the “Harmless Sky” blog of Tony Newbery, where parents of school-children complained that their children were being brainwashed by force-feeding them the CAGW party line as absolute scientific truth.

    Max

    • Yes the UK govt has decided to cease pumping CAGW propaganda to young schoolchildren.

    • From a piece on WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/newsbytes-climate-scientists-turn-skeptical-as-climate-predictions-fail/#more-82284

      “Newsbytes: Climate Scientists Turn Skeptical As Climate Predictions Fail
      From The GWPF by Dr. Benny Peiser

      British Government Abandons Climate Change Education For Young Children

      …….

      “Debate about climate change has been cut out of the national curriculum for children under 14, prompting claims of political interference in the syllabus by the government that has failed “our duty to future generations”. The latest draft guidelines for children in key stages 1 to 3 have no mention of climate change under geography teaching and a single reference to how carbon dioxide produced by humans impacts on the climate in the chemistry section. There is also no reference to sustainable development, only to the “efficacy of recycling”, again as a chemistry subject. The move has caused alarm among climate campaigners and scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue. –Juliette Jowit, The Guardian, 18 March 2013”

  69. There’s a danger in putting notions like PDO, SOI etc into the hands of literal-minded people who just need a rough observation set with its own acronym and…bingo, they have another button or lever to add to their climate console!

    As I’ve said elsewhere, Australia’s worst El Nino seasons, from a practical point of view, were those of 1902-3 and 1982-3. The first was a “weak” El Nino, the second was “very strong”. The super El Nino of 1998 had a fairly benign effect on Oz, while the “weak” one of 2002-3 was a shocker in its effects. The “weak” El Nino of 1950-1 left the south of the continent alone but gave us our worst northern drought year: a tropical dustbowl. The “strong” of 1941-2 absolutely clobbered Eastern Oz with heat and drought – but the west of the continent copped a drenching!

    The contradictions abound for all those seeking simplistic mechanisms. Our legendary heat (with drought) of 1938-9 came in what the BOM still defines very definitely as pronounced La Nina. I spend a lot of time in bush, paddock and bamboo grove and I do pay attention to such things as ENSO. In their rough way, these things are handy. But while those words “La Nina” fill me with optimism, they are not a reason to chill the champagne.

    PDO? Something in that. There was a profound “climate change” in Eastern Australia after 2006, and I’m amazed that so many seem not to have noticed. It has to do with increased humidity and oceanic winds becoming more dominant, in spite of an El Nino in 2009-10 and the recent very sharp drought. After the heatwave, summer ended cool and wet this year, just like all the exceptionally cool and damp summer of 2010-11. I’m living in a different climate these last seven years, and, while I don’t look for facile resemblances and neat cycles, there is a touch of the 1950s and 1970s about it all.

    The downside: In 1955, (La Niña: 1954–57) an inland sea formed to the west of Sydney that was the size of England and Wales. This happened in a country that had forgotten what consistent high rainfall was like for the half century before 1950. While wet seasons suit me just fine, I have to remember what “wet” can mean in this place called Australia. Also, the conditions that bring me what I like may bring opposite conditions to the other side of Australia – or Texas!

    What I’m saying: Info, data and observation sets are fine things – but they don’t exempt one from thinking.

  70. mosomoso, hmm …those vulnerable Sydney Swans …
    sometimes football teams jest hit the wall .. uncertainty
    in sport ..as in naycher …rules. B-t-s

  71. Generalissimo Skippy

    Really – Judith deletes my polite response to webby’s poorly defined physics in the obesity thread? Not on topic I suppose – but I was responding to nonsense and she leaves the nonsense and the follow up nonsense behind? I am disapointed.

    Calculate the eV of a photon – or anything except Kelvins – yourself – E = hv – http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/converters/e_of_photon

    ‘ln P = -ΔHvap/RT + C

    This is called the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, after its discoverers. P is the vapor pressure in atmospheres, T is the temperature in kelvins, R is the ideal gas constant (8.314 J/mol-K, a variation of the constant you’ll learn about in the next page), ΔHvap is the enthalpy of vaporization of the liquid (the amount of energy necessary to vaporize one mole of liquid) in joules, and C is a constant specific to the liquid under study.’

    Of course there are a number of other factors involved in evaporation
    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/evaporation-water-surface-d_690.html

    In any water body – indeed in ice – some molecules have enough energy to kick off. What we can’t tell in the real world deviations from Clausius-Clapeyron. Mnd you – webby deviates from it in a way that is incredible anyway.

  72. Freedom of the press is in the news in Australia but I was interested to see similar moves happening in the UK and in particular, freedom of speech for bloggers seems under threat.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/03/its-not-a-press-regulator-its-a-web-regulator/

    IMO anything that is published on the web is a public statement, subject to defamation laws, and it behooves everyone to be more cautious when discussing climate science personalities.

    • Peter, breaking news, here in Oz, the Labor Minister
      Craig Thompson, and a coupla independents have put
      the kabosh on the federal guvuhmint’s faaar reaching
      media control bill. A bit of good news fer the open society,
      ( fer a change,)
      a serf

      • Yes, and the ex Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who was knifed in the back by the present Prime Minister, Julia Gillard in 2010, challenged Julia Gillard for the Prime Minister of Australia today, but, after Julia Gillard called a spill for all positions, then Kevin Rudd decided to not challenge after all. This is an example of the loony Left trying to run a country. the only thinking any of them know anything about is how to get to the top of running unions, they are totally incompetent at running anything. These are the clowns that imposed a carbon tax on us that started at $23/tonne and will be $29/tonne CO2 by 2015 when the EU carbon price is about $6/tonne.

        Kevin Rudd went to the Copenhagen conference with 120 bureaucrats and minders.

        In another press release today (released while the challenge for prime minister was underway so it wouldn’t be noticed) shows that the National Broadband Network is way behind schedule. It is schedule to be complete in 2021. However, so far they have competed just 1/6 of the scheduled work. At this rate it wlll be complete in 2081.

        The way this government is running up debt, if it stayed in power any longer, we’d soon be in a mess like Europe and Japan.

        The relevance of all this is it shows that only totally incompetent governments are stupid and ignorant enough to implement schemes like carbon pricing.

      • Oz Gillard Guvuhmint?
        Not a bad record … /sarc
        Eliminate substantial budget surplus,
        replace it with blow-out budget deficit,
        impose carbon tax on productivity,
        attempt undemocratic impositions
        on freedom of the press.

    • Bully! Thanks for the update Beth.

  73. I’ve just posted a link to this re children’s education in the UK, but the whole piece worth a look – JC mentioned prominently in the Mail piece: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/newsbytes-climate-scientists-turn-skeptical-as-climate-predictions-fail/#more-82284

    Newsbytes: Climate Scientists Turn Skeptical As Climate Predictions Fail

    From The GWPF by Dr. Benny Peiser

    “British Government Abandons Climate Change Education For Young Children

    “The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions. The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013”

    • CAGW is on it’s last gasps.

      Watch for sighs of the next loony Left scare campaign. What will it be? Manacker suggested ocean acidification. Any other possibilities?

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Peter Lang asks  “Watch for sighs of the next loony Left scare campaign. What will it be?”

      Thank you for your question, Peter Lang!

      A respected leader of the loony left proposes for 2014 a thoroughgoing scientific and moral analysis of Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature

      As for the Hockey Stick, climate-change scientists appreciate that the Achilles Heel of demagogic denialism is trait #13 quibbling.

      So it’s simple, Peter Lang and Myrrh! While denialists quibble about the weakest hockey-stick evidence, scientists are inexorably strengthening humanity’s integrated appreciation that the climate-change hockey-stick is real.

      Summary  The Catholic Church and the climate-change scientists are working together to create a broader-and-broader community that grows steadily wiser-and-wiser and smarter-and-smarter, while demagogic denialists are seeking distill a smaller-and-smaller “bubble” community that is growing steadily stupider-and-stupider.

      Question  The Church, the scientists,and the denialists all three are succeeding, don’t you think, Peter Lang and Myrrh?

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

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse , have you looked up the definition of “Toomler” yet? (hint -it is Yiddish)

      • David Springer

        He’d have an easier time of it with the far more common spelling tummler.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse | March 21, 2013 at 8:06 am | Peter Lang asks “Watch for sighs of the next loony Left scare campaign. What will it be?”

        Thank you for your question, Peter Lang!

        A respected leader of the loony left proposes for 2014 a thoroughgoing scientific and moral analysis of Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature

        Ah, the Eugenicist Dogma. Odd how they never see themselves, for their socio/psychopathic mass murdering tendencies, as genetic misfits..

        So it’s simple, Peter Lang and Myrrh! While denialists quibble about the weakest hockey-stick evidence, scientists are inexorably strengthening humanity’s integrated appreciation that the climate-change hockey-stick is real.

        http://eugenicist.tumblr.com/post/10407248238/introduction-to-crimestop

        Duckspeak: http://eugenicist.tumblr.com/post/10523164197/introduction-to-duckspeak

        “The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker’s hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different.

        “Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot…But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.”

        http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/153313-nineteen-eighty-four

        Summary The Catholic Church and the climate-change scientists are working together to create a broader-and-broader community that grows steadily wiser-and-wiser and smarter-and-smarter,

        The self-proclaimed elites having built their power bases on lies, damn lies and statistics..

        Let’s see, the Catholic Church is built on the rants of Augustine who created the dogma of Original Sin, not found in Judaism or the Orthodox Christian Church, from his unhappy personal state and the life denying teachings of the Gnostics who thought all matter evil and only spirit good – so Augustine created a new Genesis II with the psychopathic god who created man in his own image with free will and then ordered him to obey a ridiculous command and then killed him for disobeying..

        Yeah, right, such a teaching will naturally lead to wiser and smarter people if they believe this..

        Contrast: ‘created in image and likeness with free will in the image of God, male and female both, with God not being able to act against that free will’ .

        Which is still Orthodox Christian teaching where it hasn’t been corrupted by papal teaching.

        No wonder you buy into oligarchies and whatever lies they tell to get themselves to positions of power.

        while demagogic denialists are seeking distill a smaller-and-smaller “bubble” community that is growing steadily stupider-and-stupider.

        You clearly despise the leaders of the people, because you despise the people?

        You can keep your irrational mass murdering God who creates a pot then blames the pot for being a pot and breaks it, and your Consensus of Scientists tying themselves in knots of science frauds to prove a lie is truth and truth a lie, knowingly or unknowingly the useful idiots to the Eugenicist Dogma of “sustainability”.

        We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.—-George Orwell

        Question The Church, the scientists,and the denialists all three are succeeding, don’t you think, Peter Lang and Myrrh?

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Myrrh froths [“socio/psychopathic”, “genetic misfits”, “duckspeak”, “self-proclaimed elites”, “damn lies”, “corrupt papal teaching”,” irrational mass murderer”]

        Uhhh … gosh-golly Myrrh, is that a fair summary of the innocuous (yet apparently soon-to-be-famous) “Tümmler” post?

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

      • Sorry for the lack of closing italic, trying to rush..

        A fan of *MORE* discourse | March 21, 2013 at 8:06 am | Peter Lang asks “Watch for sighs of the next loony Left scare campaign. What will it be?”

        Thank you for your question, Peter Lang!

        A respected leader of the loony left proposes for 2014 a thoroughgoing scientific and moral analysis of Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature

        Ah, the Eugenicist Dogma. Odd how they never see themselves, for their socio/psychopathic mass murdering tendencies, as genetic misfits..

        So it’s simple, Peter Lang and Myrrh! While denialists quibble about the weakest hockey-stick evidence, scientists are inexorably strengthening humanity’s integrated appreciation that the climate-change hockey-stick is real.

        http://eugenicist.tumblr.com/post/10407248238/introduction-to-crimestop

        Duckspeak: http://eugenicist.tumblr.com/post/10523164197/introduction-to-duckspeak

        “The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker’s hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different.

        “Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot…But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.”

        http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/153313-nineteen-eighty-four

        Summary The Catholic Church and the climate-change scientists are working together to create a broader-and-broader community that grows steadily wiser-and-wiser and smarter-and-smarter,

        The self-proclaimed elites having built their power bases on lies, damn lies and statistics..

        Let’s see, the Catholic Church is built on the rants of Augustine who created the dogma of Original Sin, not found in Judaism or the Orthodox Christian Church, from his unhappy personal state and the life denying teachings of the Gnostics who thought all matter evil and only spirit good – so Augustine created a new Genesis II with the psychopathic god who created man in his own image with free will and then ordered him to obey a ridiculous command and then killed him for disobeying..

        Yeah, right, such a teaching will naturally lead to wiser and smarter people if they believe this..

        Contrast: ‘created in image and likeness with free will in the image of God, male and female both, with God not being able to act against that free will’ .

        Which is still Orthodox Christian teaching where it hasn’t been corrupted by papal teaching.

        No wonder you buy into oligarchies and whatever lies they tell to get themselves to positions of power.

        while demagogic denialists are seeking distill a smaller-and-smaller “bubble” community that is growing steadily stupider-and-stupider.

        You clearly despise the leaders of the people, because you despise the people?

        You can keep your irrational mass murdering God who creates a pot then blames the pot for being a pot and breaks it, and your Consensus of Scientists tying themselves in knots of science frauds to prove a lie is truth and truth a lie, knowingly or unknowingly the useful idiots to the Eugenicist Dogma of “sustainability”.

        We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.—-George Orwell

        Question The Church, the scientists,and the denialists all three are succeeding, don’t you think, Peter Lang and Myrrh?

        The Roman Catholic Church and the Global Warming scientists are succeeding in business as usual, fooling themselves, the “denialists” to these religious beliefs continue to wake up to the deceits.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Yer kinda harsh on us gentle tümmlers, Myrrh!

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

      • @Gullible Nitwit
        As for the Hockey Stick, climate-change scientists appreciate that the Achilles Heel of demagogic denialism is trait #13 quibbling.

        “Quibbling”. Seems that in the world of the CAGW truebelievers, this is the new word for a criticism of some part of the CAGW catechism one has no answer for. And is deeply reluctant to admit to, for fear of losing one’s faith. Only truebelievers get to heaven, of course,

    • Scepticism of government-funded alarmism and the alleged “settled” nature thereof proceeds apace. Even the arch-corrupt IPCC has had to scale down its fiddles.
      Desperately trying to rally his fellow gullible nitwits, Fan of MORE Gullibility now cites the credulous acceptance of CAGW by the Catholic Church.

      • With the Catholic Church constantly reeling from accusations of sexual abuse, and the clash with political authorities this threatens, the Church is here just brown-nosing the state to compensate. Pretty much like private corporations eager for brownie points, rushing to pronounce themselves very green.

  74. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Thank you Bob! Climate Etc readers are advised to search the spelling “Tümmler” (a word that has rich connotations in philology and scientific history).

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

  75. Given the earlier remarks on free speech, here’s an article from today’s Australian by one of those who has fought hardest for it in recent years:

    THE Gillard government’s backdown on its outrageous media regulation and anti-free-speech discrimination laws is welcome. But it’s terrible that in 2013, in a liberal democracy like Australia, we even had to have the debate.

    Australians should never have to worry about losing their right to free speech. But the sad truth is that the Left has abandoned freedom of speech. It’s only because of a significant public backlash against these laws that the government has shelved its attempt for now. This saga is a warning for all parties. The Australian people are fed up with governments trampling on their rights.

    Yesterday, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy was forced to admit the government did not have the support in the parliament to pass its media regulation package.

    The laws would have introduced a government-appointed Public Interest Media Advocate to police the media. The government even threatened to strip away the protections journalists need to do their jobs. The change would effectively have introduced press licensing into Australia for the first time.

    On Wednesday, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus announced that the government would not proceed with the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012, pushed by his predecessor, Nicola Roxon.

    This outrageous draft bill would have made it unlawful to offend or insult a person at work because of attributes such as their political opinion, social origin or religious belief.

    This aspect of the proposal represented a dangerous threat to free speech.

    In a breathtaking attack on fundamental legal rights, the draft bill also reversed the burden of proof. Those accused of discrimination would have been forced to prove they were innocent, as opposed to normal legal practice where the complainant must make out all the elements of their case. By reversing the onus of proof, the draft bill turned on its head the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The draft bill also proposed to force defendants to pay their own legal costs even where they won against a vexatious litigant.

    Worryingly, the loudest voices in favour of these restrictions on freedom of speech came from taxpayer-funded bodies, such as the Australian Human Rights Commission. It is a damning indictment on these organisations that they failed to stand up for freedom of speech when it was under a very real threat.

    Doubly so because they were shown up by ordinary members of the Australian community whose taxpayer dollars they use to fund their incessant lobbying.

    Free speech and a free press are essential to effective democracy. It is alarming that one of Australia’s two major political parties was willing to undermine such fundamental rights in a petty vendetta against media outlets fulfilling their role of scrutinising government policies.

    Simon Breheny is director of the legal rights project at the Institute of Public Affairs.

    • A reprieve but constant vigilance required.
      Beth the serf.

      • As you say, serf, gotta watch ’em. I have a theory that Gillard is like Juan Peron, a method acting fibber, who convinces herself first…and is genuinely indignant when her lamest performance is hooted. Like Peron, she is far better at surviving than governing – and it’s not Gillard but her spousal partner who will provide best material for a rock opera.

        Don’t cry for me, Boganville!

  76. First – do – not – fool – yerself.
    Genu – whine – Boganville – in – dig – nay – shun,
    I surmise,mosomoso. Of course I might be wrong.
    B t s

    • Yes, that adenoidal whine would be a downside. But what red-blooded Aussie male does not dream of a situation where he gets free tickets to footy and cricket, free beer…and a job that consists of riding around on high-powered novelty vehicles? Meanwhile, the little lady can be out governing the nation or saving the world or whatever. Just so dinner is promptly on the table, who cares?

      You just have to get used to hearing about: “ej – uh – cay – shun and suh -stay – nuh – bill – uh – tee…”

      On second thoughts!

      • Generalissimo Skippy

        She smiled at me once – should have made my move earlier. The gravy train terminates in September if not sooner.

      • What can yer expect in the way of judicious government
        in the service of liberty when yew guys go on about footy
        tickes, beer and smiles? Tsk!
        Anyway she’s on her way out it seems. Hope the gravy train
        breaks down .. liisten, can yer hear the whistle blowin’ ..

      • Beth

        Naw. Ah cain’t here no wissul blowin, but Ah reckon Ah hear the soun of wheels wobblin like the bandwagon is bout ta come off the rails an inta the ditch. Yew reckon it’ll pull the hole gravytrain with it when it goes?

        Max

      • Say Max,
        All the werld’s a stage an’ we’re all players on it …

        … but I thought SCIENCE was about try’in ter be honest
        and critical of hyppo -theses clashes with re – al – itee, like
        Feynman said, seek ter be ob – ject – ive and do TESTS and
        try ter find truth ter the data .. which was a Breakthrough …
        I mean BREAKTHROUGH of critical thinking from the
        magical thinkingof cl … CLOSED societies. .

        BC )

  77. blueice2hotsea

    Generalissimo Skippy –

    Requesting permission to advance from juvenile to adult doggerel, sir! For your inspection, a sort of love poem as per your request..

    Nature’s Lover? – Doggerel #4

    The scents of wine and blue lupine were mingling everywhere
    When earthy musk awoke at dusk to bring its heavy air.

    I felt afraid in darkened glade (of what I do not know)
    I knelt and prayed as blossoms swayed awash in moonlit glow.

    And then it came, a gentle touch, which gave my nerves a start.
    The fairie dame stood near enough to hear my pounding heart.

    I pulled her close with careful strength and peered into her eyes.
    Then breathlessly we kissed at length beneath the starry skies.

    We walked ’til morrow, hand in hand and rested by a stream.
    When raucous Sol disturbed the land, it woke me from the dream.

    blueice2hotsea

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      I never criticise art for at least 100 years. Nice musicality but a little too self consciously archaically poetic. Try bringing it into the present and personal. Poetry has a precision that is of another order of things – a symbolic linking of experience, ideas and emotion to say what cannot be said in ordinary language. It is visionary and revelatory. It reveals ourselves to ourselves.

      60 years later is this too obscene for climate etc? The Supreme Court said no but perhaps fan would not agree. Extreme language warning for the video if you need it.

      ‘who faded out in vast sordid movies, were shifted in dreams, woke on a sudden Manhattan, and picked themselves up out of basements hungover with heartless Tokay and horrors of Third Avenue iron dreams & stumbled to unemployment offices,

      who walked all night with their shoes full of blood on the snowbank docks waiting for a door in the East River to open full of steamheat and opium,

      who created great suicidal dramas on the appartment cliff-banks of the Hudson under the wartime blue floodlight of the moon & their heads shall be crowned with laurel in oblivion,

      who ate the lamb stew of the imagination or digested the crab at the muddy bottom of the rivers of the Bowery,

      who wept at the romance of the streets with their pushcarts full of onions and bad music,

      who sat in boxes breathing in the darkness under the bridge, and rose up to build harpsichords in their lofts, who coughed on the sixth floor of Harlem crowned with flame under the tubercular sky surrounded by orange crates of theology,

      who scribbled all night rocking and rolling over lofty incantations which in the yellow morning were stanzas of gibberish,’

      Who hasn’t been there?

      • Generalissimo Skippy

        Ahhh – dyslexic – revelatory…

      • blueice2hotsea

        Thank you Generalissimo for your encouragement. I appreciate it. Writing in the first person and in the present is a little scary. But will give it a try.

        And to write like Ginsberg is terrifying. He’s bringing back gifts after a trip into madness. Not going to go there if I can help it.

      • Yes Generalissimo, revelatory poetry, ‘the howl’ and also
        ‘the song.’

        From Ay ter Zee
        poetry may be …
        Audacious, brilliant, celebratory, d-ee-ee-p, elegaic …
        tantalising, unsettling, visionary, wicked, zany.
        But it may not be …
        amorphous, banal, complacent ..*.zzzzzzzzzzzzz

        From’The Second Best Moments in Chinese History’ )

        The scholars have gathered in a clearing in the wood.
        Nervouslyat first, but with evergrowing enthuisiasm,
        They begin to discuss the insoluble problems of existence.
        Soon the forest resounds to their obscene drinking songs.

        Beth the er cow girl.

        * no reference ter a certain WB

    • Good effort for a first attempt at a more advanced level. Agree with Chief that its best to write in the first person when alluding to love, passion and other emotions.

      +1

      • blueice2hotsea

        Thanks for the +1.

        To write poetry first person in the present is to be naked in a room full of strangers. All criticisms would be keenly felt! So, it’s not just tossing out an idea. I am leaning toward musical lyrics copout.

    • I liked ‘rock us all’ in the last line.
      ==============

  78. Subtle rhyme patterns there bi2hs,
    quite auden – es – que, and yer imagery
    is quite eve – oque – a – tiv too.
    Peter Davies will probably award yer a +1

    Beth the great pre – tend – er ).

    • blueice2hotsea

      Thanks Beth. You and kim are inspirational to this novice poet.

      I found it difficult to write a romantic poem on command. Maybe the Generalissimo’s instructions were to write with love, not of love. That would have been easier.

      I now await his criticism before commencing #5..

      • Thx bi2h3.
        re bein’ in the mood say … Shakespeare didn’t hafta
        feel fury and murder-us rage ter write Macbeth.

        Beth- the-great-pretender- tho’ -I don’t-always-as-in-a-
        poem-about-roses-I-wrote-and-posted-some-where-on
        -Climate- Etc (But perhaps not.).

        No wonder we hav hoc-key schticks!

      • BI2HS and Beth

        I ain’t too bright, but I did go ta school wunz.

        “tender” – kinda like sweet, gentle, loving and showin’ sym-pa-thee.

        “pre-tender: – is jest before gettin’ there

        “post-tender” – is “been there, done that”.

        See, I ain’t all that dumb. neether.

        Max

      • blueice2hotsea

        Yes Max –

        Is Beth’s double en-tend-re for-play-ful-ness? Is it consciously intentional?

      • blueice2hotsea, hot off the press :)

        Cuckoos ‘n us.

        Human – relay – shun – ships quite often
        emu – late the behaviour of certain birds,
        the don Juans of the avian world,
        play – boy – wrens or cuckoos -tsk –
        ‘cuckoo’ there’s a word synonymous
        with feathered effrontery,
        stealth intrusion, then its – outta’ – there.

        Human afffairs of the heart, less often
        emu – late the fidelity of psittace, lorikeets,
        love birds co – habit – ating until …
        death do them part.

        O! Poets write odes to ever – lasting love,
        symbolized by leaning grasses, two lights above
        the sea, the image of the dove. but in reality,
        singing the blues – in – mid – night bars is truer
        ter human fallibility in love, i surmise.

        Beth – the – g – p :)

    • blueice2hotsea

      Why are you called “Beth the great pre – tend – er ).” ?

  79. Ah, that – is – an- uther – tail, and there is not enuff time ter tell
    it here.

  80. the Left has abandoned freedom of speech

    It has always militantly opposed it – totally inconsistent with PC (Political Correctness)

  81. I was just fiddling with the GISS southern hemisphere mean temperature series and noticed something very odd. If you take a first difference of the temperature series and plot the result, there’s a significant step up in the 1955-1960 time frame. The SD of the first difference doubled and has stayed at the higher level since.

    I believe that practically-speaking, this means that the SH mean temperature got noticeably more volatile.

    Am I seeing things, and does it mean what I think it means?