Open thread weekend

by Judith Curry

It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion,

779 responses to “Open thread weekend

  1. In the past week or so, we’ve seen the AGU, BAMS and NOAA release massive studies ahead of the anticipated release of the first part of AR5.

    What’s going on?

    What are your thoughts on the state of Science as summed up by this avalanche of analytics?

    • Panic.
      ====

    • I am just waiting for the searchable database of all the CRU emails to be released to the public.
      “Whats the secret to good”
      ‘timing’
      “comedy”.

      • DocMartyn | August 10, 2013 at 10:09 am |

        Have you paid into the “public CRU email searchable database” fund?

        Have you registered it on Kickstarter?

        Obtained the legal rights?

        Investigated the legal rights?

        Made your own emails publicly searchable?

        (Come now, you can’t tell me any doctor of any discipline alive today hasn’t benefited so greatly from the public purse in their education as to not owe the public access to all their correspondence, if you want a public searchable CRU email database.)

      • I am just waiting for the searchable database of all the CRU

        Wait for the release of the code behind the hydrodynamic core,there are few in the CS community who will be able to defend the propositions.

      • There need be no great expense in making the balance of the CRU emails publicly available. No more expense than than the Deep Climate Leaker faced. The real objection is surely the fear/knowledge that more malfeasance would come to light.

        It’s a publicly-funded institution, there really is no excuse for the public being denied access to the work-related emails.

        (Come now, you can’t tell me any doctor of any discipline alive today hasn’t benefited so greatly from the public purse in their education as to not owe the public access to all their correspondence, if you want a public searchable CRU email database.)

        Clever. And disingenuous. It’s not the education of climate scientists at issue here, it’s the work they do for their jobs.

    • Maybe they just graduated from a school where they recited this little ditto…

      Text genre, features & theme to explore

      We learned more with common core.

      Fractions, decimals, journal prompts galore

      We learned more with common core.

      RUNNER & CUBES are strategies for

      Learning more with common core.

      Vocab words like (clouds, organs, force), & omnivore

      We learned more with common core

      Economy, government, Revolutionary war

      We learned more with common core

      So many new concepts to explore

      We learned more with common core

      —Semper Pie Everybody—

    • They are the herd. You know, the guys that invest everything just before the crash.

    • They are just chipping in. If you were a researcher and a major organization on your field was about to “move big”, you would also follow similar deadlines. There is no need for conspiracy on everything (or anything, really), we are not them.

  2. Having just reviewed Judith’s post on (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists, After Climategate, Himalayan melt impacts, I would like to express my admiration for her all over again.

    Despite all the personal attacks people in her position get, she has decided she will pursue science, real science unpolluted by societal trends, to wherever it goes, at whatever personal cost. Thank heavens that we have people like Judith, even if we don’t have quite enough of them. Roger Pielke Jr. also falls in this category, I’ve seen him get smeared by the likes of Chris Fields on TV, and I saw his emotional reaction. But he kept his cool, stated the science, instead of reacting in kind. His analyses of historical records of damage from tornados and hurricanes is crucial to a full and unbiased understanding of historical trends, not available anywhere else. Hats off to those scientists who do what Judith and Roger do, despite all the personal abuse they get.

    Let me illustrate for readers how widespread personal abuse has gotten, from the top to the bottom us US civil society.

    Normally I keep my mouth shut about my understand of the science, which I read about on a daily basis, but at a party a month or so ago, a friend said that sea levels might rise 3 feet by 2060. I know that the recent science says about this, and this was a friend, so I unwisely said that there was good news, that sea levels weren’t going to rise anywhere near that much. Here is an account of the hell that broke lose, ending up with a former diplomat pointing his finger in my face:

    ——-

    Let’s talk about personal ad hominem attacks.

    My first experience on the receiving end of personal ad hominem attacks occurred last weekend. Usually I know enough not to say anything about global warming, but when a friend who was in attendance said that sea level rise was getting worse, we can now expect sea levels to be 2 to 3 feet higher by 2060, I responded (before I could catch myself) that the best and the newest science about Greenland’s contribution to sea level rise suggested that Greenland might add around 5 inches by 2200; and without much contribution from Greenland, you can’t get too much over one foot, that that would be early in the next century, not 2060.

    All hell broke loose.

    My friend said that Antarctica is melting, look at the breakup of all the ice sheets. I reminded him that when floating ice shelves melt, it doesn’t contribute to sea level rise, and that the ice sheets on the mainland aren’t contributing a pittance to sea level rise at present.

    Then my friend’s wife mentioned the tragedy of increasing sea ice melt in the Arctic and asked me if I denied that. I agreed it was melting, but pointed out that 6,000 years ago, the Arctic wasn’t just lower in sea ice, but ice free for enough of the summer that Scandanavian scientists had found on the NW shore of Greenland unique patterns on the shore indicating the presence of large waves, which can only happen when there is NO sea ice — and that we survived that.

    The shots were coming from all sides, but without getting angry, I returned fire with better armaments (knowing the science).

    Then it was my friend’s turn again: he said that 1/3 of Bangladesh would be under water. I responded that Bangladesh is actually ADDING land mass in the last several decades, even with the one foot sea level rise of the last century, because of the huge deposition of glacial soils from the glacial rivers that empty there.

    Back to my friend’s wife, who said, OK, but with world populations so high now, sea level rise will be so much worse. I agreed that sea level rise will impact coastal populations, but that the point of my original comment is that whatever the impacts, they will be smaller.

    My friend said that low lying islands would get drowned, creating environmental refugees. I pointed out the science that shows that during the last 40 years, when sea levels rose several inches, that about 85% of the low lying Pacific islands in a recent study either ADDED land mass or didn’t lose any. People naturally asked about that, and I explained the process — when sea levels rise, storms deposit coral rubble on the island, when sea levels fall, wind erodes the rubble down to about 5 feet, so the islands stay about that level over time.

    My friend’s wife talked about Alaska losing land. Here, I agreed that with less sea ice, wave action is indeed crumbling low lying silty lands on the NW part of Alaska, and that surely much more land must have been lost during that period of no sea ice in late summer in the Arctic, around 6,000 years ago, but I agreed that at least one village of about 200 people was in the process of a necessary relocation.

    But what about the wildlife, she asked? Wildlife can move northward (and is) and can move up a mountain, I replied. (I should have pointed out the truly massive relocation that occurred when most of Canada and Scandanavia was under 2 miles of ice.)

    So far it was just my friends, who know I don’t say anything about climate change without being able to back it up. They don’t get angry with me, either.

    But now we come to the former diplomat, failing to be diplomatic — one of the strangers at the party.

    He said we need to be leading the world and that it was criminal the way we keep increasing our greenhouse gases. I pointed out that the US has actually be reducing our CO2 emissions, because of shale gas, while the EU has been increasing them lately because of replacing nuclear with coal. I also pointed out that whatever we do, China and India will continue to dwarf our effort.

    He got angry and maintained we have to lead. I asked him if reducing our GHGs in ways that other western countries don’t is leadership. He said that the reason we are reducing CO2 emissions is because of the new regulations on emissions from cars that Obama put in place. I told him that those regulations don’t go into effect until 2015 or 2016, and that the reduction is CO2 from the transportation sector in the US was a reaction to higher prices of gasoline the last 7 years or so. This again increased his anger. Throwing undisputable facts on the fire makes it grow higher; pointing out that someone’s suppositions — made up in the moment — are wrong makes the person angrier.

    Finally, he pointed his finger at me, told me I was wrong, that 97% of the scientists were right and I was wrong. Despite his undiplomatic behaviour, I simply rewound the spool and pointed out that all of this started when I merely pointed out that the best and most recent science has now shown undeniably good news for us, that Greenland was going to contribute very little to sea level rise, and that was going to mean that sea levels were going to rise pretty little, relative to recent projections in the media. I pointed out that I agreed that CO2 warmed the climate and that we were going to see a warmer world, I wasn’t a “denier.” I just found it good to know that things weren’t going to be nearly as bad as supposed by some, based on the best science available on Greenland ice melt.

    This didn’t do much to calm him down, but we changed the subject. Being a diplomat, he acted better from thereon out, but left the party early, and didn’t offer to shake my hand.

    One solace is that my wife thought I defended myself quite well, contained my emotions, and from any reasonably neutral standard, won the debate by a mile. (Usually when a stranger wags his finger in my face, I don’t act like a teacher with a poorly behaved child and go on as if it didn’t happen, but I did so here.)

    Another source of solace is that I felt quite good about myself, usually I just let climate change discussions go on without me, staying silent until the subject passes, suppressing my usual interest in sharing science with friends — so I felt liberated.

    My worry is that our hosts, who were preparing food and heard the emotional level of the talk but not the substance, might be less inclined to invite us back. That would be a disappointment to both my wife and I, but that is the risk you take today in opening your mouth about climate change.

    • John | August 10, 2013 at 9:45 am |

      Wow.

      I was at one point ‘one of the biggest tech geeks in the world’, according to the hyperbolic rhetoric of my circle of friends and family at the time — who really didn’t have a clue how big the world was, or how much tech they’d never heard of — and yet when cute girls at parties said in passing how smart Bill Gates was, I smiled and nodded and just let it go.

      Because I am not a giant jerk who ruins parties, or confuses chitchat with scientific dialogue.

      You can’t cite references at parties in any meaningful way (at least, not without some hot hardware and a good wireless connection, and I don’t get the impression that’s the scene your crowd is into); you can’t demonstrate the math with a drink in one hand and a canapé in the other; it’s not the right place. Discretion, judgment and the ability to remember what’s important in the moment.. all of these inform me that your narrative is just an attempt to propagandize a failure of social intelligence.

      I recommend buying flowers for the hosts, and writing heartfelt individual letters of apology to each of your friends, to try to salvage both your valuable relationships and some shred of dignity.

      And don’t point out to them how right you still are.

      • With this awkward piece of social advice, Bart fails to show where John was wrong. Gawd, I admire your resistance to temptation.
        ==============

      • Bart is just remarking on the buzzkill effects of the “Debbie Downer” syndrome.

        Kim is concisely dense in more ways than one.

      • I have been button-holed at Parties and at Boy Scouts camp out to explain evolution to people of a religious bent. Many of the people strongly suspect that the position they get in scripture.
        I like to point out the presence of two, compatible, creation events

        Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)
        And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image…. So God created man in his own image.

        Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)
        And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

        Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
        So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

        Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man’s rib.)
        And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them…. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

        Its a bit like talking to Thermodeddonists like you and Josh, asking how you explain the 1900-1975 period, without magic.

      • Bart, this is what I have come to expect from you. Unfortunately for you and all of us.

        Not engaging with actual issues.

        Lecturing (whether it is Steve Mosher or me or someone else) on what we need to do after the sins we have committed. In my case, the sin of actually engaging a friend on an issue of importance to all of us.

        I take it from your response that one should never engage on such an issue, because….well because it would be impolite to talk about reality when someone brings up what has become known as a fantasy.

        You epitomize the problem, Bart. You don’t care what someone says factually, you don’t care that someone spends a great deal of time over the years trying to understand what is really going on with regard to what might be a very important issue for the world. Whether that person is Roger Pielke Jr, Judith, or on a much lesser scale, me.

        No, you don’t engage on the level of science. You just lecture someone whose views you don’t agree with.

        You are the equivalent of the tea party, just on the opposite side. Like them you know the truth and close your ears to science based argument that doesn’t agree with your preconceptions. The only difference between you and the tea party is that you have opposite beliefs, but you are very similar in the way you hold to your beliefs no matter what, no matter how much new science we learn.

      • John | August 10, 2013 at 11:03 am |

        If you want to engage issues socially, throw your own freaking issue engagement party.

        Prepare the venue to make it fit to accommodate the discourse.

        Prepare the guests so they know what they’re in for.

        Don’t be a total putz and piss all over your hosts’ event just because you have an inflated sense of personal entitlement in a social setting.

        Because did you pay for the party?

        Did you cover your hosts’ costs for the whole shindig?

        Was it yours?

        No?

        Then you are an ingrate and a leech.

      • Ingrates and leeches don’t deserve First Amendment rights. Bart demands their money, too.
        ================

      • DocMartyn, I’d be curious to hear your explanation of DNA polymerase.

      • Bart,

        Nice to know you have more than one persona.

        May I suggest you think of Climate Etc as a party you are invited to?

      • timg56 | August 10, 2013 at 1:06 pm |

        I do.

        Which is why I so closely endeavor to adhere to the hosts’ rules of engagement and theme.

      • kim

        Bart demands their money, too.

        Yeah.

        But he needs to do so more forcefully to be effective (say like from behind a 357 Magnum instead of only a big surly mouth).

        Max

      • Steven Mosher

        Bart

        “You can’t cite references at parties in any meaningful way (at least, not without some hot hardware and a good wireless connection, and I don’t get the impression that’s the scene your crowd is into); you can’t demonstrate the math with a drink in one hand and a canapé in the other; it’s not the right place. Discretion, judgment and the ability to remember what’s important in the moment.. all of these inform me that your narrative is just an attempt to propagandize a failure of social intelligence.”

        You need to hang out with a more intelligent crowd.

      • Steven Mosher

        Yes climate Etc is Judiths e salon

        rulz

        “No ad hominem attacks, slurs or personal insults. Do not attribute motives to another participant.
        Snarkiness is not appreciated here; nastiness and excessive rudeness are not allowed.”

        Bart:

        Then you are an ingrate and a leech.

        Because I am not a giant jerk who ruins parties, or confuses chitchat with scientific dialogue.

        Which is why I so closely endeavor to adhere to the hosts’ rules of engagement and theme.

        ##############

        personally, I dont endeavor to adhere to Judiths rules. sorry.
        weird that there are people who think they do, when they don’t.

        Maybe Bart had a typo and meant to write

        “Which is why I so closely endeavor to violate to the hosts’ rules of engagement and theme.”

        Odd that folks who seem so insistent on telling others how they should behave cant abide by their own rulz.

        PS, you are all free to say any horrible things you want about me. I’ll take your comments under advisement.

      • Steven Mosher | August 10, 2013 at 5:24 pm |

        When I’m feeling sociable (which I know 10% of denizens will mistake for socialist, I’m guessing because they aren’t terribly good at the former and don’t know when they’re being the latter), I hang out with a sociable crowd.

        When I’m in a mood to tolerate boors and misfits, I’m quite content to hang out with a more intelligent crowd that excludes fun, interesting people with actual manners.

      • Steven Mosher

        When I’m feeling sociable (which I know 10% of denizens will mistake for socialist, I’m guessing because they aren’t terribly good at the former and don’t know when they’re being the latter), I hang out with a sociable crowd.

        so, when you’re feeling sociable and put aside your moralizing and refrain from calling people ingrates, and stop your whining about wanting to get paid for the air, you hang out with a sociable crowd… really, tell us about the one time that happened.

      • Steven Mosher | August 10, 2013 at 7:40 pm |

        Nah. I’m here for fact and information and analyses, not personal relationships. But thanks for the interest.

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | August 10, 2013 at 10:33 am winged:

        More greetings from Australia Mr. Telescope


      • stefanthedenier | August 10, 2013 at 10:29 pm |

        More greetings from Australia Mr. Telescope

        Say hi to your Aussie buddy Chief of Hydrology Robbo the Yobbo for me.

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | August 11, 2013 at 1:44 am said: ”Say hi to your Aussie buddy Chief of Hydrology Robbo the Yobbo for me”

        The Chief is going to turn you into a ”Honorary Australian”, be good!.

      • That’s right Bart. People who “think” like you can just blurt out ridiculous untrue statements and that is ok, but no one can ever point out that they are mistaken.

      • John Carpenter

        “Nah. I’m here for fact and information and analyses, not personal relationships. But thanks for the interest.”

        Ha, he used the climate porn response.

      • Bill | August 11, 2013 at 10:13 am |

        If you think you possess a greater hold of the truth, by all means, don’t keep it secret.

        Share it with us. Be specific. Be detailed. Let us see enough of your truth to expose it to tests of its validity and verity.

        We all want truth, except denialists.

        We all want to know what is true, which is why we contrive logic and uphold reason, and test what is said for consistency with the truth.

        Or others, like you, assert some secret knowledge or intuition that can never be subject to reason or logic or sense if made open to scrutiny.

        If what I’ve said is untrue, it is so open and detailed and invites remarks that will help me correct any of my human failings.

        How’s that going for you?

      • When Bart uses the word “truth,” we should substitute “Bart-truth.”

        @ Bart R | August 11, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Reply

        “WUWT apparently is bleeding readership rapidly.”

      • jim2 | August 11, 2013 at 3:13 pm |

        I’m quite sanguine about agreeing that the Alexa WUWT hockey stick graph shows the highest levels in WUWT traffic in recorded history.

        The appearance of drop in readership in WUWT has clearly turned a corner since last I wasted any time thinking about it.

        You say new changes have been made to drive readership to WUWT?

        Is this of the same sort of changes as have been made by Microsoft to drive traffic to Bing (making it the world’s “most popular search engine”)?

        Be specific. Be detailed. Spell out how this hockey stick hid the decline in WUWT’s credibility?

      • Bart, one minor technicality – I was quoting Anthony. Just follow the link.

      • jim2 | August 11, 2013 at 4:11 pm |

        Yeah. No.

        I was so put off by WUWT’s deceptive practices in my original contacts with it in its earlier days that I shook the dust of the place from my sandals and swore never to return.

        I’m sure it doesn’t miss me, any more than I miss it, but I do my best to avoid it.

        Which is becoming harder and harder, lately, with imbedded links to WUWT that disguise the destination.

        Say. Do you think that might have something to do with the blip upwards in traffic?

        I guess I’ll never know, if it means spending even a half second digging through more WUWT lies.

      • ::grin::
        ===

      • I do occasionally visit WUWT directly, but in general I tend to peek at it through:
        http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

      • This one was pretty funny:
        “Yep, at 25.9 degrees outside. The “Airport UHI” demon is irrepressible. It took a huge deep breath and blew all the hot air from the building twenty meters or more, right into the Stevenson screen and bulls eye – it hit the thermometer.”
        http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/08/anthony-watts-visits-greenland-and.html

      • lolwot – I can only conclude from that dig at the WUWT airport post that you believe an airpost is a suitable location for a thermometer intended to inform us about global warming?

      • lolw0t | August 11, 2013 at 4:37 pm |

        So.. your hypothesis is that a good deal of the uptick in traffic is people going to see what everyone else is already laughing at?

        I have to admit, analysis of humor is not my strong suit, but if you can cite sufficient evidence, I’ll consider it.

        It could plausibly explain more than the idea that Anthony’s hired some sort of Black Hat hacker to do something devious.

      • Keep the Bart-truth coming.

    • kim | August 10, 2013 at 10:13 am |

      If you think a party is about being right or wrong, then you’re doing party wrong.

      Just imagine how much fun DocMartyn | August 10, 2013 at 10:50 am | is at parties.

      Btw, one of the reasons for avoiding talking shop at parties is that it’s so hard to get things right in a party environment, even as simple as understanding the other side’s premise.

      Btw, Thermodeddonist implies I either care much about temperature (compared to, say, the other 49 essential climate variables, or my wallet), or that I am concerned with predictions of doom; I’ve been explicit and at great length and repetitive in explaining that these do not interest me, to the point even a child of five could grasp it.

      I can’t speak for others; I can say, for myself, my point is that dumping CO2E wastes hits me in the pocketbook without my consent and without compensation to me, and I want my money back.

      • Do you as angrily demand your money at parties as you do here?
        ==================

      • kim | August 10, 2013 at 11:10 am |

        Generally, I avoid the parties with pickpockets and con artists.

        Well, unless it’s a pickpocket/con-artist-themed party, like CE.

    • Re Bart’s reply at August 10, 2013 at 11:09 am:

      As predicted and expected, it is a lecture about what someone else does wrong, and about how he, Bart, has the correct solution for us lesser folks. No engaging on actual issues, that might expose possible holes in his belief system.

      Mr. Tea Party of the left calls me an ingrate and a leech, for the sin of engaging what a friend said.

      I am happy with my friends, and I am happy to report that because we are friends, no adverse fallout came our way from them. I worried at the time, as noted, but both the hosts and our other friends at the party have reached out. They understand and like me, thank goodness, even if they wonder how I can have the views I have. The former diplomat, not so much, he knows what he believes, he knows that people on the other side deserve fingers in their faces. Just like Bart.

      Yes, I long for the days when we could discuss something, and disagree without being disagreeable.

      • Weather was the classic icebreaker, but now that it’s turned into politics and religion, we have a problem, Houston.
        ============================

      • John | August 10, 2013 at 11:32 am |

        Wow. So, you don’t think they reached out because they pity your wife, then?

      • I wonder what made Bart think that.
        ==============

      • “kim | August 10, 2013 at 11:37 am |
        Weather was the classic icebreaker, but now that it’s turned into politics and religion, we have a problem, Houston.”
        Well it has been raining all morning in Houston, I got wet cycling to and from work this morning.

      • > The former diplomat, not so much, he knows what he believes, he knows that people on the other side deserve fingers in their faces. Just like Bart.

        Whatever the politeness of this sentence, John, it is still works like any kind of sentences that uses guilt by association. The calmness of your tone does not erase the function of this association, which conflates somebody who was lost for words (your diplomat) and somebody who dismissed your interjection as unworthy of any reply (Bart R). Nor does the vividness and dignity of your story obscures the fact that it basically amounts tone trolling.

        That said, I must admit that I liked reading it, and that your diplomat does seem to have acted in a suboptimal way.

        ***

        Your parabole seems to provide an argument to Judy’s solemn stance. I already provided many (I mean many) reasons to be cautious about what you make your interpretation.

        How could we settle this disagreement while maintaining a decorum that even Solomon would applaud?

      • Since people are clamouring for an address of John’s manifold and gross errors of fact, while overlooking his manifold and gross errors of social grace, here goes.

        As he provides no citation for his mythical 5″ Greenland melt by 2200, it’s not really possible to much explore. I can find no scholarship making such a claim, so I can’t really appraise the validity of it. Other than this appears to fly in the face of every study I can lay my hands on about the topic.

        Antarctic? Antarctic isn’t expected to melt so much (as the continent is much colder than either Greenland or the Arctic) as weaken and slough off ice from its coast at an increasing rate, forming a grinding conveyor of continental ice onto the sea — which doesn’t need to melt to raise sea levels, what with 90% of sea ice being below sea level, new sea ice is 90% new sea level rise.. But it does melt along the edges of the ice, and at its bottom, making way for more sloughing of continental ice.

        GRACE data tends to confirm this conveyor, as does pretty much all the available data. If anything, claims about the Antarctic contribution to sea level appear too conservative.

        The Arctic 6,000 years ago is relevant how, again?

        Oh, that when the tilt of the Earth was exactly at the angle that would result in the maximum Arctic melting under normal conditions and 280 ppmv CO2, we saw an effect much like we expect within a few decades at most, at 400+ ppmv CO2? Well, that’d be interesting, when the Earth tilts so much we’d expect an Ice Age.. in 20,000 to 30,000 more years, if the CO2 level falls back to 280 ppmv by then.

        This “we” that “survived that” John speaks of. Does he have any literature describing how that survival thing went? Any evidence at all? Not that “that” was so similar to “this”, and I’m not overly concerned with the “survived” part so much as the “expensive and unconsented” part, but I’m curious if his omniscience extends so deep.

        Bangladesh gaining land?

        http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/06/14/000445729_20130614145941/Rendered/PDF/784240WP0Full00D0CONF0to0June19090L.pdf

        Bangladesh is a river delta. Gaining silt in the river mouth is not gaining land, it’s losing navigability and requiring costly infrastructure development.. which will be washed away when sea levels rise, requiring new costly infrastructure development. But sea level rise isn’t among the most pressing risks of climate change Bangladesh is facing right now, today, or expecting to need to cope with every day going forward while CO2E continues to elevate in level.

        The glib dismissal of habitat loss with “Go North, young malaria mosquito,” really captures the just-not-getting-itness of this whole fiasco of an exchange, whether about manners or science or just not being an embarrassment.

        The whole Pacific islands Rube Goldberg homeostasis hypothesis is too flakey to say much about, except what a happily pronoiac world we live in, that the pure coincidence of flotsam and jetsam exactly balancing loss of habitable land ends up exactly where islanders’ feet will tread, as if blown by the breath of a friendly personally present God. Very moving. Utter twaddle.

        After bearing up to the barrage of nonsense John uttered to his gullible friends who think he can back up what he says about climate, it’s hardly a wonder that any adult present might find it worth speaking up. As we have only John’s version of events, and we’ve seen he is an unreliable narrator, it’s difficult to judge this part of the debacle. Sure, the world has George Bush to thank for so weakening America and crashing the economy that there was some drop in demand, and there was a happy coincidence of switching from coal to natural gas while a paralyzed Congress was too distracted and defective to get in the way of business like it usually does, but I’m not particularly addressing the shortcomings of former diplomats today.

        If there’s a citation to this wonderful Greenland unicorn study, I’d like a chance to see it, and share the joy John says he has to spread.

      • Greenland can over time contribute up to 7 meters to sea-level and with CO2e getting towards 1000 ppm by 2200, and Arctic sea-ice struggling to form even in winter, it will be unsustainable and in full irreversible melt mode by then. This is not something to brush off, and given the Arctic’s ability to surprise us with its recent speed of change, this could all happen a lot earlier.

      • Bart R says: ‘What with 90% of sea ice being below sea level, new sea ice is 90% new sea level rise.’

        And I hardly read it.
        =============

      • What with 90% of sea ice being below sea level…

        And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

      • Heh, phatboy, I suspect calves are what he meant.
        ============

      • I know, but the bull got in the way

      • Re new estimates of Greenland’s now reduced contribution to sea level rise during the Eemian. Here is Andrew Revkin’s blog on the subject and on the article:

        http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/eyes-turn-to-antarctica-as-study-shows-greenlands-ice-has-endured-warmer-climates/?_r=0

        You can get to the press release from the U of Copenhagen from the article. The article itself is published in Nature:

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html

        From the press release you can also blow up the Figure discussed in the next paragraph.

        In the Figure at the top of Revkin’s blog, you can see that temps were 6 to 8 degrees C higher than today in Greenland from about 127,000 to about 120,000 years before present, 7,000 years.

        Here is a quote from the article’s lead researcher:

        “Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen….”

        From here, the math is simple. If Greenland contributed less than half of 4 to 8 meters of sea level rise, relative to today, that would be less than half of 2 to 4 meters, so let’s call it 3 meters. Let’s also ignore the 8,000 years in the Eemian when temps were ramping up to or down from the plateau of 7,000 years of 6 to 8 degrees C, let’s say that all of the 3 meters occurred during the highest temperatures of the 7,000 year period.

        3 meters = 10 feet = 120 inches. Divide by 70 centuries (7,000 years) and you get less than 2 inches a century.

        Play with the numbers all you like, it is a couple of inches, give or take a centimeter or so, per century, and it requires a great deal of heat to make it happen.

        One small caveat: back in the Eemian, there weren’t black carbon emissions falling on ice caps and glaciers, at least not from the daily use of diesels and from wintertime residential coal use in places like China, with no pollution controls. So it is possible that we might also have a small contribution per century to sea level rise from this modern source of warming ice caps. This is one reason so many people want to focus on black carbon in the short term, in part because reducing black carbon emissions will have an immediate impact, and in part because it seems easier politically to reduce black carbon emissions than to reduce CO2 emissions.

        Finally, here is a Nature commentary on the subject, which says that the total contribution to sea level rise from Greenland during the Eemian was 2 meters, not the 3 meters I have used.

        http://www.nature.com/news/greenland-defied-ancient-warming-1.12265

        You will note that the “worrisome” issue mentioned in the commentary is that Antarctica must have contributed more sea level rise during the Eemian than previously estimated. I would agree that this would be worrisome, IF I thought humanity would be stupid enough to warm the planet without interruption for many thousands of years. But I’m betting on no more than two centuries.

      • Re increasing land mass in Bangladesh, due to glacial silt accumulation:

        http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/can-crumbling-himalayas-protect-bangladesh-from-rising-seas/

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532949.stm

        Of course, whether Bangladesh adds or loses land depends not just on deposition of glacial silts, but also on the rate of sea level rise.

        That is why the good news on Greenland’s meager contributions to sea level rise, and thus only small (~ one foot) sea level rise this century, is also good news for Bangladesh. If sea levels don’t rise much more this century than last, Bangladesh will likely continue to gain land.

      • To Lolwot, who says:

        “When floating ice shelves melt the land ice behind them slides faster into the ocean. Antarctica is contributing to sea level rise.”

        Yes, the issue is well known qualitatively. The question is at what point will this process get into motion. My reading is that a couple of centuries of 2 degrees C warmer than today won’t produce such slides into the ocean, either in Greenland (where it had previously been hypothesized, but recently rejected after rigourous inspection of the grounding of major glaciers) or in Antarctica, where modest warming actually increases snowfall in the interior, thus adding to Antarctica’s ice mass.

        I do agree that during the Eemian, with the 7,000 years of exceptional warming (6 to 8 degrees warmer than today), that there must have been substantial amounts of some of Antarctica’s ice sheets adding to sea level rise. If sea level was 4 to 8 meters higher in the Eemian than today, and Greenland contributed 2 or 3 meters, most of the rest must have come from Antarctica.

        The question is whether smaller warming, for a couple of centuries, might cause important Antarctic ice sheets to contribute to sea level rise. My read of the science on this question is “no.”

      • For those wanting information on how low lying Pacific islands can grow during sea level rise, here are some sources:

        The article itself:

        http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/SOPAC_2010_The_dynamic_response.pdf

        And press on it (a bit more accessible if you just want to skim):

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738

      • John | August 11, 2013 at 10:57 am |

        Wow. The math is simple. Divide 120 by 70.

        Why didn’t the 134 contributors to the paper think of that?

        Oh. Because it makes ZERO sense.

        The authors, actual experts who got their paper peer reviewed and published and study this professionally never thought of 5″ because an assumption of equipartition is unwarranted. It is most likely an extreme sigmoid shape represents the ice loss in Greenland, with much of the melt occurring in the first one percent of the time under consideration. Not 70 centuries, but 0.7 is far more plausible.

        What’s 120/0.7?

        Further, we’re still talking about only one single ice core taken from the part of Greenland most impervious to melt, hence most reflective of the minimum ice loss expected. Without many more proxies from areas more representative of the whole — which it would be hard to find, as they’ve by and large melted — we have very great uncertainty, and so taking an average of half of an expected value in a large range is extremely deceptive.

        And you confound a Nature commentary with a Nature published article, as somehow authoritative? All eight meters from Greenland is just as plausible as only 2 meters, absent significant additional analyses of Antarctic and nonpolar other ice cores.

        And you did this at a party with people you call friends?

        What do you do to people you don’t like?

        John | August 11, 2013 at 11:12 am |

        Bangladesh is pretty screwed up either way.

        Silt choking up river deltas is normal and natural and an old story in almost every river mouth. It has to be dealt with, sometimes by dredging, sometimes by adaptation, and sure, more land — if it’s land, not dead mud clogging up and killing sea life without providing sufficient foundation for farming or building on — sounds pretty good. But that’s a big ‘if’.

        Since silt doesn’t settle significantly above sea level, all the ‘gained’ land is irrelevant, as a sea level rise, which could be anywhere from a foot by 2060 to two meters by 2100, will undo it all, leaving a larger coastal dead zone that remains dangerous to navigate. And since that range of possible sea level rise is so large, there’s no way to know what infrastructure solution is the right one to choose, making the cost of addressing the changes higher.

        How does anyone deal with the level of complexity of the case with a drink in one hand and a cupcake in the other?

        John | August 11, 2013 at 11:22 am |

        Your reading of ice?

        Ever live on ice?

        Ice has that funky and almost unique quality that at its freezing point it expands to be less dense than its liquid form. That’s why it floats. But as it gets colder, it does get denser and denser, as well as harder.

        Antarctic land ice is the largest ice cube on the planet; if it’s getting a few degrees warmer, it’s softening and expanding. The softer it gets, the lower peaks it can maintain and the flatter it spreads out. The more it expands, the wider that flatter expanse of land ice gets. It already essentially covers all the land, so every bit of expansion results in new sea ice. The new sea ice is 90% below the water line, so is 90% contributing to higher sea level. That’s not counting all the other effects of the warming of the Antarctic sea ice.

        Did you cover this question at your party?

        Maybe smushed down on the cupcake to show what’s happening to the Antarctic?

        John | August 11, 2013 at 12:14 pm |

        Adding rubble and debris may be ‘growing’ land, but it isn’t a remedy for sea level rise, as for the most part the new grown trash piles are only at sea level, so will sink again, and do not lift the rest of the actual land in customary use, which also will find itself below sea level, and turned to trash. Which might ‘grow land’ elsewhere, but again, it’s still just flotsam and jetsam and debris until labor and capital are invested in it to reclaim it. It’s a liability that is growing, not a benefit.

      • Antarctic land ice is the largest ice cube on the planet; if it’s getting a few degrees warmer, it’s softening and expanding.

        Now tell us how long it takes for that few degrees at the surface to soak into the ice to a sufficient depth to make a significant contribution to this effect.

      • He leaves a detailed copy of his treasure map.
        ============

      • phatboy | August 11, 2013 at 3:53 pm |

        http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ice-thermal-properties-d_576.html

        You do the math.

        Though if you want to do the calculations on the stresses introduced with differential hardness, that I’m not going to be much help with.

        You’ll need a structural engineer.

        If only CE wasn’t so sparse in competent engineers.

      • Bart R, I don’t need to do the math to know that it’s an extremely slow process – and that’s assuming that the surface temperature does in fact increase by a few degrees.
        Of course, you can always try to prove me wrong by doing the math – which is only fair seeing you made the original assertion without quantifying it.

      • Oh, and while you’re at it, you can quantify the ‘peaks’ which you expect to see flattened.

      • phatboy | August 12, 2013 at 5:15 pm |

        Extremely slow process?

        Howso?

        The Antarctic is full to the top with land ice. Every bit of warming immediately affects that ice at the top like protracted low-temperature popcorn, and pushes it over the top and onto the sea. This is going on now. This is all that record high Antarctic Sea Ice you’re hearing people talk about. Right now. Today.

        Will this take a long time to get all the way to the point the Antarctic isn’t full to the top of ice?

        Sure. But see Curve, Sigmoid.

        That take care of your peaks?

      • Bart R, do you have the slightest idea what you’re talking about?
        If you do then you’re not very good at communicating it.

      • phatboy | August 13, 2013 at 1:52 pm |

        It’s my fond hope then, that you READ HARDER.

      • Bart R, that was actually my polite way of saying that what you wrote is unadulterated balderdash

      • phatboy | August 14, 2013 at 1:50 am |

        Not sure which is the more spectacular failure: that you thought you were polite, or you don’t get just how much better understood you are than you understand yourself.

        Or that anyone cares.

      • Bart R, you come along sprouting your wild fantasies, with nothing in the way of facts, figures or citations to back anything up, then you have the effrontery to throw insults at anyone who calls you on it.
        FYI, the Antarctic surface temperature varies by many tens of degrees between summer and winter – are you suggesting that the ice overflows into the sea like some strange popcorn machine every summer and then shrinks right back every winter? Get real!
        And as for your nonsense about sea ice coming from land ice?
        THINK HARDER!!!

      • phatboy | August 15, 2013 at 10:40 am |

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/14/so-what-is-the-best-available-scientific-evidence-anyways/#comment-365458

        And to see the popcorn popping: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html for Southern Hemisphere, hit Beginning button (|), hit Faster.

      • Bart R, If you had a disk of ice the size of the Antarctic ice sheet, and you warmed it up by a full ten degrees, the radius of the disk would increase by roughly two millimetres!
        So much for your popcorn fantasy!
        So what’s the explanation for the sea ice? Ever hear of water freezing?

      • Correction to the above: (I took the cube root of the difference in volume rather than the difference between the cube roots of the volumes) the radius of the disk would increase by around five metres – so that would be the size of Bart’s ‘popcorn effect’, assuming that increase wasn’t completely swallowed up by cracks, fissures etc
        Still absolutely nothing to write home about.

    • David Springer

      Could you expand on that?

    • John writes:
      “My friend said that Antarctica is melting, look at the breakup of all the ice sheets. I reminded him that when floating ice shelves melt, it doesn’t contribute to sea level rise, and that the ice sheets on the mainland aren’t contributing a pittance to sea level rise at present.”

      Uh John,

      When floating ice shelves melt the land ice behind them slides faster into the ocean. Antarctica is contributing to sea level rise.

      Geez. Maybe you should invite them back to dinner to apologize for being wrong!

      • To Lolwot, who says:

        “When floating ice shelves melt the land ice behind them slides faster into the ocean. Antarctica is contributing to sea level rise.”

        Yes, the issue is well known qualitatively. The question is at what point will this process get into motion. My reading is that a couple of centuries of 2 degrees C warmer than today won’t produce such slides into the ocean, either in Greenland (where it had previously been hypothesized, but recently rejected after rigourous inspection of the grounding of major glaciers) or in Antarctica, where modest warming actually increases snowfall in the interior, thus adding to Antarctica’s ice mass.

        I do agree that during the Eemian, with the 7,000 years of exceptional warming (6 to 8 degrees warmer than today), that there must have been substantial amounts of some of Antarctica’s ice sheets adding to sea level rise. If sea level was 4 to 8 meters higher in the Eemian than today, and Greenland contributed 2 or 3 meters, most of the rest must have come from Antarctica.

        The question is whether smaller warming, for a couple of centuries, might cause important Antarctic ice sheets to contribute to sea level rise. My read of the science on this question is “no.”

    • Just a reminder that the floating ice shelves hold the glaciers that feed them back, so it’s not the ice from the floating ice shelves that add to sea level rise, but the increased flow from the glaciers behind them that do.

      • Bob Droege,

        How does something that floats, and is exposed to open sea at one end, hold a glacier back? Glaciers flow, as far as I know, and reshape the countryside as they do, in some cases.

        I’ve seen rocks hundreds of metres high, apparently transported by glaciers, and dumped when the glacier vanished. Surely floating ice won’t hold a glacier back.

        Are you sure floating ice can stop a glacier flowing?

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Yeah Flynn, I’m sure

        The frozen ice shelves are usually frozen into the ground as in they are grounded.

      • What do you call it when you hold back the course of a river? That’s right, a dam
        Does that stop the upstream river from flowing? No
        Same thing with glaciers – only in slow-motion

      • Bob Droege,

        Are you talking about grounded glaciers? These do not have their flow restricted by the “grounding” below sea level. You will note that the base of a glacier sits on the “ground”. Whether the “ground” is below sea level or not does not affect the flow rate of the glacier overall (with the usual caveats, of course).

        The floating portion of the glacier is no longer grounded. The portion of the glacier situated on the “ground” will move no faster if the floating ice shelf breaks off (which it does from time to time).

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Phatboy,

        What do you call it when you hold back the course of a river with a dam made of the same substance as the river?

        That’s right, an impossibility. Does that stop the glacier from flowing? No.

        Has it any relevance to anything at all? No.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Mike Flynn,
        This is an observed phenomenon, as an ice shelf collapses, the glacier behind it speeds up. This was observed with the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf.

      • Bob Droege,

        There seems to be some differences of opinion between glaciologists as to whether ice shelf “collapse” (sounds far more impressive than a glacier “calving”, doesn’t it?), results in increased basal glacier speed upstream.

        Depending on the reasons for calving, it may appear that a surface speed increase has occurred after the calving, rather than precipitating it by a complicated series of events. In any event, actual research on surface and base flow speeds, combined with interferometric radar observations of the calving front, indicate that at least for the glaciers studied, upstream speed showed no increase after calving events.

        NASA, and some others, just make a bald assertion that an increase in speed and thinning is attributable to ice shelf loss, and nothing else. They also measure surface speed, which tells very little about ice movement in total. Glaciology is not as simple as one might think.

        There is some merit in your argument if it can be shown that the friction on the sides of the ice shelf is sufficient to demonstrate a damming effect by raising the surface of the glacier/shelf interface. This does not seem to be the case, in spite of sophisticated measuring equipment available to NASA.

        So, no. Maybe, maybe not.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • This is an observed phenomenon, as an ice shelf collapses, the glacier behind it speeds up

        Yes, just like a dam breaking. But, upstream, the flow is unaffected.

    • > My first experience on the receiving end of personal ad hominem attacks occurred last weekend.

      You must be young, John, or very tall and good-looking.

      • Well – if he is good-looking, then he must have mistaken beliefs because women have lied to him. Just ask Wills – one of the leading lights of “skeptical” thought.

      • Willard, thank you, but I am no longer young, never was tall, and was good looking only in the distant past.

        This was my first experience on the receiving end of personal ad hominem attacks because it was the only time I have broken the rule of not saying anything that was remotely outside tribal beliefs on warming. I usually won’t do such a thing. But, as noted, it was a friend who made the outlandish comment that Greenland would contribute up to 3 feet by 2060 — and excellent illustration of how well the PR machine has worked, BTW. Because it was a friend, who I knew wouldn’t flame me, I made the mistake of bringing up the latest actual science (although there are other scientific articles of late which also point to much lower Greenland contribution to sea level rise, which I haven’t brought up here, yet, as the Nature article on the Eemian says it all very well).

    • Steven Mosher

      John

      If you want some good information on why C02 is falling in the US, I’ll recommend this by one of our group members, Zeke Hausfather

      http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/explaining-declines-in-us-carbon.pdf

      • Steven Mosher | August 10, 2013 at 5:19 pm |

        That’s a nice reference.

        Thanks

      • Steven Mosher

        its good work, but there is a typo that I failed to catch.

      • Steven Mosher | August 10, 2013 at 10:38 pm |

        There’s always a typo that doesn’t get caught.

        Hence, Persian Flaw.

        The trick is to not make a big deal out of someone else’s typo the day after getting caught out on your own.

      • Steve, yes, the shale gas revolution had produced so much natural gas, that prices have fallen so low, that it is now cheaper to use natural gas than coal in some areas of the US to produce electricity. That causes a big drop in CO2 emissions. If and when natural gas prices recover a bit, there might be a bit of a switch back to coal. But many coal plants are now being retired because it is too costly for them to meet the new environmental requirements under the Obama Administration, so there might come a time, a decade or so from now, when there might not be enough coal capacity remaining to go substantially back to coal when natural gas prices once again rise. At that point, the reduction in CO2 emissions from the electricity sector will be permanent.

      • Steven Mosher | August 10, 2013 at 5:19 pm |

        It’d be interesting to see Zeke’s method and graphics applied for comparison of what’s effective on multiple different CO2 siloes: Australia, BC, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, South Africa, and those special cases with sequestration or other regulations.

        Vidi, vici, veni: vision, values, visuals.

      • Vidi, Vici & Veni may be an intriguing name for Moshpit’s boyz band.

      • This is a good read
        http://theautomaticearth.com/Energy/shale-is-a-pipedream-sold-to-greater-fools.html

        The production of Bakken oil is easily modeled as an average well prodcution profile convolved against the number of new wells coming on line. This is the chart of a model I put together:

        The concept of the Red Queen in oil production is described in the first link. The month that the development of new wells stops increasing will result of aggregate production undergoing a rapid decline.

        Fracking is a boom-and-bust operation that can not be sustained over the long term. It is not anything like the old days of conventional crude production where individual wells had a longer lifetime.

    • Steven Mosher | August 10, 2013 at 5:43 pm |

      And to clarify, lest it go unremarked and be felt discourteous, I’m shocked and surprised by the perception that my comments may be taken amiss.

      It is my hope to address arguments and commentary productively and without ad hominem, as what reason is served by ad hominem upon those whom I do not know, especially when there is so ample material to discuss in what they post?

      If I fall below our hosts’ standards, or my own, it is a human failing, and I would be glad of it being overlooked in favor of focus on the content of postings and threads, rather than personalization.

      I regard CE as Mother Teresa did Calcutta: an opportunity to serve God’s blessed children, with humility and so much grace and joy as I can hold in my heart.

      Be assured, I could not feel more grateful for the opportunity.

      If you feel slurred or personally insulted, FREAKING READ HARDER.

      • Steven Mosher

        Bart

        Steven Mosher | August 10, 2013 at 5:43 pm |

        And to clarify, lest it go unremarked and be felt discourteous, I’m shocked and surprised by the perception that my comments may be taken amiss.

        It is my hope to address arguments and commentary productively and without ad hominem, as what reason is served by ad hominem upon those whom I do not know, especially when there is so ample material to discuss in what they post?

        If I fall below our hosts’ standards, or my own, it is a human failing, and I would be glad of it being overlooked in favor of focus on the content of postings and threads, rather than personalization.

        ######################

        overcompensating style is read as insincere. The bottom line Bart is that you are a boor. I have no issue with that. I find it funny that you dont see that in your self or that you cant admit it. I mean really funny. You pick your nose and tell John not to fart. that is what I love about you.

      • Steve, who is the more humorless? Bart R , or Brandon Schollen….? Are you still mad at me?

      • k scott denison

        Steven Mosher | August 10, 2013 at 5:43 pm |

        … You pick your nose and tell John not to fart. that is what I love about you.
        =========
        And this is why I love reading your comments.

      • Steven Mosher

        Don Monfort | August 10, 2013 at 8:45 pm |
        Steve, who is the more humorless? Bart R , or Brandon Schollen….? Are you still mad at me?

        ##################

        Don, I am not mad at you. you made me look hard at some of the things I said with more care. There things in you I dont like about me.

        Humorless. Hmm, I would say brandon. I would tell him what a old wild weasel told me : “kid, you need to put a few links in your chain”
        Bart, I happen to agree with a lot of what he says, but dammit I see this big ole balloon, and cant help pokin it with a needle. you get that of course,

      • Steven Mosher

        K scott

        “And this is why I love reading your comments.”

        dont encourage me or Don will come along and burst my over inflated ego.

        thx, though

    • Hard to see that a social gathering such as the party you attended would be an appropriate venue for the type of discussion that had ensued.

      A private conversation with your friends is another matter and the more of this type of private discussion where sceptics engage with warmists is indeed something to be hoped for.

    • John…I agree that ad hominem attacks are very uncivil. I just wish that you had read the same books and sources that your friend had. Maybe you might have agreed with him on most points.

    • It’s a good story. Now, do you want to be invited back if the price is to shut up? If so, next time do. If not, get better friends.

      • To Txomin:

        Actually, very much to my wife and my own relief, we will soon be seeing the hosts. And we will be dining with our other friends (the husband being the one who said Greenland will contribute up to 3 feet of sea level rise by 2060) this Saturday evening. So — thank goodness — no harm done. Very nice to see that these friendships weren’t destroyed by saying something non-tribal.

        Yes, I will shut up in the future as I have in the past. I really didn’t like the result at the party, I just reacted to an outlandish statement, and this was the only time I ever have done something like that. If you can have a good time with friends, I really don’t want to do something that gets in the way of that (as much as it might make me grit my teeth to hear some of the unlikely or untrue tribal statements).

        These are good people, I wasn’t looking forward to trading them in.

      • Friends are more important than being right John. Horses for courses and there’s always CE where you can argue to your heart’s content.

    • Finally.

      Someone who really gets what kim is all about.

      • Bart, one-liners aren’t your metier. Get verbose.
        ============

      • kim | August 10, 2013 at 10:03 am |

        I’m not feeling the anthrax-laden IED from you, kim.

      • Who sent willard and Joshua out to battle without pots to piss in, or to cover their heads.
        =============

      • I get it, as verbosity is not needed when one has context. The key word in the clip is irrelevancy, and the more that someone pollutes a space with meaningless quips and one-liners, the more irrelevant the place becomes.

        Talking about context, that is the name of my new web site, http://ContextEarth.com. The dual context here is how to apply models of the earth and its environment to solve problems in design and research. The environment becomes the context for the system under investigation.

      • “Get verbose.” Right, easier to ignore.

      • Hah, hah, pg, you’ve found me out.
        ==========

      • Don’t tell him, pg, but Web has also figured me out, but as usual, draws the wrong conclusion.
        ==========

      • David Springer

        A little about context oight dot com

        Registrant:
        Paul Pukite
        4960 Fillmore ST NE
        Columbia Heights, MN 55421
        US
        Domain name: CONTEXTEARTH.COM Administrative Contact:
        Pukite, Paul puk@umn.edu
        4960 Fillmore ST NE
        Columbia Heights, MN 55421
        US
        +1.7635718705
        Technical Contact:
        White, Eric support@dotster.com
        10 Corporate Dr., Suite 300
        Burlington, MA 01803
        US
        +1.8004015250 Fax: +1.7812726550
        Registration Service Provider:
        Dotster.com, support@dotster-inc.com
        +1.8004015250
        This company may be contacted for domain login/passwords,
        DNS/Nameserver changes, and general domain support questions.
        Registrar of Record: Domain.com
        Record last updated on 07-Jun-2013.
        Record expires on 07-Jun-2014.
        Record created on 07-Jun-2013.
        Domain servers in listed order:
        NS2.DOTSTER.COM
        NS1.DOTSTER.COM
        Domain status: ok

      • One courageously outs after being caught rooting for an anonymous commenter, the other talks about piss as if it was sonnets.

        Go team Denizens!

      • David Springer

        Thinks Wee Willard. Your encouragement means a lot to me.

        HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

        Next!

      • Best wishes for your new website WHT. It seems an excellent opportunity for the type of scientific discourse that you have been seeking from Judith’s blog, but I suspect that reader numbers and contributors will probably fall somewhat short of the numbers that Judith is currently experiencing.

      • David Springer

        @Peter Davies

        It’ll fall of short of the traffic on Bill Dembski’s site Uncommon Descent back when I was running it too. So if we can serve up sad to Paul Pukite and his idol His Assholiness Doctor Bob Park that makes it a super-sized serving of sad.

      • Bart – oh – Bart,

        Socrates – is – non – pareil, Kim – is – non – pareil. Wanna argue?
        Hmm … now – where – is – that – lasso – i – kept – from – way
        – back – when – I – used – ter – be – a – carefree – cow -girl –
        afore – I – became – a – serf? )
        These – doggone – hyphens – take – a – lotta- con – sent -trashun.

        B -t -s

  3. Climate Models have forecast warmer and warmer every year for two decades. It has not happened for seventeen years. 1998 still holds the record as the warmest year since thermometers were invented in the late 1800’s.

    Water on Earth is abundant. Water changes state in our comfort zone.
    CO2 is a trace gas. CO2 does not change state in our comfort zone.

    For six hundred million years, the lower limit of temperature was bounded by the temperature that sea water freezes. For six hundred million years, the upper limit of temperature was bounded by the temperature that water evaporates and produces huge amounts of water vapor and clouds. In between these two temperatures, there was no set point and no strong regulation of temperature around a set point.

    The modern ten thousand years has enjoyed a set point and powerful regulation around that set point and the new bounds are well inside the old bounds. Look at actual data.

    What is different?

    Continents drifted, Polar Ice developed, Ocean Levels and Ocean Currents Evolved.

    We now have a temperature that has stayed inside plus and minus one degree C for most of ten thousand years. We now have a temperature that has stayed inside plus and minus two degrees C for all of ten thousand years.

    The Temperature that Polar Sea Ice Melts and Freezes is the NEW and Wonderful Thermostat for Earth.

    When Polar Waters are Frozen they do not provide moisture for snow and the Sun Removes more Ice Every Summer than gets replaced every Winter and Ice on Earth Retreats and Earth Warms.
    When Polar Waters are not Frozen, oceans do provide moisture for more than enough snow to more than replace the Ice that Melts Every Summer and Ice on Earth Advances and Earth Cools.
    These advances and retreats are not something that starts and stops when the snowfall change occurs. It is delayed. When the snowfall starts the ice volume capacity starts building. The ice extent advance starts later after the ice volume has grown. When the snowfall stops, the ice advance continues until the ice volume capacity to push ice outward is depleated.

    Consensus Theory is that ice volume starts to grow when temperature starts to drop and that ice volume grows until the temperature starts to rise. That is very wrong. They make temperature go up and down with external forces that have no set point and no powerful regulation. A set point and powerful regulation can only come from something inside the system.

    The Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were much like now.

    Our Climate Cycle is exactly in the Phase it should be in Now.

    Why do people believe this Warm Period should not have happened? Warm Periods have always followed Cold Periods in these same bounds for ten thousand years. Then Cold Periods followed the Warm Periods.

    This is Normal!

    NASA and NOAA and 97% of the Consensus Group are going to be really embarrassed when these simple truths become more and more evident as the snow each year rebuilds the Ice Volume which will again advance and Cool Earth into the next Cold Phase which always follows every Warm Phase.

    Consensus Climate People do not understand Computer Models and they do not understand this Simple Polar Ice Cycle which is perfectly well explained by Actual Real Data.

    It was a huge mistake to give Super Computers to Climate People without teaching them anything about building and verifying models. If your forecasts are wrong for two decades, you have something wrong in your Theory and Models.

    When our Rocket Models missed a Forecast, we fixed the problem or problems before the next launch. When we did not fix things soon enough, we killed people and we were forced to review and improve the process. We launched the Space Shuttle with people on board during the very first launch. If our Models were as good as Climate Models, we would not have reached LEO.

    You cannot explain a temperature set point with tight regulation around that without something that has a set point. You cannot explain tight regulation without something that performs different on the different sides of the set point.

    CO2 does not have a set point or any powerful means of enforcing a set point.

    Polar Sea Ice has a Set Point and can cause massive snowfall when the Set Point is Exceeded and can turn off the Massive Snowfall when the Temperature is below the Set Point.

    This Set Point is clearly in the DATA!

    Consensus Theory has temperature going up and up like nothing that has ever happened before. Or, at least, it has not happened for a hundred and thirty thousand years. Our most recent ten thousand years are different and I know why. If you do not know why and/or cannot explain why, don’t tell me you understand climate.

    Data shows that temperature has been tightly bounded around a set point for Ten Thousand Years. I have told you my theory. If you agree, say so. If you disagree, tell your theory.

    SNOW MUST FALL WHEN OCEANS ARE WARM AND WET. ICE ADVANCES SOME WHILE IT IS STILL FALLING AND IT CONTINUES TO ADVANCE AFTER THE OCEANS FREEZE. THIS GIVES THE APPEARANCE THAT ICE VOLUME IS STILL INCREASING AND FALSLY SUPPORTS THE MILANKOVICH THEORY THAT ICE VOLUME IS STILL INCREASING UP TO THE POINT THE ICE STARTS TO RETREAT. IT CANNOT HAPPEN THIS WAY. THE ICE VOLUME STARTS TO DECREASE WHEN THE SNOW STOPS FALLING. THE ICE ADVANCE LASTS LONG AFTER THAT.

    LOOK AT MY COMPARISON TO AN ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT.
    http://popesclimatetheory.com/page50.html

    Milankovich makes earth cold and then adds ice. You cannot get moisture out of cold frozen water to use to add ice.

    You can only get moisture from wet water to use to add ice. You always add ice when water is wet. You must add the ice during warmer times and then it gets cold.

    MILANKOVICH THEORY IS NOT POSSIBLE! WHERE CAN YOU GET MOISTURE WHEN THE WATER IS ALREADY COLD AND FROZEN? ACTUAL ICE CORE DATA SHOWS THE SNOW FALLS IN THE WARM TIMES.

    MILANKOVICH THEORY PROVES EWING AND DONN WERE WRONG.

    ACTUAL DATA PROVES EWING AND DONN WERE RIGHT.

    THE ACTUAL DATA DOES PROVE EVERTHING. LOOK AT THE DATA.

    • “Climate Models have forecast warmer and warmer every year for two decades. It has not happened for seventeen years.”

      In any other field a model is treated as a falsifiable hypothesis. The inability of a model to match reality is taken as proof that the model fails to replicate reality. In climate science, on the other hand, it is taken to mean that they have not managed to alter the measured reality enough.

    • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual “checking on the pulse of the planet.” The report, by 384 scientists around the world, compiles data already released, but it
      puts them in context of what’s been happening to Earth over decades.

      Wow. They now have 384 scientists. They used to have Thousands.

      We are gaining. Their 97% is down below the CO2 PPM. This is a major milestone.

  4. A new draft of The Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change is now up and open for feedback at http://cartoonclimate.wikispaces.com/

    Past drafts have gotten good comments from readers here that have improved the book, so I hope the same will be true this time!

    Feedback is welcome on this blog or on our wiki: http://cartoonclimate.wikispaces.com/

    • Yoram Bauman | August 10, 2013 at 9:55 am |

      Wow. Sharper, clearer, punchier, more direct, cleaner. A vast improvement.

      I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone get through the formation of the planet to the Oxygen Catastrophe and its causes and implications half so well with such brevity before.. at least not while still being funny.

      Up to Chapter 6, I have no quibbles of note that offer much help, and I like what I see. (For most people, that’s no a quibble, but if I like something, I’m always immediately more suspicious I’m unconsciously unduly influencing my judgment in its favor.)

      Chapter 6, the scientific method definition makes exactly the high school mistake of stopping one clause too soon.

      To “..but the Scientific Method remains one of humanity’s most powerful inventions,” add (per Isaac Newton’s Principia): “because when we treat scientific conclusions as accurate or very nearly true until new observation requires us to alter the conclusion, we make the best possible informed (evidence-based) decisions.” Or wordsmith as appropriate and funny.

      For Chapter 7, I prefer “Projections” over “Predictions”; predictions are pretty useless, and a more precise constraint than you need, if you’re discussing “threats” as opposed to “certainty”. Projections reflect change in threat.

      Speaking of, I would want to see more on cost vs. catastrophe. A good epic world-ending disaster makes for good reading, but I’m a practical adult (and, as Neil Gaimon observes, when writing for adults you’re allowed to leave the boring bits in), and if these threats hit me in the pocketbook by making food more expensive today, for example, that means more to me than being up to my armpits in sea water in a hundred years.

      Overall, I’m very impressed and quite enjoy the opportunity to read your writing.

      Thank you.

    • Yoram Bauman

      You say;

      ” and with an observation
      •[YB: Settled.] MT: But key to make clear that we’re talking hugely different timeframes for change. Again, the sentence as phrased reinforces “denialist perceptions” in ways I don’t think you intend. ALSO RP: “Earth’s Climate has always been in flux” (but never so fast as when humans are helping it along) [such changes should take hundreds of thousands of years – we do it in 200] Careful, cause the argument that “climate always changes” is a top trope of those who wish to avoid dealing with it. [YB: I think this is okay; we’ll explain this more later on.]
      •JA: “Earth’s Climate has always been in flux.” A better statement would be: “The Earth’s Climate has always been in flux, except for the last 10,000 years when the Climate has been remarkably stable, leading to the conditions that allowed civilized life to develop on this planet.”
      PLUS

      /p14: “But if the climate is always changing…”
      •YB: Comments here! Yes, but in the past, climate has changed naturally over tens of thousands of years, allowing plants and animals to adapt. Humans are causing climate changes much faster than Nature ever did, so we’re creating a mass extinction, like when that asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. –PJ
      —— ——–
      No no No No No!!! Climate constantly changes, sometimes by small amounts that humans and nature barely notice, sometimes it fundamentally affects our civilisation and nature. I wrote about it here when virtually every decade was changing and some changes were highly noticeable;
      .
      https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/

      It is a complete fallacy to say climate previously changed naturally over tens of thousands of years and was stable until man drastically speeded up the process.. .

      Please read such basic Climate History books as ‘Climate history and the Modern world’ by Hubert Lamb; ‘History and Climate’ by Phil Jones, Ogilvie, Davies and Briffa. ; ‘Climate and weather’ by John Kington or one that specifically targets the demise of past civilisations through a changing climate such as ‘Weathers greatest mysteries solved’ by Randy Cerveny.

      Even Al Gore wrote about drastically changing climates that affected past civilisations and nature in his book ‘Earth in the balance.’

      If a belief in a naturally evolving stable climate over tens of thousands of year until affected by man in the last fifty years is the basis of your book it is fundamentally flawed I am afraid. .
      tonyb

      • tonyb | August 10, 2013 at 12:09 pm |

        Perhaps reconciled by returning again to the framing of “threats”, which are described in probabilities rather than absolute certainties.

        The more forcing, the higher the expected rate of changes and the higher the intensity of the forcing, the likelier the change is to be extreme.

        Hence, we’re threatened by faster, more expensive, changes because humans are helping the changes along. There are more threats, and bigger ones, in less time. That will mathematically translate to more harm and bigger costs faster, but we cannot predict exactly when or what specifically. (In part because our models for volcanic eruptions — a major climate input — are so imprecise yet.)

      • Hi tonyb: It would be much more helpful for me if you would react to the book draft rather than the comments on the book draft. You can find the PDF downloads on the website I linked above: http://cartoonclimate.wikispaces.com/

        PS. I don’t know what you mean by “a naturally evolving stable climate”, but if you read my book draft you will get a much better sense of the basis of the book. Thanks!

      • Yoram

        I have read all the way through.

        Presumably this cartoon style and phrasing style is meant to appeal to a young age group?

        Consequently how will you explain the ‘pause’ to a generation born this century that have never actually known global warming and if they live in certain countries-like Britain-will actually have seen the temperature Fall during their lifetime?

        Under uncertainties it would be good to explain that we have been this way before as regards high temperatures during the time of advanced human civilisation without enhanced co2 concentrations. So fingering co2 as the cause of the recent warming is a hypothesis and it is likely a minor climate driver compared to natural variability.

        Incidentally, whilst I may disagree with some of your basic premises I thought the book was well done

        Tonyb

  5. Given the last weekends discussions on lead and intelligence/violence I thought I would off up this for comment.

    One can show statistically that the star sign one is born under correlates with academic performance in school, so children born under the star sign Cancer do less well than those born under Virgo. Those born under Leo have a bimodal performance, comprising of the best and worst achievers.
    Do you have any idea why this is?

    • Easy fix; school year round or not at all.
      ======

    • DocMartyn | August 10, 2013 at 10:07 am |

      I have an explanation that simply explains the observations universally and without many exceptions, that is school intake begins in September and at the time in children’s lives where scholastic ability is most rapidly improving, so children entering older present a bias toward higher academic performance that puts them in a favored cadre, with positive feedback effects tending to reinforce the bias.

      So, did you ever answer whether the sample was corrupted with copper?

    • Probably the same reason that athletes born in August do poorly. They don’t have enough maturity compared to other kids in the same grade. Big whoop.

      Here is a better discussion point. It can be verified with statistical certainty that the number of thunderstorms in an urban area increases during the course of the work-week.

      T. L. Bell, D. Rosenfeld, K.-M. Kim, J.-M. Yoo, M.-I. Lee, and M. Hahnenberger, “Midweek increase in U.S. summer rain and storm heights suggests air pollution invigorates rainstorms,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 113, no. D2, Jan. 2008.

      Further evidence that mankind can readily change the climate. Only man has any knowledge of the properties of a “week” and these properties happen to be artificial as well. The only uncertainty in the statistics is that heightened awareness over the years may have contributed somewhat to the autocorrelation.

      This is one of the examples of objective certainty of statistics that many people can’t separate from magic.

    • DocMartyn | August 10, 2013 at 10:58 am |

      You posed a not dissimilarly framed quiz a while back about two samples taken from the same source and studied in two different labs (yours, and another’s), with radically different outcomes.

      I don’t recall the details, but I remember wondering at the time about copper contamination, since it’s known to have that type of effect on the sample in question.

      • I grow cells in Houston and a colleague was growing them in Colorado. Some primary cancer cell cultures, those will a lot of mitochondria, appear to grow well at sea-level, but are quite poor at a mile high.

    • Interesting that Doc, as a “skeptic,” would apparently think the answer to that quiz was anything other than completely obvious.

      • Dang, I puzzled over that for days. Does this mean that if we start Kindergarten at six instead of five, that all of the children will be above normal?
        ===========

      • Joshua | August 10, 2013 at 11:48 am |

        The immediately obvious conclusion is to only allow children to be conceived in the same month, to make school fairer.

      • So you think that the correlation with star sign, which is as strong as the school starting date, is bogus?

      • So you think that the correlation with star sign, which is as strong as the school starting date, is bogus?

        Not at all. The correlation exists. What would be “bogus” would be to jump from the correlation to some causation.

        Again – it appears that perhaps you thought that people would find that jump somehow intuitive? Perhaps you weren’t expecting CE readers to be skeptics. Why would that be? Any skeptic would consider that jump to be counterintuitive.

      • The immediately obvious conclusion is to only allow children to be conceived in the same month, to make school fairer.

        Heh,.

        The obvious conclusion is that it is evidence that is related to one of the problems with out traditional educational paradigm – which incorporates the fallacy that comparing one student to another is directly relevant to fostering intellectual curiosity and/or skills.

    • David Springer

      Hey I’m still trying to figure out why income rises with shoe size.

      • All I know is that since I’m only 5’7,” I need another 120k worth of income per year to compete with guys who are 5’11” on Match.com., according to some study or other. They just don’t realize how irresistibly sweet I am in person.

      • pg we realize. )
        Bts

    • > Children born under the star sign Cancer do less well than those born under Virgo. Those born under Leo have a bimodal performance, comprising of the best and worst achievers. Do you have any idea why this is?

      Easy. Virgos’ Suns may be ruled by Mercury, the traditional ruler of wit. Therefore, they need to have a sharp (in fact, precise and meticulous) mind for their body to have a good flow of energy. Leos will go wherever they will dominate, and Cancers care for something else.

      Do you have statistics about Capricorns and Sagitarius, Doc? A ruling Saturn can show dedication to work and Jupiter (with the ninth house) is the natural ruler of studies.

    • DocMartyn | August 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm |

      Intriguing.

      The observations that led to the craze for hypobaric chamber treatment?

      • I am supposed to come up with off the wall suggestions for the medics to turn down.As most of cancer cell metabolism is lactic, I suggested we give the patients lactate drips to push their lactate levels up to about 15 mM, about the level you get to after exhaustive exercise. The idea being that we push the Lactate/Pyruvate couple and so lower the ATP/ADP couple. They all said “You can’t do that”. I said why, and they said “You can’t do that”.
        Its going to be a bugger to do in mice I can tell you.

      • DocMartyn | August 10, 2013 at 7:29 pm |

        Wonder what they’d say if you suggested copper bracelets? ;)

      • Steven Mosher

        Doc,

        when I watched this I thought of you.. fast forward to 11:30 and watch from there.

      • David Springer

        Be a hero and investigate DCA. Those cancers with lactic metabolism have mitochondria that are shut-down and then aerobic metabolism shuts down along with it. It had been presumed that mtDNA is irreparably damaged in the mutunt cancer cell but that might not be the case it’s shut down by some other means. DCA wakes the mitochondria back up and when it becomes operative it senses the cell is phucked up and initiates apoptosis. The cost (essentially $0) and lack of adverse side effects of DCA cry out for clinical investigation but because it can’t be patented, and hence milked for big-pharma profits, it’s ignored. It’s a travesty.

      • David, I have looked at both DCA and FluoroPyruvate.
        Both are too toxic to other cell types to be used as sole agents.

        I actually designed and synthesized the first mitochondrially targeted drug to damage mtDNA. We have a patent and drug company funding for animal work and I was in the lab this morning weighing mice and testing their grip.

        We also have a targeted nanosyringe system up an running. We target using peptides that bind to (upregulated) tyrosine kinase receptors on the cell surface and deliver hydrophobic drugs and also drug pump inhibitors.
        I have been shrinking breast cancers in nude mice; 50% shrinkage in treated and 100% growth in controls on day 25. Just waiting for the tumors to get >2 mm3 so I can begin the ‘death’ curves.

      • David Springer

        DCA is very well tolerated in amount and duration for cancer chemotherapy. You may be thinking of its use treating congenital lactic acidosis. In that disease it is taken in higher doses lasting years. It also has the benefit of being a very small molecule that passes through the blood/brain barrier for treatment of brain cancer.

        No it’s probably not a single cure-all for cancer of any kind. No drug is so it shouldn’t be any different. Side effects are so mild, tumor shrinkage so drastic, and price so low it could be an important part of any regimen for cancers that exhibit high rates of glycolysis. It is suspected that the main side effect from long high dosage, reversible peripheral neuropathy, is caused by pH imbalance and/or interference with thiamine uptake.

        The only actual clinical trial was tiny, a dozen patients with stage 4 glioblastoma. As a group their average expected survival rate was a mere 6 months. They averaged 18 months on DCA. It’s worth looking into but no one will fund it for reasons stated.

  6. On the lighter side, let me emulate the TV game show Jeopardy, with Alex Trebek.

    And the ANSWER is

    With respect to CAGW, one cannot do controlled experiments on the atmosphere, so it is impossible to measure climate sensitivity.

    The Question is

    Actually, the question is pretty much irrelevant.

    • Jim Cripwell | August 10, 2013 at 10:35 am |

      It’s also impossible to do controlled experiments on other planets. (Except recently.)

      So we didn’t know they existed until probes reached them?

      • Bart, you write “It’s also impossible to do controlled experiments on other planets. ”

        As usual you seem to be misquoting me. It is clearly possible to do controlled experiments on this earth we live in; they are done routinely. It is impossible to do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere; and I suppose the atmospheres of other planets. So what?

      • What we have is an uncontrolled experiment on earth’s atmosphere. Some people are trying to control it, but others are resisting.

    • Jim Cripwell | August 10, 2013 at 11:54 am |

      Read harder. I wasn’t quoting you at all.

      I was pointing out how invalid your objection is.

      • Bart, you write “I was pointing out how invalid your objection is.”

        But what I wrote is completely and utterly valid. Where is it wrong?

      • Jim,

        It has to do with your flavour of verificationism:

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

        I thought I already told you that.

        ***

        How do you explain dinosaurs, btw?

      • Willard asked Cripwell:

        “How do you explain dinosaurs, btw?”

        That’s directed at the wrong guy. The Intelligent Design bodyguard/bouncer David Springer is your man for questions on this topic. Dinosaurs spring from intelligence, apparently.

      • Web,

        Jim’s the guy I ask because verificationists have problem with scientific statements that refer to things over which we don’t have direct evidence.

        The usual examples are planets, like Bart R recalled, dinosaurs, like David Chalmers would, and the Sun, like David Hume. There are others for sure, but philosophers are good recyclers.

      • David Springer

        Dembski has no problem with billions of years of evolution. He has a problem imagining a unverse in its lowest entropy state 14 billion years ago just poofing into existence with all that order in it. I have a problem imagining a highly ordered universe just appearing as if by magic too.

      • I have a problem imagining a highly ordered universe just appearing as if by magic too.

        But yet, you have no problem imagining a supernatural entity that could create a highly ordered universe as if by magic?

        Interesting.

      • David Springer

        Yes I have a problem with that too. I’m an agnostic. But that doesn’t mean when I see a information processing system coupled to a programmable assembler of 3D components that can produce and assemble all the parts to make copies of itself that I’m prepared to make the null hypothesis the one where said machine is an accident. Where there’s a machine there’s a machinist. That’s the null hypothesis.

        The popular counter to that is that our universe is one of an infinite or nearly infinite number of unverses where anything physically possible must happen by accident.

        But even if that’s the case then a universe which initially had, by accident, a god-like entity able to create organic life is also possible. If a mind can be contained by a brain and a planet can contain six billion minds, all by accident then surely something greater could be contained by a whole universe.

        Just sayin’.

      • David, here is the Biblical account.
        “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
        And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light..”

        here is the current scientific account.
        “In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded”

      • David Springer

        Yes I’m aware of the parallels in Genesis and Big Bang theory. Big Bang theory was initially opposed because of it. Something from nothing isn’t very intuitive.

        Even more intriguing is genetics and Genesis. Genetically speaking what would it take, discounting accidents, for there to be no death? Or for animals to all be vegetarians so they didn’t kill each other? Better DNA repair mechanisms perhaps including telomere replacement? More accurate error detection and correction is certainly possible. Digesting vegetable matter is just an enzyme or two away for any obligate carnivore. Eden seems remarkably close in evolutionary terms if we presume it existed and that genetic entropy has been taking its toll since the fall.

        Parthenogenesis producing a human XX male is also possible in perhaps one in a few billion live births.

        Not being committed to a black and white world view where the God of Abraham either is or is not allows one to consider these things without emotion or bias.

    • Jim Cripwell | August 10, 2013 at 12:05 pm |

      ..one cannot do controlled experiments on the atmosphere, so it is impossible to measure climate sensitivity.

      That’d be an invalid conclusion drawn from an inadequate premise.

      ie, “One cannot do controlled experiments (in the lab) on the existence or non-existence of other planets, so it is impossible to prove other planets exist.”

      • Bart, you write “That’d be an invalid conclusion drawn from an inadequate premise.”

        Absolute complete and utter garbage. My statement is completely and utterly valid.

        “With respect to CAGW, one cannot do controlled experiments on the atmosphere, so it is impossible to measure climate sensitivity.”

        Your logic is just plain wrong. Tell me how you can measure climate sensitiviy, when you cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere.

      • Please tell us about the future, Jim.

        How can you verify that the Sun will rise tomorrow?

      • Willard, you write “Please tell us about the future, Jim.
        How can you verify that the Sun will rise tomorrow?”

        What on God’s Green Acre has telling about the future got to do with running a controlled experiment? Apart from absolutely nothing.

      • Do you know of any controlled experiment validating that the Sun will rise tomorrow, Jim? I don’t think you have. Then the claim that the Sun will rise tomorrow can be a scientific statement as you conceive science.

        I think this shows a problem with how you conceive science, some of which we called natural sciences, and not the laboratory sciences.

      • can’t, not can, of course.

      • Jim excludes from science everything that’s interesting. He accepts only almost trivial measurements of quantities that are already rather well known.

        Nothing that’s of real scientific interest is so simple and so well understood that it could be studied using the narrow approach that’s the only one acceptable to him.

      • Willard, you write “Do you know of any controlled experiment validating that the Sun will rise tomorrow, Jim?”

        Who cares. What I am talking about is a controlled experiment to measure climate sensitivity. Which you completely ignore.

      • Pekka, you write “Jim excludes from science everything that’s interesting”

        That I deeply resent. There is general agreement that when discussing CAGW, the most important issue is the value of climate sensitivity, however defined. That is what I am talking about. If you can name another issue that is more important than the value of climate sensitivity, on this subject of CAGW, what is it?

      • > What I am talking about is a controlled experiment to measure climate sensitivity.

        Who cares. What I’m after is your conception of science.

      • Jim,

        On one point I agree. Climate sensitivity in some form is the key. (Transient climate response may be the most relevant of the alternative measures of climate sensitivity.)

        What i don’t accept at all are your views on what’s known about climate sensitivity. Your arguments are generic enough to justify claims like the one of my previous comment. You haven’t been able to present anything more specific and for that reason you resort to false generalities.

        Generalities are almost always wrong when applied to a controversial matter. They are a poor excuse for not knowing enough about the subject to discuss more relevant issues.

      • Willard

        Mirriam Webster gives this definition for science:

        a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

        b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

        Note the reference to general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

        Mirriam Webster gives us this definition for scientific method:

        principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

        Jim Cripwell has emphasized the need for the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

        The CAGW premise as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report is based on a hypothesis, which has been formulated, but has yet to be tested through observation and experiment.

        I’d agree with Jim that CAGW is therefore an uncorroborated hypothesis at this time, until it can be tested and either corroborated or falsified through observation and experiment.

        Seems pretty straightforward to me, Willard.

        Do you see this differently? If so, how (specifically)?

        Max

      • We’ve been through this a few times already, MiniMax.

        That science collects evidence does not entail that you should ask evidence for every freaking abstracta scientists find useful to devise.

        Here’s how speed of light was measured for the first time:

        The first successful measurement of c was made by Olaus Roemer in 1676. He noticed that, depending on the Earth–Sun–Jupiter geometry, there could be a difference of up to 1000 seconds between the predicted times of the eclipses of Jupiter’s moons, and the actual times that these eclipses were observed. He correctly surmised that this is due to the varying length of time it takes for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth as the distance between these two planets varies. He obtained a value of c equivalent to 214,000 km/s, which was very approximate because planetary distances were not accurately known at that time.

        http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

        Olaus might have had a tough time answering Jim’s request to clarify the emphasized part.

      • Willard and those of like mind,

        I assume the Sun will rise tomorrow. So do you. No one can “prove” what will happen in the future.

        I also assume that the “climate sensitivity” to atmospheric CO2 is negative, but unable to be quantified given present limitations of measurement techniques.

        My assumption is based on the interaction between light and matter (as used by Feynman).

        Even using your figures, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising, surface temperatures are not. There is no “missing heat”. Heat is not a physical entity – anyone who thinks so probably needs a course of reality readjustment.

        Weather changes moment to moment. Climate is the average of weather. In order to change the climate, you first have to change the weather, by definition. I see no volunteers for this first step – why not? How hard can it be?

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • > I assume the Sun will rise tomorrow. So do you. No one can “prove” what will happen in the future.

        Thanks, Mike. That’s good enough for me.

        The Humean predicatment is the human predicament.

        ***

        You might like this thought experiment:

        Foxgoose tries the same trick as Jim and MiniMax.

        May the Force be with you,

        w

      • Mike,

        Note that you need to click on the date of the tweet to see the conversation.

        I’ll try to make a Shortify story about that point.

      • Willard,

        I’m not sure whether you are agreeing with me or not.

        I looked at your link, but my non tweeting history made the format of the exchange a little confusing.

        If I choose to leap out of the way of a car on the assumption that our paths will intersect in the future, I am not foretelling he future. Nor is the goalie defending a penalty shot. Indeed, his assumptions, even though based on years of expertise gained at the highest levels of the game, prove to be wrong more often than not.

        And so with “scientists”. How sound are their assumptions? Nobody knows. A track record of previous success is no guarantee of future performance. Bending the weather to our will hasn’t worked all that well to date, so predictions or assumptions about future averages don’t seem well founded.

        Given that the longest average of surface temperature that we have shows a decrease from molten to non molten (cooling), it would take some new facts to engender a change of mind on my part. To each his own, but I would not be unhappy if the Warmists would apply their own assets to the Cause, and leave me to go to perdition if I wish.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Steven Mosher

        willard no fair stealing my speed of light examples without a hat tip

      • Mike Flynn,

        Who cares if I agree with you or not?

        You’re in front of a wobbling car that seems to be coming at you. You have people behind you. They don’t see the car.

        You feel that moving away from the car would be a good idea. Yet, the people behind you are keeping you from moving. They ask for evidence of the car’s impact before moving.

        What do you do?

        The point is not to solve this, but to think. This is why it’s called a thought experiment. If you don’t like this, it’s OK: nobody forces you to pump your intuition with this kind of tool.

        ***

        If we had Earth holodecks, you’d have a point about the scientists’ assumptions. Just test them all. But we just can’t.

        This is a decision problem under uncertainty, but we don’t have to evaluate the risk of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow. In the very long run, we’re all dead. The uncertainty lies in the middle or long run. That’s where the rubber meets the road.

        We have to find ways out of this mess without ever having dealt, as a specie, with such a big challenge. Hammering requests for an evidence that lie in the future is plain silly: nobody can’t see the future. When coupled with sceptikism about any kind of evidence, these requests can quickly becomes abusive.

        This looks uncool to me.

      • > willard no fair stealing my speed of light examples without a hat tip

        Sorry about that. Had I recall it, I would not have to reinvent it along.

        H/T Moshpit.

      • Willard,

        I see. When your “thought experiment” is shown to be flawed, you introduce new assumptions. Well done. A bit like coming up with “missing heat” when you can’t point to any actual “warming”.

        But in response to your question, what would I do?

        Well, nothing really. Unbeknown to the people you have just introduced, and yourself, I can see that the wheels are falling off the wobbly Global Warming car, and it is about to plunge into a chasm. No danger to me, or the panicking crowd you have placed behind me.

        As you say, the point is to think.

        If 97% of scientists believe the same thing, I test that thing. If it is false, then the 97% belief is nonsense. Global warming due to CO2 is being tested. CO2 is rising, temperatures are not. “We” don’t have to do anything. You may do as you wish, but don’t expect me to pay for it!

        Please note that I haven’t asked for evidence for anything in the future. Your assumptions about the future suit you. Mine suit me.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • > When your “thought experiment” is shown to be flawed, you introduce new assumptions.

        Hmmm. Yes, and no.

        1. There’s no such thing as a flawed thought experiment. And I did not need to introduce new elements in the story to show that to rely on evidence alone can’t even move you away from a wobbling car in front of you. In fact, you did admit to such limitation when you said:

        > No one can “prove” what will happen in the future.

        The first step of the thought experiment only establishes that.

        If you see a flaw, please spell it out. For now, you’re begging a question about which you already stated the opposite of your current presumption.

        That’s the no part.

        ***

        2. A thought experiment is simply a way to envision parameters of a model. Since all you do is to tell a story, you’ve got to assume its elements. Unless, of course, your point is to show that assuming them leads to a contradiction, like Putnam’s brains in vats:

        http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/

        I introduced new elements to the story of the car for three reasons. The first is that for Twitter to keep track of a conversation, you need to mention the names of everyone. So I made Wott and Richard Betts a part of the story. The second is that a tweet is short, so I had the leasure to construct my story as I tweeted.

        More importantly, I wanted to introduce new elements that I think are relevant to our current predicament:

        – many persons;
        – people with no direct connection with the evidence;
        – people that are asking for direct evidence;
        – a driver (wink wink);
        – a car that wobbles.

        The two last elements may be unessential, but not the first three. We do have a collective decision to make. People that have no direct connection with the evidence are asking for future evidence.

        As you can see, if I introduced new elements in the thought experiment, it is not to cover for any special flaw.

        ***

        In fact, this thought experiment is just a way to model what you can read over there:

        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

        If you read that page, you’ll see that there are two important notions of evidence. The thought experiment deals with one of them, i.e. what makes direct contact with sense organs. The only plausible alternative would be to consider evidence like a “piece of evidence”. This alternative leads to a conception of science that is inductive or abductive, i.e. non-deductive.

        I don’t think Jim or MiniMax want to go where this leads. This leads to a conception of science that goes around the time of Whewell, which was Darwin’s favourite epistemologist. If you accept the idea that science proceeds like any investigation, then you have to admit that to ask for “proof” and “direct evidence” may very well be suboptimal.

        In fact, Darwin’s favourite reply to the Jim and MiniMax of his times was to point at the wave theory of light:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle

        We don’t see light waves, and yet positing that light is made of waves helped understand and explain light.

        ***

        Now, in a social gathering, would you try the thought experiment, or would you lecture on the philosophical notion of evidence?

        Hope this helps,

        May the Force be with you,

        w

      • Willard,

        I will attempt to answer the question you have posed.

        “Now in a social gathering, would you try the thought experiment, or would you lecture on the philosophical notion of evidence?”

        The answer of course, is “Neither.”

        As we agree, the future is unknowable. So when you say that we have to make a decision, I am merely pointing out that my decision may be to take no action at all about the “global warming” that some people are convinced will : –

        a) occur, and
        b) be bad for me, and
        c) need me to contribute time, effort or money, or all three, to the cause of averting something that may or may not occur at some time in the future.

        I don’t wish to offend, but most of the “thought experiments” bandied about seem to be poorly thought out, and usually contain many unstated assumptions, which may or may not affect the result.

        So the results of the “thought experiments” are about as valid as the results of the “computer model experiments” relating to future weather patterns and averages (referred to as climate by the climatologists).

        Spend freely of your time, effort, and money. I’ll spend mine as I see fit.

        If you understand, no explanation is necessary.
        If you don’t, no explanation is possible.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

    • John Carpenter

      Jim,

      What is the question to this answer?

      ‘Catastrophic’ is not a defined quantity or a measurable metric by controlled experiments of any kind, so it is impossible to define or measure what CAGW means therefore making it a meaningless term.

      The questions? Oh, I’ll give it to you…

      Why is using ‘CAGW’ a meaningless term when discussing climate science?

      BTW, CS has been empirically measured using paleo data.

      • John, you write “BTW, CS has been empirically measured using paleo data.”

        Garbage. Paleo data cannot meausre CS. It is impossible to prove in the paleo data, that the rise in temperature is caused by the rising levels of CO2. It is impossible to measure time with sufficient accuracy to determine whether the observed rise in temperature preceeds of follows the rise in CO2. The evidence suggests that, in fact, first temperature rises, and then CO2 levels rise; c.f. Murry Salby

      • John, to follow up on the issue of paleo data, you can read the paper by Hansen and Sato, and not find that they use the word “measure” when to come to CS. They use the weasel word, “infer”.

  7. I always feel slightly adrift and even a little forlorn on these weekend open threads. . I need structure. And adult guidance.

  8. Milankovich makes earth cold and then adds ice at the tails of glaciers. Ewing and Donn puts ice on top of glaciers and use the weight of ice to advance the glaciers. The piles of debris that are left behind when the ice melts does support the Ewing and Donn Theory.

  9. I read Tony B’s current article on sea level rise and found I’m in agreement with him on “measuring sea level is problematic.” I’m guessing because I’m not a scientist that problematic means close to meaningless, is that true?

  10. I refer to

    http://www.thegwpf.org/benny-peiser-europe-pulls-plug-green-future/

    One wonders whether Sir Paul Nurse and the Royal Society realize just how much damage they have done, and are still dong, to the British economy, by maintaining their completely unscientific statement of CAGW.

    • Great article. Maybe the market will in fact win this one?

    • The news isn’t the possible cooling so much, as many of us are aware of that possibility, but that such an article has been printed by a main stream paper in a very green country…Denmark. I think this is tremendously important. Yet another brick has loosened in the increasingly shaky edifice of global warming induced climate change. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/

      • Yet another brick has loosened in the increasingly shaky edifice

        Heh. Bricks loosened. Final stakes. Last nails.

        Seems to be an endless supply of all three, eh? Either that or you’re guilty of premature articulation.

      • Keep snoozing, Josh. Much easier than having to admit you’ve been taken in by this nonsense. The facts are the facts, a respected paper that’s done nothing but support the “consensus” in bright green Denmark, comes out with an article that dares to question the status quo, and in quite a dramatic way.

      • “a respected paper that’s done nothing but support the “consensus” in bright green Denmark”

        What’s your evidence of that? Please tell me you aren’t just swallowing that line from WUWT or some other skeptic blog. These blogs always exaggerate stuff like this to persuade readers that their posts are more important than they actually are. The thinking presumably being that people like you thinking the story is earthbreaking will go around the internet breathlessly posting it to places like climate etc.

      • Lolwot,

        ironic your asking for evidence when to date you have never provided evidence for any of the bad impacts we are supposed to expect from warming.

      • I find that the “skeptics” keep asking for evidence from and proof of the future. This request, they should know, makes no sense.

      • k scott denison

        Jim D | August 10, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
        I find that the “skeptics” keep asking for evidence from and proof of the future. This request, they should know, makes no sense.
        =======
        No need to get evidence about the future JimD. We will be happy to hear all the evidence of harm to the planet that has come from the warming to date. You know, facts about climate refuges, crop yield declines, land lost to sea level rise, populations displaced by rising seas, polar bears lost, etc.

      • …and if they are not asking for proof of damage in the future, they are asking for proof of damage with 0.7 C warming. Even the skeptics agree there won’t be much damage at 0.7 C warming and the foot of sea-level rise we have had so far. However, 4 C and a meter is more of a concern at this point.

      • k scott denison

        Ah, I see. Your argument is basically, then, “trust me, we’re going to see 4C and a meter and its going to be bad!”

        Pardon me if I don’t trust you or your cry of “wolf!”. Been there, heard the predictions of doom before.

      • Scott you have to put 4C warming (or even 2C) in context of how much climate has typically warmed and cooled over the past few thousand years.

        2C or 4C in a matter of centuries would be a massive jump to not only a temperature level not seen for millions of years, but a possibly unprecedented fast change to get there.

        The danger here is pretty obvious, to anyone who understands climate changes impact the environment and species (including us)

      • k scott denison

        lolw0t | August 11, 2013 at 8:37 am |
        Scott you have to put 4C warming (or even 2C) in context of how much climate has typically warmed and cooled over the past few thousand years.
        =========
        Actually, I don’t have to put 4C in any context given that I don’t believe there is scientific evidence that 4C will happen anytime soon. To me, it’s just like the Y2K “the world is going to end if we don’t do something now” meme. Just another group crying “wolf!”

      • ksd, it doesn’t look like you have attempted to understand the science, so we can take your opinion for what it is worth.

      • k scott denison

        Jim D | August 11, 2013 at 9:07 pm |
        ksd, it doesn’t look like you have attempted to understand the science, so we can take your opinion for what it is worth.
        ===================
        Which science is it you think I’m not understanding?

    • What was prematurely articulated was CO2 as a climate control knob. They knew not what they did. Sorcerer’s Apprentices, the lot.
      ================

      • All the evidence is that CO2 is a climate control knob.

        Even if we go with 1C warming per doubling of CO2, and CO2 rises from 280ppm (preindustrial) to a future level of 800ppm (if we keep burning it all), that’s 1.5C warming.

        Almost twice the total warming of the 20th century and a lot of that would have been due to CO2.

        So then natural variation is much smaller than the effect of CO2. Natural variation is a few tenths of a degree C up or down each century. CO2 is 1.5C upwards.

        The control is obvious, and this assumes a low climate sensitivity of 1C per doubling.

      • lolwot

        Go right ahead and believe in the CO2 control knob dogma.

        Doesn’t say too much for your smarts, though.

        Max

      • Max seems unable to understand the difference between ‘a’ and ‘the’.

        Does say an awful lot about his ‘smarts’.

      • It all depends upon the meaning of ‘smarts’.
        ===========

      • Someone is struggling with the condensable or non condensable properties of various greenhouse gases.

      • With an effectively infinite reservoir of water vapor (the ocean), only the temperature acts as a lid for the amount in the atmosphere because it condenses. Rising temperatures raise this lid in a predictable way following Clausius-Clapeyron. CO2 raises the temperature 1 degree per doubling. The H2O lid rises by 7% per degree. Therefore CO2 is the control knob, but this just comes from physics.

      • JimD, “The H2O lid rises by 7% per degree. Therefore CO2 is the control knob, but this just comes from physics.”
        No it doesn’t. If you have a closed system where you can ensure a uniform rise in temperature yes, but the oceans are not a closed system. Most of the evaporation is in the tropics/lower latitudes and most of the temperature increase is in the higher latitude/ dryer regions. Ocean heat content is increasing the average deep ocean temperature by ~1 C every 400-500 years which is not adding to evaporation significantly with an average deep ocean temperature of ~4C degrees. Average “surface” temperature is just about meaningless. You seem to have a great deal of misplaced confidence.

        Now if you want to considered the regions were most of the evaporation takes place, changes in precipitation are generally associated with ENSO, AMO and PDO phases so regional SST would be more meaningful, not some “global” temperature that doesn’t capture the dynamics.

        http://www.kent.edu/news/newsdetail.cfm?newsitem=A7AEAD67-9129-E56B-3FDB39BA8BB24555

        News release for a Pacific SST study which does tend to drive atmospheric water vapor and precipitation.

        http://instaar.colorado.edu/~marchitt/reprints/tmmscience10.pdf

        There is the whole paper.

        Or you could just look at Chief’s ENSO/SOI stuff.

      • captd, try it at home (or in a lab). A one degree rise in water temperature increases the amount of vapor above it. Your obfuscations can’t deny the basic physics that happens over water surfaces.

      • JimD, “captd, try it at home (or in a lab). A one degree rise in water temperature increases the amount of vapor above it. Your obfuscations can’t deny the basic physics that happens over water surfaces.”

        JimD, learn to read. If the one degree rise in the water temperature is in a lab, yes. At 2000 meters below the surface no. If the one degree already has a saturated vapor pressure you get something different than if the surface rH is 50% or 10%. You are not in a lab and averaging the “surface” temperature for 350 million square kilometers in an open system is nearly meaningless.

        You note that diurnal temperature change reversed trend then mumble some nonsense about when the precipitation catches up with land warming then everything will fit again. The trend shifted nearly 30 years ago. The ocean surface warming since 1995 has been near zero. The stratosphere trend flatted in 1995. It is almost like the thermostat kicked in isn’t it?

        read the marchitto paper

      • captd, I don’t know why you keep talking about below the surface. CO2 raises the surface temperature, which is also the part that determines atmospheric H2O. Is it that hard to understand?

      • JimD, “captd, I don’t know why you keep talking about below the surface. CO2 raises the surface temperature, which is also the part that determines atmospheric H2O. Is it that hard to understand?”

        CO2 does not uniformly raise surface temperatures and definitely does not raise “surface” temperatures as much in the presence of saturated water vapor. If it did, the tropical oceans would be warming at the same rate as the northern high latitudes, is that so hard to understand?

        The reason I talk about below the surface, is because the mean temperature of the SST is actually the mean temperature of the sub surface mixing layer. If you use the wrong temperature you get the wrong result ala K&T who underestimated latent cooling by nearly 10 Wm-2.

        If you compare the “actual” SST by hemisphere where “actually” is approximated by satellite at the actual surface, the SH oceans average ~17 C from 70S to Equ and the NH is ~21.6C from equ to 70N. Then if you really want to get serious you can compare the eastern and western hemispheres. Pay particular not to the western hemisphere which includes the Atlantic using the prime meridian.

        Then you might understand why I provided the Marchitto 2010, as in more recent peer reviewed literature, that attempts to explain the ocean dynamic thermostat.

      • captd, you are probably not realizing we are talking about equilibrium conditions, not transients, or are you thinking the tropics won’t warm by 1 degree with CO2 doubling? You have a block somewhere, and I can’t see what it is.

      • JimD, “captd, you are probably not realizing we are talking about equilibrium conditions, not transients, or are you thinking the tropics won’t warm by 1 degree with CO2 doubling? You have a block somewhere, and I can’t see what it is.”

        I am talking about a limit aka thermostat. For each theoretical degree of “average” SST warming there is an associated amount of latent cooling based on the absolute temperature not anomaly. When the latent cooling equals the surface forcing, warming stops. That energy is transferred to the lower atmosphere and its surface impacts depends on poleward transport, the shifting westerlies.

        You and Webster focus on fat tail possibilities instead of diving into the fun part of the problem, the complex negative feed backs.

      • captd, unfortunately your cooling doesn’t stop the CO2 warming effect. The CO2 will warm the surface temperature until it has risen by the required amount to balance it radiatively. It doesn’t matter what goes on between. It is a given in the first step.

      • JimD, “The CO2 will warm the surface temperature until it has risen by the required amount to balance it radiatively. ”

        Right, ~ 0.8C from a moist air boundary layer at ~316 Wm-2, the planetary boundary layer. If you actually consider that there was a little ice age event that had a “global” impact impact of ~0.9 C, we are back at the upper bound or strange attractor if you prefer, the Planck response ~316-340 Wm-2. Without adding mass to the atmosphere or snow/land based ice for positi8ve feed back, you have hit the upper “normal” limit.

        That was another K&T mistake. They estimated an atmospheric window radiation of 40Wm-2 as being from the :”surface” where Stephens et al. more accurately estimated the :”surface” window as being 20 Wm-2. Half of the CO2 potential warming was an accounting error. The Sky Dragons said K&T violated the second law and it did because of that mistake.

        Estimates of TCR and ECS are dropping like a brick for a reason. Natural internal variability research is increasing for a reason. The reason is “Persian Flaws” belong in rugs not science.

      • captd, it is also said that GCMs are closer to Stephens than to K&T, but it is not correct to say that K&T had an error of any significant magnitude. Measurements can refine things, and Stephens did that refinement years after K&T. No basic ideas changed. Science advances by refinement.

      • JimD, “captd, it is also said that GCMs are closer to Stephens than to K&T, but it is not correct to say that K&T had an error of any significant magnitude. Measurements can refine things, and Stephens did that refinement years after K&T. No basic ideas changed. Science advances by refinement.”

        Years? You mean like 2-3 years? The FTK 2009 had the same error even though they admitted to a “minor adjustment”. The error, ~18Wm-2 would be significant versus CO2 forcing and thermonuclear war. Still FTK professed a “certainty” of 0.9 +/- 0.15 Wm-2 while whining about missing heat. The whole object of ERBS and CERES was to reduce uncertainty which FTK ignored.

        So now since science advances by refinement, it would be nice if science blog commentors could as well. Better yet, wouldn’t it be nice if FK&T followed Wikipedia’s lead and pulled their old Persian budgets so science could march on?

      • captd, from the abstract the only significant things they mention are that there is more precipitation than previous estimates and they increased the back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface (more GHG effect). These don’t seem to be related to anything you said about it. Where are you getting that stuff?

      • JimD, Where am I getting this stuff? From their budget. It doesn’t balance with 40 Wm-2 of window flux. Stephens et al. estimate the window flux at 20 +/-4 Wm-2 and Stevens ans Schwartz at 22 Wm-2 which agrees with my original 18Wm-2 estimate. Water/ice/water vapor in the atmosphere absorb solar energy at ~75 Wm-2 making up half, 1/2, 50% of the DWLR of 334 Wm-2 +/- 15.

        If you look at the Stephens et al budget they use the terms “latent heating” and “sensible heating” because the “surface” that responds to WMGHG forcing is above the planetary boundary layer. There is no Tropical Troposphere Hot Spot for a reason, CO2 does not impact the tropical SST to any significant degree. Atmospheric water/ice shields the surface. That is Solar’s wheelhouse which Marchitto et al. notices has century to millennial scale responses to solar forcing.

        Here, compare a day/night budget.
        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/08/it-is-as-simple-as-night-and-day-day.html

      • captd, how do you get that the GHG effect is weaker when they have a higher back radiation?

      • JimD, “captd, how do you get that the GHG effect is weaker when they have a higher back radiation?”

        By considering an Atmospheric Effect and a Greenhouse Effect. The well mixed GHGs help the atmosphere maintain its energy level. Basically, the GHE reduces the DTR. Increasing GHGs will help the atmosphere retain more energy but not produce any more energy than the atmosphere can hold. Since water/ice/water vapor, ozone, absorb solar energy, that portion is not due to the WMGHGs. If you don’t consider when and where solar is absorbed you over estimate the WMGHG portion of the effect.

        The total impact doesn’t change, just the attribution.

      • captd, I don’t know about what you said, but increased downward IR at the surface makes the atmosphere a better insulator, which some regard as the greenhouse effect, so Stephens has emphasized this insulation effect more than K&T. Few skeptics would be happy with this direction Stephens went, if they realized, especially the skydragons.

      • JimD, “captd, I don’t know about what you said, but increased downward IR at the surface makes the atmosphere a better insulator, which some regard as the greenhouse effect, so Stephens has emphasized this insulation effect more than K&T. Few skeptics would be happy with this direction Stephens went, if they realized, especially the skydragons.”

        I doubt the Sky Dragons would ever be happy, but the Stephens et al. approach is more illustrative of the combined effects. Based on the simplistic Greenhouse Effect analogy, all of the solar penetrates a transparent atmosphere and is absorbed by a single “surface”. You only have one surface and one “sensitivity”. In reality a portion, 150Wm-2, is absorbed in the atmosphere and 330 Wm-2 is absorbed at the surface during “Day” mode with some portion absorbed below the “surface”. You have three surfaces to consider with three “sensitivities” to consider due to solar. One of the reasons “sensitivity” is non-linear.

        Since energy is absorbed at different levels of the atmosphere, you have the added problem of the upper 25% of the atmospheric mass, not included AFAIK, which provides another layer of insulation which is more greatly impacted by solar max/min cycles which should also have some magnetic field orientation impacts. That should be negligible, but with “sensitivity” being lower, it can play a larger than expected role.

        Climate Models as the stand now are a lot like taking a knife to a gunfight.

      • I’ll just end where I started. Good try at obfuscation, but basically off the subject which is just basic physics, captd. I said…
        With an effectively infinite reservoir of water vapor (the ocean), only the temperature acts as a lid for the amount in the atmosphere because it condenses. Rising temperatures raise this lid in a predictable way following Clausius-Clapeyron. CO2 raises the temperature 1 degree per doubling. The H2O lid rises by 7% per degree. Therefore CO2 is the control knob, but this just comes from physics.

      • JimD, “I’ll just end where I started. Good try at obfuscation, but basically off the subject which is just basic physics, captd. I said…
        With an effectively infinite reservoir of water vapor (the ocean), only the temperature acts as a lid for the amount in the atmosphere because it condenses. Rising temperatures raise this lid in a predictable way following Clausius-Clapeyron. CO2 raises the temperature 1 degree per doubling. The H2O lid rises by 7% per degree. Therefore CO2 is the control knob, but this just comes from physics.”

        Not if the water vapor intercepts the incoming solar. with 150/330 you have a ratio of 0.45 with 88Wm-2 of surface evaporation. If the latent increases, the ratio changes so more solar is absorbed in the atmosphere as well as scattered and reflected. You are assuming that the same solar keeps making it to the surface. It doesn’t. That also comes from physics. You have two reservoirs, one near infinite and the other finite.

        That is not obfuscation, that’s just the facts Jack.

      • captd, you are inventing a new mechanism that doesn’t make sense. I think you work backwards from trying to get a negative feedback from water vapor, don’t you?

      • JimD, “captd, you are inventing a new mechanism that doesn’t make sense. I think you work backwards from trying to get a negative feedback from water vapor, don’t you?”

        No, I was curious how K&T could miss 18Wm-2 and started digging. Most of the 18Wm-2 was due to mixed phase clouds, primarily in the Arctic and water vapor absorption at lower angles, the lower angles increase the effective path length allowing more solar to be absorbed. Both of those can be a positive feed back or a negative feed back depending on time of day. The biggest negative feedback is the diurnal cloud formation cycle. When clouds form earlier they absorb/reflect more of the solar energy and burn off/ rainout earlier allowing more radiant cooling. That is why Callandar considered clouds a neutral to negative feed back.

        His model is working pretty good by the way.

      • K&T was about an energy budget, not climate change feedbacks. Energy budgets have to consider clouds too, but not how they would vary in a forcing change. I don’t know if Stephens proposed a cloud feedback, but that would be interesting because it was just current observations in their abstract.

    • The 2 linked articles here. Perhaps it’s a bit too much to expect of the media to be able to hold its position and concern over the last so many years of flattening temperatures or however you want to describe it.

  11. As i said on the previous thread, I deny the pause in climate change. Climate is 30-year averages. This is the 30-year average and how it is changing (up to date) from two global temperature sources.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:360/plot/gistemp/from:1850/mean:360
    The latest trend is 0.17 C per decade and this looks steady. The ‘pause’ is an illusion of a more rapid rise followed by a correction that evens out in 30-year trends. The pause is just a feature of natural decadal variability, not present in climate change.

    • For the sake of humoring you, fine. Many of the more rabid warmists are now conceding the pause, but if you want to hang on by your fingernails, that’s your prerogative. Nonetheless, even giving you this, the models on which this whole rube goldberg contraption is built, have almost all wildly over-estimated any warming…during a period of much increases co2. Even you can’t get around that.

      • I don’t agree with him but he does have a valid point in that how many years do you use to compute an average? Shouldn’t this be agreed upon before using the data to support whatever premise you may have?

      • It’s long amused me that one phase of the PDO is around 30 years. So, you got your 30 year trend, and boom! a new phase and new climate.
        ==============

      • The pause is natural variation on short time scales, so I agree with people who say that. It doesn’t show up in climate trends, so I disagree with people who relate it to climate change.

      • Web:-
        ” If one looks at the Law Dome CO2 proxy data, it appears that as much of 0.25 C of the warming may be due to CO2 if one assumes a 2C per doubling of CO2 as a global sensitivity number”

        If your position is that the climate sensitivity is only 2 degrees, then I am afraid that you are going to be classified as a ‘Denialist’.

      • “If your position is that the climate sensitivity is only 2 degrees, then I am afraid that you are going to be classified as a ‘Denialist’.”

        The 2C per doubling is a rough transient value that doesn’t apply to the eventual steady state, which would be about 3 degrees per doubling of CO2.

        This is not just a theoretical exercise since the 3C sensitivity does apply to land regions but without the long lag of ocean temperatures. I use 2C per doubling because the chart of temperature rise shown used both ocean and land data, and ocean contributes 70% of the weighting.

        This is a hard concept for the 3% to grasp.

      • Here ya go Webster,

        https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-D5O-pgo6B64/Uganj34OMcI/AAAAAAAAJKE/Lj19Xm_yWvg
        /s581/edc%2520dome%2520c%2520c02%252011000.png

        Maybe you can see that better. ~20 ppmv so the “globe” must have warmed ~.0.2 C over the past 7000 years. Good thing too, when CO2 drops below 265 there has to be an ice age. The great and power Carbon says so.

      • What’s the matter Webster? Did Catastrophic divergence get your tongue?

        Since you are the guy that has all the CO2 answers, noting how “global” CO2 is joined to the IndoPacific Warm Pool hip, that compares the Antarctic Dome C Co2 record to the equatorial Pacific. Other than that nasty 2000 year CO2 lagging temperature at the start of the interglacial, the fit is not that bad. Stott btw is one of those CO2/Temperature not so linear relationship guys. He is also keen on the solar processional cycle and Calcium Compensation Depth drift.

      • Cappy Dick says over 7000 years that there has been about a 20 PPM change in atmospheric CO2 levels, which is a very, very gradual change of 0.3C at high sensitivity or about 0.0004C per decade.

        Are you seasick or something?

      • Webster, “Cappy Dick says over 7000 years that there has been about a 20 PPM change in atmospheric CO2 levels, which is a very, very gradual change of 0.3C at high sensitivity or about 0.0004C per decade.

        Are you seasick or something?”

        Nope, that 20 ppm is 22 percent of the 190 to 280 ppm range that gradually increased well after the start of the Holocene and correlates with the gradual warming of the tropical pacific oceans. With the “global” cooling supposedly for the past 7000 years CO2 should have been reducing. The Holocene appears to be a little bit special since a typical interglacial would have continued cooling with the cooling accelerating once CO2 fell below 265 ppm.

        “The reconstructed CO2 record shows that the Northern Hemisphere glaciation starts once the long-term average CO2 concentration drops below 265ppmv after a period of strong decrease in CO2 . Finally, only a small long-term decline of 23ppmv is found during the mid-Pleistocene transition, constraining theories on this major transition in the climate system. The approach is not accurate enough to revise current ideas about climate sensitivity.”
        http://epic.awi.de/25382/4/vandewal2011cp.pdf

        It is unlikely that the 20 ppm rise caused warming but was more likely caused by warming. Cooling while CO2 increases, like Marcott implies, doesn’t seem to make sense. Of course, there are numerous issue with Marcott, but that’s you reference for cooling for the past 7000 years with no MWP period and no LIA worth considering.

      • Many would suggest that the climate record is relatively flat for the past 10000 years. CO2 increased by 5% and that would effect the temperature by 0.2 to 0.3 degrees assuming the 3C climate sensitivity.

        Not a large dynamic range to draw conclusions over, which I think is the point of the hockey stick metaphor.

    • Jim, just wondering how the rise from 1900-1940 is explained?

      • I would say half of it was solar because the sun was much less active in 1910 than in 1950, and the other half CO2, so about 0.2 degrees due to each.

      • That’s about right, JimD. If one looks at the Law Dome CO2 proxy data, it appears that as much of 0.25 C of the warming may be due to CO2 if one assumes a 2C per doubling of CO2 as a global sensitivity number.
        Here is a quick curve:

        Note that CO2 changed by more than 25 PPM during this period (starting from a base of 283PPM) which translates as significant on the log sensitivity scale.

        3*ln((283+25)/283) = 0.25C

      • Jim D

        Good point about the sun (being responsible for around half the past warming). Several solar studies have also come to this conclusion.

        The unusually high level of 20thC solar activity (highest in several thousand years according to some solar studies) certainly had an impact.

        For example, the average Wolf number of:
        – SC 10-15 (1858-1928) was around 90, and
        – SC 18-23 (1945-2008) was around 148 (peaking in SC19 at 190)
        (i.e. a 64% increase)

        SC23 was already much lower and it appears that SC24 will be even lower yet.

        So the sun has very likely played a significant role in the past warming and may be playing a role in the current lack of warming.

        All makes sense to me, Jim.

        Max

      • 3*ln((283+25)/283) = 0.25C
        3*ln(2)=2.08 C per doubling.neglecting any other factor that may have contributed, like ~0.9C recovery from a cooler period to be renamed later.


      • captdallas 0.8 or less | August 10, 2013 at 3:15 pm |

        3*ln((283+25)/283) = 0.25C
        3*ln(2)=2.08 C per doubling.neglecting any other factor that may have contributed, like ~0.9C recovery from a cooler period to be renamed later.

        The global average temperature has been on a decline since 7000 years ago, so your compensation has the wrong sign.

      • So when it comes to attribution for the 0,7 C rise in the 20th century, 0.2 C is from a solar increase, 0.9 C is from CO2 and -0.4 C is from aerosols. “Skeptics” often forget aerosols even though they are looking actively for negative effects.

      • Webster, “The global average temperature has been on a decline since 7000 years ago, so your compensation has the wrong sign.”

        Nope, NH was on a decline, Tropics slight increase and SH on an upswing. There is a see saw effect related to the ~20ka precessional cycle more strongly evident near the poles. Since the game has shifted from “surface” temperature to OHC, which orientation do you think has more impact on SST and ocean heat content?

        btw, if temperatures “globally” were in decline, why has CO2 in the Antarctic Ice cores risen for the past 7000 years? Natural CO2 should have peaked 7000 years ago, not started increasing again.

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/04/playing-with-proxy-reconstructions.html

      • Over 7000 years, not much of a change in CO2 PPM.

      • Webster, could you make that the full 800ka so it would be really hard to see the past 7ka? There is not much change, but what is the direction of change?

        That is ~20ka, the CO2 is in red.

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | August 10, 2013 at 4:20 pm said: ”Over 7000 years, not much of a change in CO2 PPM”

        wrong! for the last 7 000y most of the planets forest were turned into the today’s deserts. Uncontrollable bush-fires by rubbing two sticks – just the ”environmentalist brainwashing books” avoid reality. That’s when most of CO2 was released

      • Jim D

        IPCC AR4 has made it easy for us to attribute the various pieces of anthropogenic forcing.

        According to AR4, the past radiative forcing from all other anthropogenic factors other than CO2 (other GHGs, aerosols, etc.) cancelled one another out, so that forcing from CO2 = total anthropogenic forcing.

        But IPCC had problems with natural forcing, conceding that its level of scientific understanding of natural (solar) forcing was low.

        It also conceded that clouds remain the largest source of uncertainty.

        Fortunately there have been several solar studies, which show us that around 50% of all the past warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th C solar activity (highest in several thousand years).

        This was higher in the early 20th C warming cycle than in the statistically indistinguishable late 20th C warming cycle, where anthropogenic forcing played a greater role. It is even lower now.

        The role of clouds is still unclear and being debated.

        So you see that there is still a high amount of disagreement regarding anthropogenic versus natural attribution of past warming.

        Max

      • The science is quite clear that the anthropogenic forcing is much larger, order of magnitude, than the solar forcing.

      • lolw0t |
        The science is quite clear that the anthropogenic forcing is much larger, order of magnitude, than the solar forcing.

        For “science”, read “models contradicted by measurements”.

    • Jim D August 10, 2013 at 12:10 pm: “As i said on the previous thread, I deny the pause in climate change. Climate is 30-year averages.”

      I am not sure you are saying what you mean. The climate is always changing so everyone would agree that there is no “pause in climate change.” I don’t think many would agree that climate respects a “30-year average.” Best I can tell the 30 years was chosen based on modern global temperature measurements and that 30 year period conveniently begins during the low point of a 70 year cycle. That is just as arbitrary as when some one picks the past 1,000 years. I have read more statistical justification for a 15 year period than I have for an arbitrary 30 year period.
      Incidently your reference covers 140 years beginning at the end of the little ice age and ending in 2000 before the pause.

      • With 22-year filters (as Vaughan Pratt used recently) or 30-years you get a similar two-rise pattern in the 20th century. This is the real climate change. The first rise is possibly half solar, half CO2, the mid-century pause may be an aerosol growth and global dimming (if you look spatially where that cooling was), and the late century rise was CO2-dominated being largely in the northern continents and Arctic.

    • David Springer

      You’re in denial now,
      Behind a farting cow,
      Discovered your niche,
      To kvetch, moan, and bitch,
      You’re in denial now.

    • Jim D

      When you discuss a “trend of X degrees C per decade, you should look at the change per decade.

      And that was slight cooling of around 0.05C for the most recent decade (where IPCC had predicted GH warming of 0.2C per decade.

      30-year averages are tiny “blips” in the overall record.

      Look at the entire 160+ year average for a better picture.

      Or, better yet, using CET as a proxy, for example, at the past several hundred years.

      It will tell you more than a mere 30-year “blip”.

      Max

    • k scott denison

      Jim D | August 10, 2013 at 12:10 pm | Reply
      As i said on the previous thread, I deny the pause in climate change. Climate is 30-year averages.
      ========
      Why 30 JimD and not 28 or 32 or 100 for that matter? What science supports your assertion that climate is 30-year averages?

    • Is it just me or has anyone else notice that way the wind has changed?
      We now have ‘warmistas’ declaring that variations in solar output are able to change global temperature. This is of course complete nonsense, as anyone with a background in realclimate science knows; the Great Gavin himself has stated time and again that variations in solar output have contributed between nothing and close to nothing to the Earths temperature
      :-
      ” I think that the solar variations are indeed a factor in driving climate change, though my opinion is that it is a relatively small factor over the last century. It’s difficult to assign a specific number because of the uncertainties in solar and other forcings particularly early in the century and in even working out the correct calculation to do – i.e. since there are multiple positive and negative forcings it will depend on how you group them. If you lump them as ‘natural’ forcings vs. ‘anthropogenic’ forcings, you end up with something like 20% natural from 1900 to 1940 (note that I haven’t done this calc exactly), and even less since then. There is the potential for some wiggle room there though. You can do the calculations yourself based on the forcing fields available at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/F.indiv.data.txt. -gavin

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

      “What we see is how science often works – increases in knowledge by increments and independent studies re-affirming previous findings, namely that changes in the sun play a minor role in climate change on decadal to centennial scales. After all, 2009 was the second-warmest year on record, and by far the warmest in the southern hemisphere, despite the record solar minimum. ”

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/more-on-sun-climate-relations/

      The greatest mathematician and climate statistician of all time also poo-poo’s solar as a drive of natural variability.

      “The cooling effect of man-made sulfates also helps explain the hemispheric asymmetry in temperature history. Most industrial activity is in the northern hemisphere, so most of the anthropogenic sulfate cooling should be there too. The northern hemisphere has warmed faster than the southern because there’s more land in the north than the south, and land has far less thermal inertia than ocean. But if sulfates are mostly in the northern hemisphere, that means that there should have been a stronger mid-century cooling effect in the north than in the south — and that’s exactly what we observe:

      http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/antrhopogenic-global-cooling/

      So begone foul solar energy flux changes, you can’t have it both ways. Now all you have to do is explain why there is a long lag between the increase in CO2 levels changes and the Earths temperature coming to steady state (i.ie. why you talk about ‘transient’ and ‘equilibrium’ climate sensitivity), but an instantaneous changes in temperature with aerosols or solar changes.

      You guys are so much fun, its like watching the look of horror on the face of a man juggling chainsaws when he realizes he is about to sneeze.

      • The number of sunspots tripled between 1910 and mid-century. That has got to have an effect. There have always been irradiance proxies, such as Lean et al. that use this, but some chose not to believe them.

    • As soon as someone defines what a pause is, then I can decide if I deny it or not.

    • Jim D

      As i said on the previous thread, I deny the pause in climate change.

      Is “climate change denial” rearing its ugly head here?

      For shame!

      Max

  12. What are your thoughts on this commentary, Judith?

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/storm-chasers/

    • I think the gentleman is referring to this comment in the reference: “After two busy hurricane years in 2004 and 2005, many of the world’s leading experts (including Judith Curry and Roger Pielke) concluded that global warming was making major hurricanes hit more often.”
      Based on prevailing data, at one point or another most of us were believers in AGW. My observation has been that our hostess has adhered to the adage “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”. There are some, however, who have their reputations and income stream invested to the point that they can’t follow the data.

  13. This thread has meandered, as any weekend thread will do. I’d like to get back to a point which has gotten a bit lost, please forgive for repetition from above:

    Having just reviewed Judith’s post on (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists, After Climategate, Himalayan melt impacts, I would like to express my admiration for her all over again.

    Despite all the personal attacks people in her position get, she has decided she will pursue science, real science unpolluted by societal trends, to wherever it goes, at whatever personal cost. Thank heavens that we have people like Judith, even if we don’t have quite enough of them. Roger Pielke Jr. also falls in this category, I’ve seen him get smeared by the likes of Chris Fields on TV, and I saw his emotional reaction. But he kept his cool, stated the science, instead of reacting in kind. His analyses of historical records of damage from tornados and hurricanes is crucial to a full and unbiased understanding of historical trends, not available anywhere else. Hats off to those scientists who do what Judith and Roger do, despite all the personal abuse they get.

    We actually have some real heros and heroines to look up to here. Let’s put our hands together for Judith and Roger.

    • I’ve seen him get smeared by the likes of Chris Fields on TV, and I saw his emotional reaction. But he kept his cool, stated the science, instead of reacting in kind.

      I don’t agree that Judith pursues the science “unpolluted by societal trends,” (an impossible standard) but I will join you in expressing appreciation for her attempts to do so.

      RPJr., IMO, is different kettle of fish. He’s just as much of a climate warrior as anyone else.

      Without commenting on his science per se, or the specific incident you’re characterizing, he “smears” on a pretty regular basis on his blog,.

      • Joshua, I will not let your unsubstantiated smear of Roger Pielke, Jr. stand uncontested. I have never seen him engage in anything that could reasonably be called a “smear” of anyone. In fact, unlike so many in the climate debates he seems to be remarkably evidence-driven. I don’t know the man beyond reading some of his blog writings, but unless you have evidence to offer your “smear” comments are most unworthy of this forum.

      • Skiphil –

        I guess it depends on what you consider to be a smear.

        As one example, he has insinuated that he was released from editorial responsibilities because of the content of his science and not the reasons as stated by the officials who released him. He offered no concrete proof, and instead insinuated unethical behavior of others based on nothing other than circumstantial speculation. He uses terms like “climate chickens” to describe those who disagree with him.

        I don’t think that Roger should be condemned in some fashion for the way that he engages this debate – as it is no different than the fashion in which many engage in this debate. Further, his manner of engagement is not (necessarily) directly relevant to his science. But I also see no reason to pretend that his manner of engagement is distinct in character than that of myriad others, on both sides – or that somehow he stands outside the circle of science affected by “societal trends.”

      • Joshua

        Just saying it doesn’t make it true.

        Max

      • Steven Mosher

        manaker,

        you should go read the thread where Joshua tried everything to pin bad motives on Jr.

        Very telling

      • > I have never seen him engage in anything that could reasonably be called a “smear” of anyone.

        Perhaps this:

        [O]ne climate scientist suggests that my calling out Al Gore for misrepresenting the science of disasters and climate change […] to be morally comparable to killing 1,000 people. I kid you not.

        http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/character_assassination_in_climate_science_the_michael_tobis_story

        If that’s not strong enough, I can find other honestly broke episodes with Junior.

      • Steve, Josh is the most level headed poster here; he has a chip on each shoulder.

      • David Springer

        A smear is exemplified by the yellow streak that runs down Joshua’s back.

      • Doc – good line at 7:59. I’m stealing borrowing it.

      • As I said in the thread, steven Roger asks “When did you stop beating your wife?” and then says that he never said that you beat your wife.

        It’s kind of a specialty of his. ‘

        Hey, just another day in the climate blogospohere. Same ol’ same ol,.’ Not really a big deal. But IMO, if you’;re going to play those games then own up to it, and don’t pretend that somehow you’re above the fray.

    • It takes rare courage to resist the relentless, merciless onslaught of those aboard the global warming bandwagon, particularly in the US. Judith Curry has it in heaps, obviously, otherwise she would not have prevailed. But moreover, it takes an extraordinary clarity of purpose and a fiercely independent intellect to pierce through the veil of poor science, pseudoscience and outright propaganda masquerading as concerned advocacy science and remain steadfast in a position of scientific authority. So great respect to Judith and other outspoken career scientists doing similar. I have a feeling their lives are going to get easier – though I would prepare for a last-minute barrage of hatred and vitriol from those aboard the ‘good’ ship CAGW as it starts to sink beneath the waves of an ignominious history.

      • “But moreover, it takes an extraordinary clarity of purpose and a fiercely independent intellect to pierce through the veil of poor science, pseudoscience”

        That’s my job, see http://tinyurl.com/ClimateClowns

        The pseudoscience by the commenters on this blog is about as bad as it gets. Yet, no one on the mildly skeptical side challenges any of this stuff.

        My advisor’s advisor is Robert Park, who writes the long-running What’s New blog (since long before a blog was called a blog) and is the author of “Voodoo science: the road from foolishness to fraud” and “Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science”. He is my inspiration for pointing out poor science and pseudoscience.

        I hope Dr. Park recovers from his recent health problems and resumes his writing.

      • David Springer

        Maybe you can get Dr. Park here to help you challenge stuff. I agree you’re doing a piss poor job of it by yourself.

      • Ahh, David Springer, the accolyte of William Dembski of Intelligent Design fame. Springer moderated Dembski’s ridiculous Uncommon Descent blog for some time.

        The connection to Park here is that Robert Park said this about Dembski being given the Trotter Prize :
        http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn040805.html

        “How better to illustrate the overlap than to give the award this year to one of the nation’s top pseudoscientists, Dr. William Demski, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, often regarded as the leading intelligent-design theorist. The Intelligent-Design movement seeks to portray intelligent-design as science.”

        Springer is the same type of pseudoscientist as his buddy Dembski. Congrats to you Springer.

      • David Springer

        Does that mean you can or can’t get Dr Parks here to help you out?

      • David Springer

        P.S. That’s the Reverend Doctor Doctor Dembski to a lowly single PhD like Parks. LOL Pass it on.

      • Robert Park is past president of the American Physical Society, of whose members would laugh hysterically should someone like Dembski try to apply for the position.

      • David Springer

        Field Guide to Climate Clowns is broken with every browser I tried. Can read the blog but the guide is a blank window.

        http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/01/field-guide-to-climate-clowns.html

        Your http://tinyurl.com/climateclowns doesn’t do jack schit either. Did you fall the internet turnip truck yesterday or what?

      • David Springer

        Trotter prize recipients would laugh hysterically at bragging about being an American Physical Society president.

      • David Springer

        By the way whut Robert Park was not an APS president.

        http://www.aps.org/about/governance/presidents.cfm

        What is your major malfunction?

  14. I have a very simple question to which I don’t know the answer:
    What caused the Little Ice Age and why did we recover from it?
    A second question:
    If we had modern instrumentation during the LIA would we understand it better?

    • My personal favorite is evil europeans brought their filthy diseases to the pristine new world. Millions of natives died. Their previously cleared land quickly reverted to forest. This sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere, and the weakened GHE resulted in rapid cooling.

      It snags me in a mire of guilt, and I like that.

    • There are millenial scale changes the causes of which we know not. They were ignored in the rush to ‘Hockey Stick’ and supporting the narrative of man’s guilt. It’s not the first time we’ve embraced a mistaken narrative nor will it be the last. We have ears and ignorance, and that is enough.
      =================

    • I agree its a good question. i think that there is some speculation that it was due to the Maunder solar minimum. It’s really a stretch to say it was due to CO2 as ice cores show very little change.

      • Even Leif Svalgaard thinks a Maunder Minimum may be on the way, but he doesn’t have the mechanism for it to cool the globe, despite spending a long productive career looking for it.
        ========================

      • The authors of this paper think they may have found a mechanism.

        http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/soon_legate.pdf

      • Amplified but dampable. Hmmmm.
        ================

      • I’m glad to see that this question has provoked a response.

        To quote AP Herbert: “If no one were to open their mouths without knowing exactly what they were talking about, a deadly hush would fall upon the World”!

        I agree that the modern warming period could be a random fluctuation and I wrote a post about it:

        https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/19/autocorrelation-and-trends/

        This was damned with faint praise by the good lady herself and the thread was dominated by WebHubTelescope giving his insights. I realise in retrospect that I should have recalculated the statistics assuming an underlying trend representing recovery from the LIA (whatever it was).

        One upshot of the analysis, which was a response to Ludecke et al, based on the idea of a system lag, i.e.: storage of thermal energy and a random forcing is that a high temperature predisposes to an increasing temeperature trend and a low temperature predisposes to a low temperature trend. In this case the LIA could conceivably have been a random fluctuation.

        However, I don’t believe that this model is correct and in the post I was “flying a kite”.

      • RC Saumarez

        I think I was on holiday when you posted the original article. Yes, WHT did dominate it but he was being quite helpful.

        I wrote an article that encompassed the whole of the main period of the LIA that you might find has useful background data.

        https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

        it was written from a British perspective but CET has a wider proxy relevance than merely England.

        The LIA was episodic not one continual extended era. Its first phase can be traced to around 1215 to 1290 when the warmer periods of a further phase of the MWP then predominated again. .

        As you probably know the LIA was characterised by some very extreme weather (storms/floods/droughts etc) and also by hot summers that often counterbalanced the cold winters.

        Its cause? Prof Fagan doesn’t know and nor do I. Perhaps it was solar related or perhaps solar related with blocking highs and changes in circulation in both the air and ocean.
        Hope you will feel able to write a follow up to your original article.
        tonyb

      • R C Saumarez.

        Why did we recover? The ice melted :) Probably with a little help from agriculture. Why did it happen? These guys have a few thoughts.

        http://instaar.colorado.edu/~marchitt/reprints/tmmscience10.pdf

      • Climatereason

        Thanks for the link.

        The reason I posed this question was simply that this (LIA, recovery) seems to be one of the biggest climate events in relatively recent history. Its seems to be roundly ignored and nobody, as far as I can tell, can account for it. My instinct is that it is most likely to be related to the sun or astronomical effects.

        However, if we cannot account for an event of this importance, there seems to be something missing from an overall theory of climate. Can the modelling boys account for it through hindcasting? I suspect not.

      • RC Saumarez

        I wrote about noticeable climate effects here

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/

        (see figure 4 in particular)

        The recovery in 1700 from the coldest period of the ice age was by far the biggest hockey stick in instrumental history.

        Historical climatology has become unfashionable in recent times although. 30 years ago such as Hubert Lamb and Ladurie investigated hundreds of events covering the LIA. In recent decades we seem so beguiled by the modern hockey stick that the bigger ones in the past are overlooked.

        Our knowledge of the climate is still at a very primitive stage although we like to believe we have a good grasp on how it works.

        The recovery from the LIA and then a decades long period of considerable warmth seem to be of little interest to modern funded researchers. That temperatures have been on the rise for 350 years also seems to be forgotten with the belief that it is a recent concern.
        tonyb

    • RC to try and answer your questions, together. I think the honest answer is that no-one knows what caused the LIA, which coincided with the Maunder minimum. So no-one knows why we recovered from it. There are all sorts of ideas as to how the sun controls our climate, but nothing that is much more than a hypothesis, at present. And very knowledgable people like Leif Svalgaard dispute some of the ideas.

      I believe that the sun’s magnetic properties are are the root of what caused the LIA. And what we are hoping, and I wont be around unfortunately, is that when the Eddy Minimum gets into full gear, then modern instrumentation might well be able to answer some of the questions. I have no doubt that if such instrumentation, and our current knowledge as to how the sun works, had been around in the 17th century, we would not be guessing nearly as much as we are now.

      • ” I have no doubt that if such instrumentation, and our current knowledge as to how the sun works, had been around in the 17th century, we would not be guessing nearly as much as we are now.”

        And if Leonardo da Vinci had known calculus, the theory of relativity, and the know-how to build a wafer fab and a nuclear power plant, no telling how far advanced we would be now.

        … roll my eyes at the genius of the 3%

      • Jim Cripwell

        no-one knows what caused the LIA, which coincided with the Maunder minimum. So no-one knows why we recovered from it.

        And no-one knows what caused the early or late-20th C warming, what caused the period of slight cooling in between and what is causing the current period of slight cooling (which Jim D still denies).

        Lots of hypotheses out there, though.

        Max

      • The pause is “natural variability” that averages out to essentially nothing on 30-year time scales.

      • Yeah.

        And if Webby were really only 3% as intelligent as he thinks he is, he might post some relevant comments.

        Max

      • Jim D

        Nope.

        It doesn’t “average out to zero over 30-year time scales”.

        The observed multi-decadal cycle is around 60 years (warming plus slight cooling) for a complete cycle.

        The late 20thC IPCC “poster period” is only a half-cycle (just like the statistically indistinguishable early 20th C warming cycle before it).

        You have to look at longer periods, Jim, to get an understanding of what is happening.

        Max

      • There is no observed 60 year multi-decadal cycle

        Besides CO2 is driving climate now. See my post earlier about the control knob.

      • manacker, I have looked at 60-year averages and there you just get an increasing upwards trend like the CO2 curve. Skeptics would complain even more about that. Anyway, I think the 30-year trend is not showing PDO much because the mid-century cooling was due to aerosols if you check where it occurred (e.g., east US and north west Atlantic, not places where you look for PDO). On the other hand, there is a long-term PDO cooling phase now affecting this decade, and it could be as much as 0.1 C in the global average.

      • lolwot

        There is no observed 60 year multi-decadal cycle.

        Huh?

        Check:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1993/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/trend:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:1993/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:1983/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1973/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1913/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1883/to:1912/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1853/to:1882/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1853/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2013

        – latest decade (since 2002) shows cooling
        – prior three decades (1973-2002) show warming
        – prior three decades (1943-1972) show slight cooling
        – prior three decades (1913-1942) show similar warming to 1973-2002
        – prior three decades (1883-1912) show cooling
        – prior three decades (1853-1882) show warming
        – all on a slight overall warming trend of 0.7C over 150+ years

        Got it now?

        Max

      • That graph includes a lot of human induced warming which doesn’t follow a 60 year cycle. So any 60 year cycle overall is a coincidence and nothing more.

      • Jim D

        Whether one attributes the 60-year warming + cooling cycles to PDO or whatever cause, the fact of the matter is that they are there in the observed record of the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly (HadCRUT4).

        It is also very unlikely that they are caused by human GHG emissions, because there are no such cycles in these.

        And underneath it all we have a slight warming trend of around 0.7C since the record started 160+ years ago.

        Since there were hardly any human GHG emissions prior to the end of WWII, we can safely conclude that this warming was caused primarily by natural factors.

        Since 1959 we have actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 and these have increased at a fairly constant exponential rate of increase since at least the mid 1970s.

        The latter 20th C saw a 30-year period of warming that is statistically indistinguishable from a period of similar length in the early 20th C, before much human CO2.

        So if we make the WAG that most of the late 20thC warming and a smaller % of the early 20th C warming were caused by human factors (let’s say CO2), we arrive at a 2xCO2 temperature response of around 0.8C.

        Adding in what IPCC in AR4 estimated to still be hidden “in the pipeline” (= 0.6C), we arrive at a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity at equilibrium of 1.4C.

        This seems to be in the same range as the estimate of several recent observation-based estimates, and around half of earlier model-based predictions cited by IPCC in AR4.

        If the current pause continues for several decades (as some studies project) despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 levels continuing to rise exponentially, we might need to revisit these observation-based estimates of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.

        On the other hand, if the warming resumes at the past long-term rate, this would tend to corroborate the latest ECS estimates.

        That’s how I see it, anyway, based on the facts on the ground.

        Max

      • manacker, and I could show you that land sensitivity since 1980 works out to be near 4 C per doubling, no pipeline, no equilibrium assumption, no deep ocean response, just a land temperature change over a CO2 change. Land warming faster than the ocean is a signature of fast forcing changes because the land can respond more quickly. In these decades the land-only warming is twice the global rate.

      • Jim D

        IPCC has consistently used the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (HadCRUT 3 and 4) as the key indicator of manmade global warming.

        Don’t move the goalpost on us, Jim, now that this indicator is in a stall.

        Makes you look kind of silly.

        Max

      • I find it significant scientifically that the land is warming twice as fast as the global average. Perhaps you don’t want to think what this entails, and that is fine. These kinds of details help to untangle what is going on in a global average.

      • For example, I find it interesting that the ocean has a muted and lagged response relative to land. This is consistent with an external forcing driving both and the ocean having a higher thermal inertia.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:360/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:360

    • RCSaumarez

      I can quote prof Brian fagan who asked exactly that question. He wrote; ‘did small changes in the earths axis affect global temperatures for five centuries, or did cyclical fluctuations in solar radiation lead to greater cooling? The answer still eludes us, largely because we have barely begun to understand the global climatic system and the interactions between atmosphere and ocean that drives it.’

      That comes from page 55 of his book’the little ice age.’

      As regards modern instrumentation transposed to the lia. Digital automatic stations that have been properly set up are accurate within their stated parameters. All manually read thermometers have problems associated with them to a greater or lesser degree. My site climatereason.com carries instrumental records from 1659 and thereby covers much of the most severe phases of the little ice age, which was intermittent rather than continuous and could have summers every bit as hot as today’s but often had very much colder winters. However all manual instrumentation-ancient and modern- should be taken with a pinch of salt and are not accurate to fractions of a degree.

      Tonyb

    • David Springer

      Little Ice Age?

      Didn’t you get the hocket schtick memo? There is no Little Ice Age.

      • Yet the hockey stick shows a colder period around the little ice age.

        That it wasn’t as cold as climate skeptics claim has also been established by subsequent work.

    • Funny no one even mentions volcanoes.

      • Bob

        You just did! What else do you want to say about them? I am quite well up to speed on the 1258 one that Dr Mann thought so important he wrote a paper about it.

        Tonyb

      • Bob,

        I have mentioned them.

        As in people might be better concerned about the impact of Iceland ‘s volcanoes erupting or the Yellowstone caldera blowing than what a warming climate might bring.

    • “I have a very simple question to which I don’t know the answer:
      What caused the Little Ice Age and why did we recover from it?”
      Well, Little Ice Age is mostly about a period of global glacier advance.
      And past glacial advancement or retreat can be measured at the present time. One could also do what we commonly do today and discuss weather rather than climate.
      So Little Ice can be detected due glacier advance and retreat, proxy temperatures, and past cold weather- rivers freezing, crops not growing, etc.
      What can cause glacier advance could have to do with rainfall patterns- does snow when it’s cold, does it rain when it’s warm, though generally it about average yearly temperature changes- it’s a marker of average global temperature.
      Our current interglacial period has a very slight cooling period over the last 8000 years, and the severity of Little Ice Age might have something to do with this long term trend. What is apparent over such a long period of time, is there are centuries periods of warming and cooling- and warming periods tend to last longer than cooling period, though Little ice Age tended to be cooler and longer.

      What is known about LIA is there were a few very large volcanic eruptions- much larger than we have had in 20th and 21 century. Next we know yearly number of sunspots were unusually low these may added to a longer cycle of warming/cooling or be the reason for such cycles.

      “A second question:
      If we had modern instrumentation during the LIA would we understand it better?”
      We would have had better resolution in the measurements. The modern El Nino peak in global temperature of 1997 and 1998 would been hard to accurately “see” during the LIA.
      And there is problem “splicing” these different ways of measuring average global temperature. There problem even modern record or splicing different time period with merely the number and locations of weather stations recording temperatures. And it England’s long record keeping of temperature which has helpful in splicing these temperatures records together, but if we had to rely solely on England’s measuring earth current average temperature, one could see “problems” with that idea.
      We really haven’t been measuring global temperature very accurately, before the the beginning of satellite record. And the Argos:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_%28oceanography%29
      Marks the beginning of accurately measuring the ocean’s temperature.

    • The ice core data is more than sufficient to understand what caused and ended the Little Ice Age and all the other Little Ice Ages in the past ten thousand years. The ice core data is more than sufficient to understand what caused and ended the Roman and Medieval and Modern Warm Period and all the other Warm Periods in the past ten thousand years.
      The temperature has been bounded tightly around a set point for the most recent ten thousand years. That is different and new.
      Continents drifted, ocean levels changed. ocean currents changed and Polar Ice Developed. The Polar Ice has become the new and wonderful thermostat for earth. When the Polar Ice is melted because earth is warm, it snows like crazy and builds ice that advances and cools earth. When the oceans get cold and the Polar Water freezes the snowfall is turned off and earth can warm.

      If you disagree, propose your own theory to explain the modern set point for temperature and the tight bounding around that set point that has always worked for ten thousand years.

      The set point and tight bounding is in the actual data. This is what has always happened for ten thousand years.

      • Earth temperature and sea level has cycled up and down in tight bounds for ten thousand years. If you believe my Theory is Wrong, tell me your theory that could possibly be better.

      • “The temperature has been bounded tightly around a set point for the most recent ten thousand years. That is different and new.
        Continents drifted, ocean levels changed. ocean currents changed and Polar Ice Developed. The Polar Ice has become the new and wonderful thermostat for earth.”
        [If by new you mean within millions of years, I am assuming. Or in terms of billions of years, millions of years could be called “new”. And changes of continental effects are on the order of ten million years]

        “When the Polar Ice is melted because earth is warm, it snows like crazy and builds ice that advances and cools earth. When the oceans get cold and the Polar Water freezes the snowfall is turned off and earth can warm. ”
        Yes, I am to some extent aware of your theory. And that is part of why I said growing/advancing glacier “could have to do with rainfall patterns”.
        I leave it as possible that a summertime ice free polar ocean may be significantly changing rainfall [and snow] patterns. I also leave it as a possibility that other factors could be affecting rainfall patterns.
        But I believe the evidence of volcanic and solar activity correlating the LIA, should not be ignored.
        I don’t feel confident about what causes cooling periods, and I believe what causes cooling periods, is far more important than what causes warming periods- as cooling periods are far more consequential.

        The idea that we should panic about warming, when have lived in ice box climate for millions of years is a humorous and sad state of the pseudoscience which is commonly associated with climate science.

        “If you disagree, propose your own theory to explain the modern set point for temperature and the tight bounding around that set point that has always worked for ten thousand years. ”

        As for my theories or thoughts about the issue. I tend to believe the tropics is major element in global climate. I also think oceans are where vast majority of heating from Sun occurs and is stored. So I think a major factor of global climate is related warming of the tropical oceans. So I tend to think the variation of cloud cover over the tropical ocean is probably major factor. And generally I think it more about a “greenhouse” liquid than greenhouse gases.

        It’s possible that changes in polar regions could effect tropical conditions, and to extent it does, it would affect global temperatures.
        Though it’s possible that if one concerned about century or less time periods related of global climate changes, that how much is snows where and when, could more important than average global temperature. As said the changing rainfall patterns could be casual factor, rather merely an effect of cooling or warming.

        But if throw more than 100 cubic km of volcanic dust into the atmosphere, it seems it’s going to have some global cooling effect- and other kinds of effects.

  15. _______________________
    Solar-Terrestrial-Climate 101
    A / B / C

  16. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Media Matters enumerates (with examples) five ways that denialists suborn public debate:

    Denialism Method #1  Present Contrarians As “Objective” Experts

    Denialism Method #2  Denigrate Peer-Reviewed Science And Scientific Institutions

    Denialism Method #3  Equate Science With Simply A Liberal Opinion

    Denialism Method #4  Claim That Scientists Distort Data In Order To Obtain Funding

    Denialism Method #5  Characterize Climate Science As Simply A “Religion”

    Question  How many regular posters here on Climate Etc practice the Five Methods of Denialism?

    Answer  There’s no shortage of “Denialist Five Steppers” here on Climate Etc!

    Fortunately, it’s easy to identify denialist “Five Steppers”, because they invariably stay 100% on-message.

    Conversely, “Five Steppers” *NEVER* comment upon the sobering scientific conclusions of recent studies like Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric CO2

    Cenozoic temperature, sea level and CO2 co-variations provide insights into climate sensitivity to external forcings and sea level sensitivity to climate change.

    Climate sensitivity depends on the initial climate state, but potentially can be accurately inferred from precise paleoclimate data.

    Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make much of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change.

    Summary  It’s not complicated, folks! Just keep in mind the sobering reality, that even the fanciest Faux News “Five Stepping” can’t fool Mother Nature.

    Conclusion  Denialist “Five Step” practices are non-scientific, irrational, and morally wrong.

    \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}

    • Hansen:-
      “Our calculated global warming in this case is 16°C, with warming at the poles about 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages ~20°C. Such temperatures would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world . Increased stratospheric water vapor would diminish the stratospheric ozone layer .
      More ominously, global warming of that magnitude would make much of the planet uninhabitable by humans.”

      Interesting that Hansen ignores aerosols in his ice core data analysis, yet most modelers are captivated by the ability of modest changes in aerosols to drop global temperatures. Oddly, the dust levels recorded in the ice cores show that the levels vary by three orders of magnitude, with high levels during the ice ages, global dimming, and levels equal to those at present during the warm ages.
      One gets the impression that Hansen is a big a fraud as Fan.

      • “Interesting that Hansen ignores aerosols in his ice core data analysis”

        Does he?

        “Oddly, the dust levels recorded in the ice cores show that the levels vary by three orders of magnitude, with high levels during the ice ages, global dimming, and levels equal to those at present during the warm ages.”

        Sounds like a positive feedback to me then. Less dust as it gets warmer. If it’s a feedback then it’s part of the climate sensitivity Hansen has calculated. It actually makes climate sensitivity higher!

        I wonder if this is a positive feedback the current generation of models don’t include.

    • Fanny’s “5 steps of obfuscation”

      • Obfuscation Method #1 Present Rational Skeptics as Irrational “Contrarians”

      • Obfuscation Method #2 Denigrate any Scientists And Scientific Studies that conflict with the forced “Consensus” position

      • Obfuscation Method #3 Equate Rational Skepticism of the “consensus” dogma With Simply A Conservative Opinion

      • Obfuscation Method #4 Claim That Skeptics obtain funding from Oil and Coal companies

      • Obfuscation Method #5 Avoid Discussion of Specific Issues, but Characterize Skeptics of the forced “Consensus” As Simply “Kooks”

      Question How many regular posters here on Climate Etc beside Fanny practice Fanny’s Five Methods of Obfuscation?

      Lolwot? Joshua? Webby? Jim D?

      Let’s guess.

      Max

      • Max smartly bulleted his list so we can debunk his claims one by one.

        • Max’s claimed Obfuscation Method #1 Present Rational Skeptics as Irrational “Contrarians”

        Not on this site. The amount of comments by kranks outweighs rational skeptics considerably. You want a list and stats?

        • Max’s claimed Obfuscation Method #2 Denigrate any Scientists And Scientific Studies that conflict with the forced “Consensus” position

        Name the scientists please. If they happen to be like Murry Salby who have somehow flipped out, we have no choice but to debunk them.

        • Max’s claimed Obfuscation Method #3 Equate Rational Skepticism of the “consensus” dogma With Simply A Conservative Opinion

        Some of us can hear the dog whistles and interpret what they mean.

        • Max’s claimed Obfuscation Method #4 Claim That Skeptics obtain funding from Oil and Coal companies

        Lots of names I can point out. It gets worse if you start bringing in oil cornucopians. Personally, I don’t really care that they get backing, as the objective facts and reasoning beat propaganda money in the line of work I am in.

        • Max’s claimed Obfuscation Method #5 Avoid Discussion of Specific Issues, but Characterize Skeptics of the forced “Consensus” As Simply “Kooks”

        You are repeating yourself from point 1, unless you think a Kook is different than a Contrarian. Please name anyone that comments on this blog site that has a formal reasoned arguments on specific issues published or posted somewhere else. Your fallback is always Principia Scientific ….

    • Media Matters

      renowned for having no bias or ever trying to present a certain viewpoint.

    • Do a little more work and you could make it a real 12-step program

  17. “Conclusion Denialist “Five Step” practices are non-scientific, irrational, and morally wrong.”
    As opposed to the Pope to whose authority you often appeal, who considers himself infallible. Lacking the funny hat and prestigious address, people can find themselves locked up for that kind of thinking

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      pokerguy falsely claims  “the Pope to whose authority you often appeal […] considers himself infallible.”

      Pokerguy, please allow me to commend to your attention the illuminating survey So I asked the Vatican about global warming … Special Report

      The Gist  In recent centuries, Popes have learned (the hard way) to speak ex cathedra solely in regard to matters of faith; never in regard to matters of science, for the simple reason that Nature is utterly inflexible in her strict respect for science.

      And so in matters of science, the Pope himself yields to the considered opinion of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Science … an opinion that amounts to “James Hansen is right”.

      Needless to say, precisely *NONE* of the denialist “Five Step Race-to-the-Bottom” claims apply to the Vatican’s sober-minded morally-centered climate-change assessments!

      Now, ain’t that the plain and simple truth, pokerguy?

      \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

      pokerguy falsely claims  “the Pope to whose authority you often appeal […] considers himself infallible.”

      Pokerguy, please allow me to commend to your attention the illuminating survey So I asked the Vatican about global warming … Special Report

      The Gist  In recent centuries, Popes have learned (the hard way) to speak ex cathedra solely in regard to matters of faith; never in regard to matters of science, for the simple reason that Nature is inflexible in her strict respect for science.

      And so in matters of science, the Pope himself yields to the considered opinion of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Science … an opinion that amounts to “James Hansen is right”.

      Needless to say, precisely *NONE* of the denialist “Five Step Race-to-the-Bottom” claims apply to the Vatican’s sober-minded morally-centered climate-change assessments!

      Now, ain’t that the plain and simple truth, pokerguy?

      \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}

  18. Predictable how ridiculous and petty Dave Springer appears.

    I mention my earth science modeling blog http://ContextEarth.com and he thinks he is some super-sleuth in hacking for my name, even though all he had to do is open any one of the 4 PDFs of papers that I have written in the last year that are linked via the top-level menu.

    Should we call him SuperDave or IntelliDave, what works better?

    • Webby, you are looking more ridiculous with each comment.

      You are in a hole.
      Your best bet: stop digging.

      Max

      • I disagree. I thought it was bizarre that someone would go off and background check a domain name and then paste the result here.

      • ” manacker | August 10, 2013 at 4:33 pm

        Webby, you are looking more ridiculous with each comment.”

        Thanks for the interest in the site, Max. The blog is a spin-off from open-source research that I was involved with in the last year.

        At the heart of the project is a semantic web server that provides a knowledgebase and a modeling and simulation engine which can be used to provide an environmental “context” to solving problems or for general analysis.

        What is important about the knowledgebase is that it won’t link to pseudoscience of the 3% type, so I suppose that will make Max kind of sad and weepy.

      • @lolwot | August 10, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
        lolwot – please tell me you seriously have never heard of the whois internet service. I’m having a lot of trouble believing that. It’s like ping, dig, traceroute, and others. These are used by people and equipment on the internet. They are not only legal, they are vital to the operation of the internet.

        Here is a link.

        http://centralops.net/co/

      • I swear that the 3% are some of the dumbest people on the planet.
        I have a website called http://ContextEarth.com. On the top-level menu, I have 4 papers linked that each have have my name plastered on the first page.

        I was being sarcastic when I said that the genius Dave Springer thought he had to do a whois to discover someone’s name.

        Who could have thunk it that someone who was involved in a multi-million dollar research project would not put their name on papers associated with said research project.

    • David Springer

      A domain name lookup at whois.net is “hacking”?

      http://whois.net/whois/contextearth.com

      Wow. Who knew?

    • Hacking? Well there are a number of Hack’s who post here but the ability to cut and paste a website address into ‘who.is’ does not constitute a cyber super-sleuth. Unless of course I am also computer security bypass expert.

      http://who.is/whois/contextearth.com

      • Could it be that Dr. Martyn Sharpe is as dumb as the 3%?

        All that the good doctor has to do is open up the PDFs of papers linked at the top-level menu of http://ContextEarth.com to find out my name.

        It’s like when he gets handed a research paper at a conference. You can bet that the Doc would go to the trouble of dusting for fingerprints and doing a match with the FBI instead of simply looking at the name at the top of the paper.

        You see, they think all this sleuthing makes them look super-intelligent and capable of fighting crime instead of just like silly little punks hoping for others of the 3% team to pat them on the back.

      • DocMartyn,

        You could indeed subject yourself to the cost, both in download charges and time, and boost WebHubTelescope’s web page readership statistics, or you could use Whois.

        Your method seems more efficient. If WHT put his statistics on his web page, instead of trying to force visitors to read his “papers”, then looking at his web page would win, I guess.

        I cannot guess as to his reason for not showing his statistics in the most user friendly manner. Why obscure that which could be as easily made clear?

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • ” Mike Flynn | August 11, 2013 at 11:01 pm |
        You could indeed subject yourself to the cost, both in download charges and time, and boost WebHubTelescope’s web page readership statistics, or you could use Whois.”

        Go to Mike Flynn for instructions on how to attract spam.

        “I cannot guess as to his reason for not showing his statistics in the most user friendly manner. Why obscure that which could be as easily made clear?”

        Statistics is what Google Scholar is for. Once you register your name with Scholar, it keeps track of all your publications and does citation statistics. Why re-invent the wheel?

    • Springer thinks he’s a super-sleuth in figuring out who I am, details of my personal life, etc.

      He’s wrong, of course, but that’s what you get when you deal with “skeptics.”

      I like SuperDave.

      • David Springer

        I’m wrong? Good. Then you won’t mind me emailing the fiance with a polite inquiry asking if her betrothed might possibly be the misogynist harassing Judith Curry night and day.

      • Fiancée, Big Dave.

        What was it you said about ignorance, again?

      • I think the finance is very happy with the abuse.
        =============

      • Spinger –

        I couldn’t care less. I will suggest, however, that sending such an email might land you in some kind of problem for harassment. You see, Springer – you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, and sending such an email to the wrong person might get you in legal trouble, I would imagine.

        You are confident about something for which you have misinterpreted whatever evidence you think you have.

        And if you really think you’re right, lets arrange a bet. I will give you 2 to one odds on a 100,000 bet (you put up $50k. We’ll pay someone mutually agreed upon 10k to handle the money for us. I suggest Captain Dallas if he’ll agree. He seems to me like an honest bloke. If you want someone else, make a suggestion.

        So what do you say, Springer? Deal? Or are you afraid to stand behind your reasoning ability?

      • If you say merdre, you must say phynances, Koldie.

      • David Springer

        Are we back to bargaining about the price of your courage? That didn’t turn out well for you last time. But it was fun. I’ll bet you one dollar I’m correct.

        And just so you know, sending a stranger an email is no more or less illegal than sending them a letter by US mail, calling them on the phone, or knocking on their door. People selling stuff from credit cards to Jehovah do it all the time. Does your ass get tired from pulling ignorant comments out of it?

      • Springer is trying to prove that Springer is the logical endpoint of Intelligent Design. He has all the answers and that is what the original “Designer” intended apparently.

      • Springer –

        You ducked the bet last time.

        And just so you know, sending a stranger an email is no more or less illegal than sending them a letter by US mail, calling them on the phone, or knocking on their door.

        The point was you are threatening to send an email to a woman and making false, and arguably slanderous, claims about her fiance – not a generic case of sending someone an email.

      • Heh.

        I’m not backing off on anything Joshua. Here is what I wrote that has you hot and bothered months later.

        So you go back to what you wrote a while back rather than what you’ve written in the interim.

        For example:

        I’m wrong? Good. Then you won’t mind me emailing the fiance with a polite inquiry asking if her betrothed might possibly be the misogynist harassing Judith Curry night and day.

        You see, Springer – one of the telltale signs of a “skeptic” is a selective approach to certainty. First you’re not certain. Then you’re certain. And when I point out your inconsistency, you suddenly aren’t certain once again.

        Ask Chief to explain it to you. He’s an expert.

        Do we have a bet or not, Springer?

        That is a yes or no question. The terms are clear. Why not just put this all to rest now, and just admit that you’re going to just duck the bet. You obviously don’t have the balls to stand behind your words (and your threats as I excerpted above). Why drag out the obvious over numerous threads.

        Just pull off the band-aid. It hurts real bad at first, but you’ll get over it.

  19. Good first step.

    Met Office:

    Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but there has been little further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

  20. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Girma and Kim and Peter Lang all repeatedly link to [a no-math, no-theory, no-data, no-references, single-author, non-scientist essay is an ideology-driven far-right publication]”

    Seriously, from a strictly scientific point-of-view, if global warming is over, then when will sea-levels start declining?

    QUestion  Girma and Kim and Peter Lang, why are you all three linking, over and over again, to a science-free fact-free ideology-driven denialist screed?

    \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}

    • Chief Hydrologist

      There is one source of even relatively accurate ocean heat and salinity data – and that is entirely consistent with the most accurate methods to date for measuring toa radiant flux over the period.

      You make much of highly inaccurate data – but reject data on toa radiant flux that goes to causation.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=15

      This seems consistent with overlapping 10 year averages of the rate of sea level increase.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse August 10, 2013 at 5:45 pm: “Seriously, from a strictly scientific point-of-view, if global warming is over, then when will sea-levels start declining?

      You are conflating two definitions:
      The referenced article states “ I refer, not to any warming of the planet that may or may not be occurring, but to the world’s apparently serious and broadly shared belief in dangerous, man-made global warming”
      The planet may be naturally warming without any significant anthropogenic cause.

      The AGW proponents won a PR point when they were successfully able to conflate these two issues. The 97% is a classic illustration. By associating any climate warming with anthropogenic climate warming they have confused the public into believing that anyone who concurs that the climate is worming is automatically endorsing AGW.

      You are not making a serious scientific point; you are making a PR point.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      PMHinSC claims “The planet may be naturally warming without any significant anthropogenic cause.”

      And the globe *may* be only 8,000 years old, having been created at that time divine force, isn’t that right PMHinSC?

      And respectable scientists can be found who believe *both* hypotheses, isn’t that correct PMHinSC?

      But neither opinion reflects in any way the broad and widening, strong and strengthening, scientific consensus that AGW is real and serious.

      Isn’t that objectively true, PMHinSC?

      Nowadays, more-and-more ordinary folks are seeing climate-change plainly with their own eyes.

      And that means denialism is fated for extinction, right PMHinSC?

      \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 August 10, 2013 at 8:32 pm : “PMHinSC claims ‘The planet may be naturally warming without any significant anthropogenic cause.’ And the globe *may* be only 8,000 years old, having been created at that time divine force, isn’t that right PMHinSC?”
        Sarcasm is PR not science.

        A fan of *MORE* discourse August 10, 2013 at 8:32 pm: “And respectable scientists can be found who believe *both* hypotheses, isn’t that correct PMHinSC?”
        I would hope that you would consider the following (who disagree with your absolute position that only manmade CO2 is causing global warming) to be respectable scientists:
        Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Doctorate in Physics,
        Freeman Dyson Emeritus Professor of Physics (widely considered one of the world’s most distinguished scientists) at Princeton,
        William Happer Professor of Physics at Princeton.
        Dr. James Lovelock (god farther of Manmade Global Warming and guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism) who has renounced his support of AGW
        Dr. Judith Curry our Hostess.
        These are only a few among thousands.

        A fan of *MORE* discourse August 10, 2013 at 8:32 pm: “But neither opinion reflects in any way the broad and widening, strong and strengthening, scientific consensus that AGW is real and serious.
        Isn’t that objectively true, PMHinSC?”
        I find just the opposite; that more scientist are hedging their previous support. Dr. James Lovelock is just one of many examples. You will find that saying something over and over again isn’t enough to make it true. In the end the scientific process will tell us if it is true.

        A fan of *MORE* discourse | August 10, 2013 at 8:32 pm |, “Nowadays, more-and-more ordinary folks are seeing climate-change plainly with their own eyes.”
        No matter what your long term position is, there has been nothing to see for at least 15 years. People cannot see what does not exist so that is a PR statement.

        A fan of *MORE* discourse August 10, 2013 at 8:32 pm: “that means denialism is fated for extinction, right PMHinSC?”
        I couldn’t disagree more and am siding with our hostess when she says “Well, so far the uncertainty monster is winning the debate, I am putting my money on the uncertainty monster.”

        Please notice that you have not provided any scientific support for your belief. You have used sarcasm, PR, and made unsupported statements. Do you really believe that there are not respected scientists on both sides of this issue? Do you really believe that over the last 15 years “people are seeing climate change plainly”? Belief is a religious concept not a scientific concept.

      • Watch as PMHinSC moves the goalpost

        After claiming: “The planet may be naturally warming without any significant anthropogenic cause”

        He backs this up with: “I would hope that you would consider the following (who disagree with your absolute position that only manmade CO2 is causing global warming”)…

        See what he did there?

        He then digs into quite a hypocritical appeal to authority (for a climate skeptic, but then climate skeptics are hypocrits when it comes to authority) by citing such people as Ivar Giaever and Freeman Dyson.

        These people might have titles, but they are only as good as their arguments. It’s quite revealing that supposed skeptics like PMHinSC are willing to promote people like Ivar Giaever.

        Here are some quotes by Ivar Giaever which show he has less clue about climate than me.

        Ivar Giaever: “How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don’t think that’s possible”

        Ivar Giaever: “Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2. If you look out of the window you see the sky, you see the clouds, and you don’t see the CO2”

        I mean, really.

      • lolw0t August 11, 2013 at 8:17 am: “PMHinSC moves the goalpost.
        After claiming: The planet may be naturally warming without any significant anthropogenic cause.He backs this up with: would hope that you would consider the following (who disagree with your absolute position that only manmade CO2 is causing global warming”)…See what he did there? He then digs into quite a hypocritical appeal to authority”

        You have created a catch 22 situation for me. In response to a claim that all “reputable scientists” support AGW I listed several reputable scientists who (whether you agree with them or not) do not agree that CO2 is the main driver of climate. If I provide a list I am “appealing to authority”, if I don’t provide a list I am conceding the point. All of the evidence has yet to be presented and consequently neither your list or my list can claim absolute authority.

    • An odd question.

      Here is the seal level data

      Just why do we have the dip in the 2011-2012 period.
      Seriously, can anyone here tell me what the hell happened?
      This dip appeared in the tide gauges the world over.
      Call it 6 mm.
      So we have 0.6 cm of ocean, across 3.6×10^8 km2 disappearing, which is a weight of just over 2 teratons of water, 2×10^12 Tons.
      Seriously, where does 2 teratons of water hide for 15 months and then slouch back without anyone noticing where it went, where it hide, and where it came back.

      • Doc

        Iolwot has provided a good link but it needs amplification. Firstly the level of accuracy of the combined passes of the monitoring satellites is around 2cm (the handbooks are much less certain and quote a margin of error of up to 15cm but practice makes better)

        In addition there is up to 4cm of water suspended in the air -assuming the whole globe measurement not just the ocean area.

        As Jason 1 was decommissioned so the opportunity was taken to make various adjustments.

        Due to tides, waves , land movement, difficulty of judging heights around coasts, atmospheric vapour and that not all ocean basins are at the same height, the Colorado university methodology of judging sea levels is somewhat uncertain.

        If you were involved with a local project-such as sea defences-you would rather take a tide gauge with a long and authenticated history -which is not the same as that used by the IPCC in Chapter 4.

        Sea levels are a whole can of moving worms-the 3mm increase per year is highly averaged, some areas show a much greater increase, whilst in other areas sea levels are dropping.
        Someone-not me-really needs to write a piece on the usefulness or otherwise of our ongoing desire to average global climate parameters. Its not really very helpful and disguises regional differences
        tonyb

      • @ Fan of more d……. and lolwot.

        These two are argumentitive cretins with nothing much to say. From their general tone, they are clearly liberal arts/sociology types who have no education or interest in parsing a scientific argument.

        The trouble with blogs such as this is that they attract intellectually challenged cretins who a dazzled by what they consider to their own brilliance.

      • And I would guess you are an engineer, not a scientist.

        Engineers have a history of wandering into other fields and getting it wrong.

      • From their general tone, they are clearly liberal arts/sociology types who have no education or interest in parsing a scientific argument.

        Heh. Yeah, and not only that, they’re elitists also!

    • Fan, that is a good question, when will sea levels start declining. According to some reconstructions, Marcott comes to mind, the world has been cooling for thousands of years. What about sea levels?

  21. “Germany is a Green basketcase:

    German’s electricity bills have doubled since 2000. (Germans pay about 40c a KWH.)
    Up to 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because they couldn’t pay their bills.
    Germany’s renewable energy levy rose from €14bn to €20bn in one year as wind and solar expanded. German households will pay a renewables surcharge of €7.2bn this year alone.
    Germany has more than half the worlds solar panels. They generated 40% of Germany’s peak electricity demand on June 6, but practically 0% during the darkest weeks of winter.
    Seimens closed it’s entire solar division, losing about €1bn. Bosch is getting out too, it has lost about €2.4bn.
    Solar investors have lost almost about €25bn in the past year. More than 5,000 companies associated with solar have closed since 2010.
    Germany has phased out nuclear, but is adding 20 coal fired stations. Gas power can’t compete with cheap coal or subsidized renewables and 20% of gas power plants are facing shutdown.
    Despite the river of money paid to renewables, emissions have risen in Germany for the last two years.

    It’s a case of lose-lose all around, everyone — taxpayers, investors, renewables companies, gas companies — all lost. Waste and stupidity on a colossal scale.”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-price-of-moral-vanity-a-catalogue-of-green-economic-disaster-unfolds-across-europe/

    • Chief: The Black death showed the potential power of rats.
      Speaking of potential,. can we return to our previous discussion of the internal energy of CO2? you mention electron dynamic energy. I call it vibrational; you call it potential. I think we are both right, But the electron is so light that it’s contribution to total molecular internal energy is negligable. Consider the degrees of freedom of the COI2 nolecule. It has two heavy outrigger oxygen atoms, each side of the central carbon atom. These can and do vibrate in the molecule bending mode at low IR frequencies, but not at 25C, or 13C: it takes a much higher temperature to excite them. That is the point I am trying to make. What do nyou think?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Kinetic energy is the vibrational and translation components. Potential energy is in the molecular bonds, the energy contained in the mass of the molecule and energy in energy states of electrons.

        Anything that has heat – including at 25 degress C – has kinetic energy. Electron energy states are an utterly different consideration. In the atmosphere – I am told – about 7% of IR photons in the right frequency are absorbed an emitted.

  22. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    The future of American conservatism: Conservation Hawks

    A Message To Our Children

    It’s time to start telling America’s sportsmen the truth. We’re ignoring the single biggest threat we’ve ever faced and sentencing our kids and our grandkids to a life we’d never, ever want for ourselves.

    This isn’t about politics. It’s not about Democrats vs. Republicans, or left vs. right, or liberal vs. conservative. It’s not about the Tea Party, or Al Gore, or Sarah Palin. It’s not even about Barack Obama. It’s about my kids, and yours, and whether we’re going to do the right thing – even though it’s hard – or whether we’re going to sit back and microwave Mother Nature until there’s nothing left to worry about.

    We used to be a strong country; a moral country. We used to tell the truth whether or not it was politically expedient. Our word was our bond, and a handshake was all most of us ever needed. We were decent folks, focused on our families, our neighbors and our communities. We worked hard and treated the people around us with respect, and our compass always pointed true.

    It’s hard to believe we’ve stopped listening to our fisheries & wildlife biologists, and our other scientists. Even worse, we’ve stopped believing what our eyes are telling us. We know climate change is real. We see it constantly, both on the evening news and right outside our front door. We know we’re contributing to it. And if we don’t make some hard choices right now, we’ll be begging our children for their forgiveness in 15 or 20 years.

    Here’s the God’s honest truth. This is the single most important issue that any of us will ever face. It’s bigger than any threat to sportsmen that’s come down the pipe, and way, way harder to fix. And now we have to make a choice. Either we stand up for our hunting and fishing, and for our kids and grandkids, or we write off everything we’ve ever cared about.

    That’s the black & white of it, and if you’re reading this, you need to decide exactly where you stand.

    Folks who visit Conservation Hawks are visiting the future of American Conservatism.

    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}

    • In 15 or 20 years humans I greatly doubt that CO2 emissions will make the top 25 harms that humans will have done,

    • Ah yes. A CAGW group that counts the father of modern progressivism, Teddy Roosevelt, as their inspiration, is the future of modern conservatism.

      Here’s the future of modern progressivism.

      http://www.sarahpac.com/

    • Fan of More BS – I see you have found a crock of BS … again.

      We have already hosed our grandchildren by running up more debt than we, their parents, and them can ever pay back. The idea that burning fossil fuels is our biggest problem is BS. It is based on models that even the modelers admit to be wrong, but the “best” we have, so this is just more alarmist BS piled higher and deeper. And I can assure you it has squat to do with conservatives.

  23. “It (the mistaken belief in AGW) is likely to prove the costliest learning process in human history.”

    Paul Collits

  24. Yes the renowned Todd Tanner, founder and sole member of Conservation Hawks. The future of American Conservatism. Please visit his blog and leave a random comment. So far he’s only gotten about 6. And please make a donation. George Soros is about to cut him off.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      LOL  yeah, Conservation Hawks is today’s front-page link on Season’s End, the anti-AGW conservation site that is supported by its partner organizations:

      • Ducks Unlimited
      • Trout Unlimited
      • BASS/ESPN Outdoors
      • Izaak Walton League of America
      • Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
      • Coastal Conservation Association
      • American Sportfishing Association
      • Pheasants Forever
      • Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
      • Wildlife Management Institute
      • Delta Waterfowl
      • Boone and Crockett Club

      Say, just how huge *IS* this-here CAGW “conspiracy”???

      Or do yah think, Don Monfort, that just maybe folks are starting to see AGW with their own eyes?

      In which case, denialism is slated for extinction, ain’t that right?

      \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}

      • You are just another hysterical Chicken Little clown. CAGW is near the bottom, or at the bottom, of most folks’ lists of things that they are most concerned about. The CAGW scare has jumped the shark. The greenie Eurocrats are backing out of their ill-conceived abatement schemes. The green energy subsidy gravy train is running out of steam. How are you doing in the carbon market? The Aussie greenie carbon tax dummies are about to get dumped. The pause is killing your cause. Denialism is triumphant. I think that covers it. Get some rest.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Don Monfort posts:

        The Denialist Creed

        • Scientists are hysterical Chicken Little clowns.
        • CAGW is near the bottom of most folks’ lists.
        • The CAGW scare has jumped the shark.
        • Greenie Eurocrats are backing out.
        • Green energy subsidies are running out of steam.
        • How are you doing in the carbon market?
        • The Aussie greenie carbon tax dummies are about to get dumped.
        • The pause is killing your cause.
        • Denialism is triumphant.

        Gosh Don, your list makes it plain that the Denialist Creed holds within it no elements of rationality, science, foresight, or morality.

        That is why denialism is fated for extinction.

        Even mainstream Republicans can see that!

        Ain’t that right, Don Monford?

        \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}

  25. Chief Hydrologist

    ‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’

    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full

    This paper has been discussed on another thread.

    Let’s deconstruct it.

    Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27).

    Look guys – you have stuffed up and the planet is cooling for decades at least – a cooling planet has potential to make us look like idiots and set back carbon mitigation for generations.

    However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.

    To be honest the planet might warm or cool and we don’t have a freaking clue which – but we still don’t think changing the atmosphere without having a freaking clue as to potential outcomes is the best idea ever.

    • To be honest the planet might warm or cool and we don’t have a freaking clue.

      Actually we have better than a clue. We have actual data.

      We have data for the past ten thousand years. Earth warms, then cools, then warms, then cools, then warms, then cools. That is much better than a clue. We warmed, we cooled, we warmed, we cooled, we have now warmed again, we will next cool again.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Hard to tell what you think you mean by data – but repeating we warm – we cool over and over again doesn’t mean a damn thing. Assume we got it already and that no one gives a rat’s arse but Jabberwocky.

        I think you are a deluded ‘blog scientist’ with a simplistic and misguided one dimensional blog theory for a system with many degrees of freedom.
        Try reading some actual science over a broad spectrum and build a picture that has depth and complexity. Either that say something else occasionally. Show you have a sense of humour. Quote some poetry. Do a song and dance.

  26. “If global warming is over when will the sea levels stop rising”
    Probably within 10 to 30 years given that there will be some retained heat inertia like the poles continuing to melt for a little while after mid summer.
    There should then be a pause (wow) and then a downslope.

    Jim D how do you tell a pause from a natural variation? Clue no one knows . It is only in hindsight when it continues down that you can say that was a pause (or the other).
    Your claim that there is no pause has no merit other than showing your position on AGW. However a pause has to start somewhere and when it does there will be a hiatus. I can always argue that any hiatus is the start of a pause. And be right or wrong. On the other hand you can only be wrong when you say there is no pause as your argument is yet to be tested by time, whereas my argument has already started.

    • A pause is irrelevant to climate unless it shows up in a 30-year average. It hasn’t even made a dent yet. We can wait and see if it shows up, but it could be a long wait, so I’m not holding my breath.

    • “If global warming is over when will the sea levels stop rising”

      Sea Level goes up when earth is warming and goes down when earth is cooling. We have been warming. That is over, or almost over and sea level rise is over or almost over. It will start down again as the cooling occurs.

      • “We have been warming. That is over, or almost over and sea level rise is over or almost over. It will start down again as the cooling occurs.”

        Heh come on this is transparently nonsensiccal.

        By your own argument warming is not over if sea level continues to rise. So why do you say “We HAVE been warming. That is over,”

        Then you backpeddle a bit and say “or almost over”

        Well which is it? You mean you don’t know? Are we warming or not? Is it over or not?

    • angech writes: “Probably within 10 to 30 years given that there will be some retained heat inertia like the poles continuing to melt for a little while after mid summer.”

      But but but

      I have been told by skeptics that the poles are not melting!

      You know you guys keep switching argument. One second you are telling me the ocean is not heating up (the world has stopped warming!)

      The next you claim Greenland melt isn’t as bad and Antarctic isn’t melting.

      Now you claim oh yes sea level rise is continuing because Greenland and Antarctica are melting. Thermal Inertia.

      But if you really believe the world has stopped heating up, then that requires greenland and antarctic melt to have accelerated in recent years to be able to explain why sea level is still rising fast (or faster?) as ever.

      Oh dear, it’s getting hard for climate denial.

  27. And continually shifting the goalposts does not help

    • Some people think it is a 13 year pause, some say it is 17 if you draw the line right, but ignore that cliff before it.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.’ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html

        ‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27).’ ttp://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full

        Some have both theories and models – although temporary in a wild climate may be over egging the chaotic pudding.

        Just as some have practical and pragmatic responses to carbon emissions and some have magical, space cadet solutions.

      • I agree, it’s a cliff. The greater the cliff, the less you should ignore it.

        Maybe this: Agreeing it can be described different ways and it’s better to keep as many different descriptions of it in one’s head as possible. Therefore not shutting down lines of thought that might aid in understanding. As long as I am not expected to keep an open mind…

      • So Swanson’s paper says large natural variability also implies large climate sensitivity to forcing. Interesting that the models underestimate this variability, because it has implications.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        No Jim – it says that climate shifts. This is a significantly different concept to that of sensitivity.

        ‘Sensitive dependence nonetheless does exist in the climate system, as well as in climate models — albeit in a very different sense from the one claimed in the linear work under scrutiny — and we illustrate it using a classical energy balance model (EBM) with nonlinear feedbacks. EBMs exhibit two saddle-node bifurcations, more recently called “tipping points”, which give rise to three distinct steady-state climates, two of which are stable. Such bistable behavior is, furthermore, supported by results from more realistic, nonequilibrium climate models. In a truly nonlinear setting, indeterminacy in the size of the response is observed only in the vicinity of tipping points. We show, in fact, that small disturbances cannot result in a large-amplitude response, unless the system is at or near such a point. We discuss briefly how the distance to the bifurcation may be related to the strength of Earth’s ice-albedo feedback.’ http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.0253

        Empahsis mine.

      • You can tell an objective method by one that is not sensitive to start and end points. Decadal averages fit the bill, e.g. 2003-2013 minus 1993-2003, which gives 0.14 degrees warming robustly even changing the end points by a year or so.

      • CH, now you are not quoting the Swanson paper you did before where it mentions sensitivity and variability. Do you want to go back and find it, or should I quote it for you?

      • Jim D: “So Swanson’s paper says large natural variability also implies large climate sensitivity to forcing.”
        I think you are correct.
        https://judithcurry.com/2011/01/04/scenarios-2010-2040-part-iii-climate-shifts/#comment-28100 – Tomas Milanovic on Tsonis 2007.
        Once there: Find: genuflexion
        I found that interesting. I don’t know much about chaos theory and Milanovic’s comments helped me with that.
        Then when you look at SkS’s reaction to Tsonis, I think I see that, they can’t decide if they have to attack or not?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        No – I am quoting another highly credentialed scientist in Michael Ghil describing exactly what is meant by ‘sensitivity’ in a coupled nonlinear system. It is a bifurcation parameter. The system shifts abruptly and out of proportion with the initial forcing. It is not a constant – it is large in the vicinity of a phase shift. It may be negative or positive and of varying strength. There are a number of control variables in the system – not just CO2.

        Observation shows a ‘Momentous Pacific Climate Shift’ to a cool mode in 1998/2001. These last for 20 to 40 years. Ignore the models, the theory and the observations as much as you like Jim. It doesn’t change reality.

      • Ragnaar, I am not sure I believe that large sensitivity goes with large natural variability in models. I have to see the reasoning for that. It is not obvious to me, but I can maybe see how it relates to how quickly the ocean surface temperatures can change.

      • CH and Ragnaar, Swanson says this: ” …theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. ”
        Gulp.

      • I see your point Jim B about end points. I like break points. If we entertain the thought that they might be significant then waiting longer before we recognize them, has some downside. It’s a trade off either way, I think.

      • Ragnaar, if you are looking for steps, you’ll find those too, but they are always upwards. It is connect the dots.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘… as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’

        ftp://starfish.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub/ocean/CCS-WG_References/NewSinceReport/March15/Swanson%20and%20Tsonis%20Has%20the%20climate%20recently%20shifted%202008GL037022.pdf

        It is still not sensitivity as you understand it Jim. It is the potential for abrupt and nonlinear change.

        ‘ In a truly nonlinear setting, indeterminacy in the size of the response is observed only in the vicinity of tipping points. We show, in fact, that small disturbances cannot result in a large-amplitude response, unless the system is at or near such a point.’

      • Jim D:
        Yes I believe he said that. My other post suggested a reason for that. I didn’t rule what he said out, I don’t know enough about the whole subject.

      • CH, in the sentence I quoted, there doesn’t seem to be another way to interpret sensitivity except the standard one. I am not ready to believe this quote yet, but I just mentioned it because it was in that paper.

      • ‘ In a truly nonlinear setting, indeterminacy in the size of the response is observed only in the vicinity of tipping points. We show, in fact, that small disturbances cannot result in a large-amplitude response, unless the system is at or near such a point.’ – Chief’s post.
        This I can follow.

      • Yes, tipping points often go with large albedo changes. I think the Arctic sea-ice loss is one such tipping point that we are in the middle of.

      • Jim D: “I am not sure I believe that large sensitivity goes with large natural variability in models.” If there is natutal varibility and the models don’t recognize it enough, downward natural varibility if it is happening, could be suppressing some of the effect of CO2. Masking it.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        A small change in a control variable results in an abrupt shift in system behaviour. Exactly the behaviour that Ghil described.

        http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/bifurcations.png.html?sort=3&o=51

        This is the new climate paradigm in which the old ideas of ordered climate responses and constant sensitivity cease to have any meaning at all.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        BTW – decreased albedo in the Arctic is probably not a factor.

      • Jim D:
        As I struggle with chaos theory I see steps. You pointed out the last step was up earlier. I agree. As the temperature did step higher, and then seems to have plateaued since then. I can’t reconcile things at this point.

      • Chief:
        Did someone change the definition of feedback from its classical one? Engineers have made this comment. If you say that X is 3X because of feedback. You are saying some feedback process holds it at 3X instead of accelerating it out of control. Is this shortcutting things instead of understanding them? It might have been Hansen in 1984. Saying X is 3X is saying that first the feedback is positive, then it’s negative when you reach 3X. Maybe it makes sense because of Plank’s law.

      • “Jim D
        You can tell an objective method by one that is not sensitive to start and end points”
        Or you fit to a nth order polynomial and then integrate the polynomial, which is the typical way one gets rates of complex wave functions.
        That’s how the morons outside climate science do it.

      • [Response: Wayne, please note that this is Kyle’s article not mine, though I did encourage him to write it for us. I think the interesting question raised (though not definitively answered) by this line of work is the extent to which some of the pause in warming mid-century might have been more due to decadal ocean variability rather than aerosols than is commonly thought. If that is the case, then a pause or temporary reduction in warming rate could recur even if aerosols are unchanged. Learning how to detect and interpret such things is important, lest a temporary pause be confused with evidence for low climate sensitivity. –raypierre]

      • Roe makes 2 assumptions. All watts are created equal and do not have different feedbacks, and all variation is forced. Neither assumption is very supportable.

        I’m not sure what Pierre was thinking. Of course an extended pause would reduce sensitivity estimates. That which can dampen can amplify.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        A chaotic system has control variables and multiple positive and negative feedbacks.

        There are multiple controls variables – most of them quite naturally creating responses in ocean and atmosphere circulation that change substantially change the Earth energy budget. CO2 is superimposed as another control variable on an already abruptly changing complex dynamical system. Let me know when we have a handle on all of the multiple feedbacks and all of the interactions.

        I suggest that sea surface temperature is inversely related to cloud formation. And that SST is driven by top down modulation by UV/ozone interaction in he stratosphere. So a positive feedback to solar intensity. Again – warming in the Arctic melts ice – thermohaline circulation decreases – snow and ice increases. A negative feedback to warming that has been central to climate in the past 2.58 million years.

      • @Jim D,
        Sensitivity will be a non-linear function in a system near its bifircation. Away from this the sensitivity can be linearised.

      • The loss of Arctic sea-ice would be a bifurcation, because it is a positive feedback that adds to the others, and is also not easily reversed. The climate has a hysteresis effect with regard to these ice areas. There is the old idea of catastrophe theory that applies here. Perhaps that is where the C in CAGW comes from, because it implies these tipping points that are not reversible with just CO2 reductions to recent levels.

  28. I agree with all of these, Thanks for listing them so conveniently fan:
    Scientists are hysterical Chicken Little clowns.
    • CAGW is near the bottom of most folks’ lists.
    • The CAGW scare has jumped the shark.
    • Greenie Eurocrats are backing out.
    • Green energy subsidies are running out of steam.
    • How are you doing in the carbon market?
    • The Aussie greenie carbon tax dummies are about to get dumped.
    • The pause is killing your cause.
    • Denialism is triumphant.

  29. Unusual activity of the Sun during
    recent decades compared to the
    previous 11,000 years

    According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    • Interesting, figure 3, it looks like they’ve spliced instrumental data onto proxy data.

      • Clearly signed and referenced. There’s your late 20th century warming by the way (sunspot numbers, red curve).

      • lolwot, there is nothing wrong with doing that, only in the way your heroes, dishonest climate scientists, did it.

        Edim, Hoyt and Schatten is the first reference.
        ========

      • Right there’s nothing wrong with doing it, until climate scientists do it, then it’s wrong. I could swear someone on an earlier thread was telling me instrumental and proxy data must never be compared like that

      • They can if there’s sufficient overlap to demonstrate equivalence.

      • that does makes sense

      • And in your heroes’ case there was sufficient overlap to demonstrate non-equivalence. So they chose to hide the non-equivalence.

        Are you beginning to understand the corruption now?
        ==================

  30. Sorry to ruin the fun, but Little Ice Age cometh:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:360/from:1910

  31. Let me bring this out as a new part.
    @@@@@

    Pekka Pirilä | August 10, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    Jim,
    On one point I agree. Climate sensitivity in some form is the key. (Transient climate response may be the most relevant of the alternative measures of climate sensitivity.)
    What i don’t accept at all are your views on what’s known about climate sensitivity. Your arguments are generic enough to justify claims like the one of my previous comment. You haven’t been able to present anything more specific and for that reason you resort to false generalities.
    Generalities are almost always wrong when applied to a controversial matter. They are a poor excuse for not knowing enough about the subject to discuss more relevant issues.
    @@@@@

    My original statement was

    “With respect to CAGW, one cannot do controlled experiments on the atmosphere, so it is impossible to measure climate sensitivity.”

    Now let me ask you. What are your objections to this statement? Is it a “false generality”? Is it wrong? Is it too general? Is it a “poor excuse for not knowing enough about the subject to discuss more relevant issues”? What?

    • Jim,

      Let me see if this analogy can show you where you are wrong.

      Since we can’t do a controlled experiment on adolescent drug use, we can’t demonstrate that drug use is bad for children.

      The point being that we can take data and measure effects even without having any control over any of the variables we measure.

      We know drought is bad for crops even knowing we can not cause drought.

      Do you consider a change from “climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero” to “climate sensitivity has never been and can not be measured” to be significant?

      • Bob, you write “Let me see if this analogy can show you where you are wrong.”

        Your analogy is irrelevant, and nothing to do with the issue. Overly simplistic, the scientiifc method in physics requires that you observe something, form a hypothesis, deduce what else should happen if the hypothesis is correct, and then go out and measure this. For CAGW, we observe that when CO2 rises, global temperatures rise, and hypothese that the rise in temperature is caused by the rising CO2. To show that this hypothesis is correct we need to measure climate sensitivity. We cannot measure climate sensitivity, so CAGW remains a hypothesis. Simple.

        You also write “Do you consider a change from “climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero” to “climate sensitivity has never been and can not be measured” to be significant?”. You are misquoting me. The two statements I have written are not what you claim. The second one is correct; the first is wrong. The first ought to be “What little empirical data we have, gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero”. When written correctly, both statements are completely accurate, and neither needs changing..

      • > [T]he scientiifc method in physics requires that you observe something, form a hypothesis, deduce what else should happen if the hypothesis is correct, and then go out and measure this.

        This last this needs to be clarified.

        That science can be done without “weasel words” (Jim’s epithet) like infer has yet to be shown.

      • Willard, you write “This last this needs to be clarified.”

        Please note that you omitted my “Overly simplistic”. I am not writing a long learned thesis. For CAGW, I have defined it. The “this” is climate sensitivity.

      • > For CAGW, I have defined it. The “this” is climate sensitivity.

        You described what you call the scientiifc method in physics, and yet you can’t think of any other example than CS to reject CS, Jim.

        Fancy that.

      • Willard, you write “yet you can’t think of any other example than CS to reject CS, Jim.”

        I dont NEED any other example except CS. If CS cannot be measured, then CAGW cannot be validated. Period. Simple

      • Steven Mosher

        Jim

        “the scientiifc method in physics requires that you observe something, form a hypothesis, deduce what else should happen if the hypothesis is correct, and then go out and measure this.”

        Talk to me about Larnder’s analysis of the weakness in American bombers and his work that lead to the placement of the mid Canada line. There was no testing of the hypothesis. They used the best information and their understanding of what might happen to make decisions.

        In short, you know from your own work in OR that we very often cannot go out and measure things.

        We look at the loss rates of our aircraft. We hypothesize that if this loss rate continues we will be out of planes in 1 month.

        we do not go out and measure whether this really happens or not.
        we advise the general that he needs to act. we dont wait for disaster
        to test our hypothesis.

        We predict that our missile defense can handle a threat from North Korea.
        We test what we can, but we dont ask the Korean’s to launch a full blown attack so we can test our hypothesis.

        And there are examples from physics if you like.

        We observe that an asteroid has a certain mass. We predict that if it strikes the earth and hits new york, that the city will be flattened. We do not go out and measure this. Even if we could we would not. And if we knew that an asteroid was interceptable before it hit new york, we would not wait and say ” first we test the hypothesis”

        Physics is not all we know. And lab physics is an even smaller universe of all we know. When you make labratory physics the measure of all knowledge you end up not being able to say much of anything that really matters.
        We see lab physics as an ideal. but just because its an ideal doesnt mean that other forms of knowing are useless.

      • > I dont NEED any other example except CS.

        Spoken like a true Scotsman, Jim.

      • Steven, you write “In short, you know from your own work in OR that we very often cannot go out and measure things. ”

        You have a wonderful way with words. Of course science, physics. is more that making measurements. But there are times when measurements are essential. There is no use our discussing all the wondeful things that happen in science when measurements are not required. And such discussions have nothing to do with CAGW.

        This blog is about CAGW, CAGW is a perfectly viable hypothesis. It will remsain a viable hypothesis, and nothing more, unless and until CS has been measured. Why you and the rest of the alarmists cannot accept this simple truth, I have no idea.

        And until CAGW is more than a hypothesis, there is no need to ruin the world economy on the basis that it might be right. Particularly since such little empirical; data as we have gives a strong indicartion that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has a negligible effect of temperatures. And the longer we go on adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the more empirical data we are acquiring that indicates that CO2 has no effect on temperatures.

        The IPCC has done the world and science an enormous disservice by claiming that CAGW is more than a hypothesis. I doubt I could ever forgive all the alarmisrts, such as yourelf, for bringing science, which I love, down to the level shown by the scientific nonsense statements on CAGW by so many of the learned scientific societies

      • “Jim,

        Let me see if this analogy can show you where you are wrong.

        Since we can’t do a controlled experiment on adolescent drug use, we can’t demonstrate that drug use is bad for children.”

        Yes, of course.
        In fact billions of dollars a spend on drugs for children because it’s considered good for children.

        I believe drugs tend to kill more adults than children.
        Nor do we know whether whipping children is good or bad for children.
        Humans have been taking various drugs for thousands of years- one can’t say whether some use of drugs is good or bad.
        I would guess it’s worse to put a human in prison than taking drugs- though taking various types of drugs may be similar in some respects to being in a prison.
        Various drugs can make one impaired. One should not drink a lot of alcohol and attempt the operate a one ton vehicle design to drive over
        100 mph. Nor should you drink a lot alcohol within a day period of time.
        Same could said about salt. Red wine in moderation is suppose to be generally good for one health and emotional state.
        It seems one of worst effects of drugs is one can be easily drugged- one can be unaware, that one has being drugged by someone.
        This is also true in regard some poisons as well as drugs.
        It seems controlling substances which can used against a person, is far more important than controlling substances if which people deliberately choose to use.
        And is this deliberate choice which is aspect concerning children and drug use. That’s moral aspect.
        One generally can’t expect children to make correct decisions about most things, and parents provide guidance to children. So they don’t fall into swimming pool or some well. Or whatever.
        And generally, the matter of whether children takes any kinds of drugs or what they eat is mostly something decided by parents.
        And largely because parents don’t want their children taking certain drugs, that we have prohibition against certain types of drug used by anyone. And such laws at a federal level were probably mostly a mistake.

  32. “With respect to CAGW, one cannot do controlled experiments on the atmosphere, so it is impossible to measure climate sensitivity.”

    Jim, I think it would be possible to do controlled experiments at least on small ‘parts’ of the atmosphere, by creating artificial CO2 domes at chosen places (off-shore, deserts..) and latitudes. The CO2 domes could be created by relocating emission points of coal-fired power plants to desired locations, or by some other means. The domes would have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations closer to the emission points. So, we would have variations in CO2 from background (~400 ppm) to some maximum achievable concentration at r = 0. Then we could measure temperatures, CO2 concentrations, humidity, wind, surface heat fluxes etc. This should be cheaper than a single satellite and we could learn something.

    • Edim, you write “Jim, I think it would be possible to do controlled experiments at least ”

      Maybe so, maybe not. But such experiments have not been done, and may be technically infeasible or too expensive. Until such efforts have been completed, my major point has not been addressed. Climate sensitivity, in 2013, has NOT been MEASURED. That is the issue

      • Ah, but it’s been estimated poorly, the poverty enhanced by bias and dedication to the ’cause’ of the Piltdown Mann, Mike Hulme, and a myriad of other biased advocates wearing lab coats.
        =====================

      • Oh, I agree about that. My point is that if the consensus climate community wanted to measure it, it could be possible.

  33. Bart R is pushing a position that, as I understand it, demands “privatizing” the human contribution to the carbon cycle from fossil fuels by imposing a tax designed to make non-fossil energy competitive with fossil, remitting the receipts to the populace on a per capita basis. The rational for this demand is that adding fossil carbon to the biosphere represents a risk, that should be paid for.

    Well, it’s my opinion that windmills and other devices designed to extract energy from moving atmosphere (free air in the environment) represent a similar risk, so I’m proposing a similar solution.

    Let me start with the risk. The way the weather works, air masses in different areas have different temperature profiles, which results in different pressure/height relationships. This in turn results in lateral pressure gradients at various altitudes. These gradients are balanced by air movement (wind), and the geostrophic effect of these winds that results from the Coriolis effect. This situation holds throughout most of the troposphere poleward of perhaps 5 degrees of latitude, except for the boundary layers.

    The upper boundary layer, the tropopause, is a complex interaction with the stratosphere, which is hyper-stable but also has lateral pressure gradients balanced by geostrophic winds.

    The lower layer is what’s important for wind power, as well as its risk. Here, friction with the surface causes the average velocity of air movement to be lower than necessary to balance pressure differentials, resulting in net transfer of air from higher to lower pressure. Note that this only happens at the boundary layer(s), so pressure differences caused by convection, on scales ranging from local (thunderstorms) to planetary (jet streams) are resolved at the boundary.

    The average profile of wind velocity in the lower boundary is normally described by the Ekman spiral (normally studied in the ocean, but also present in the atmosphere over both land and sea). The height of the spiral, and the amount of lateral air movement (between air masses), are dependent (AFAIK) on the amount of relief at the surface, which influences the nature of the turbulent “friction” in the boundary layer.

    Wind turbines, which extract energy from air movement in the lower boundary layer, will have the effect of increasing the effective relief of the surface, which in turn will raise the height of the Ekman spiral and increase the net flow of air from high to low pressure at the bottom of the Troposphere. This will have a significant effect on the climate, the magnitude and nature of which are unknown.

    Pending better modeling, the risk from wind turbines should be considered at least equivalent to the risk from dumping fossil CO2. Just as there are demands to “privatize” dumping rights by having the government charge a fee which is remitted to the populace on a per capita basis, the risk of thickening the boundary layer (raising the height of the Ekman spiral) justifies the demand to “privatize” extraction of energy from the wind.

    The gov’mint needs to charge a fee on use of wind power, and remit all the proceeds to the populace on a per capita basis. The amount should be determined by the “Law of Supply and Demand”, in a fashion similar to what Bart R is demanding for fossil carbon. This needs to be done as soon as possible, so as to reduce distortion of the market for wind power by people risking the climate without paying for it.

    I want my money!

    • Had there been a population needing energy near the mountain gap by the Boedele Depression in Africa, and had windmills been placed in that gap to supply it, then the Amazon Basin would be dying for lack of nutrients.
      ===========================

      • Thanks kim, I didn’t know about that. Talk about teleconnections! I’ve suspected for many years that climate changes a few thousand years ago might have resulted (partly) from massive African pasturing of domestic goats, as well as perhaps destruction of forests in the Sahara to increase pasture land. This could be a mechanism.

      • I’ve been touting this point for years, but not as eloquently or wittily as you just did. Granted, there is a huge amount of energy in wind, but once we take significant amounts of energy from it, it will change weather and climate. There is a large class of people downwind, all of us.
        ========================

    • AK | August 11, 2013 at 8:54 am |

      I was raised that it is kinder to never attribute to actual malice what could be adequately explained by utter incompetence.

      You’ve had this explained to you before, and at great length. You have access to the prezi that lays it out in simple terms a child of twelve could follow without great difficulty. You’ve asked questions and had them answered at length. You are capable of following and embracing the faulty ‘cheap energy’ argument, and even demonstrate enough elementary familiarity with the most basic ideas of Economics to differentiate supply from demand.

      So I must believe you’re maliciously misrepresenting what I’ve said in so insulting a manner to your readers on purpose as a straw man, to confuse and mislead, to mischaracterize for the sake of interfering with an idea that shows your ironically named ‘cheap energy’ euphemism for state subsidized fossil fuels for the costly communist fraud it is.

      Pushing?

      Sure. Whatever. Explaining. Setting out. Illustrating. Showing. Delivering. Illuminating. Whatever word turns your crank.

      ..a position that, as I understand it,

      Wow you use a lot of words to say very little. I’m pretty sure you don’t actually understand my position as you assert it to be, since you just can’t be that utterly incompetent.

      demands

      Huh. Does the position demands it?

      The situation demands it?

      I’m pushing Capitalism, a reasoned system of Economic thought and methods designed to most efficiently allocate scarce resources fairly among all citizens.

      Methodical reasoning shows that what can be made private property, and thereby can be traded in the Market, ought be to allow everyone fair access to limited resources in a way that maximizes utility to every citizen. It is not the matter of joking or games or religion or rhetoric. When you lie to pervert Capitalism, you strike at hardworking Americans and honest businessmen trying to provide for their families.

      How do we judge if a thing can be made private, under Capitalism?

      There are five tests:

      1. Is it commodifiable in lucrative transactions? (Can it be bought and sold?)

      So far as CO2E in lucrative exchanges is concerned, commodifiability is already patently true. Where carbon can be sold to burn, everything connected with the burning of the carbon can be treated as part of that exchange at that point of transaction.

      2. Is it scarce?

      What demonstrates that it decreases with use is scarce. CO2E isn’t decreasing, so it’s just wrong to call it scarce or seek to privatize the CO2E in the air. Unburned CO2 in the Market, which we’ve noted is already a lucrative commodity, can only be intended for burning, and that burning dumps waste into the Carbon Cycle, which performs the scarce service of returning CO2E out of the air. As the level of CO2E in the air is significantly increasing, we know the Carbon Cycle to be scarce. We don’t need to demonstrate a human source for the rise. We don’t care the source of the rise. We care whether the rise shows scarcity, which it does.

      3. Is it rivalrous?

      If multiple people make use of the same slice of the resource equally and freely, it isn’t rivalrous. We’ve had demonstrated that CO2E level added into the atmosphere takes many years, decades or centuries to be removed by the Carbon Cycle, though individual molecules may recycle faster, the equilibrium level is something no rival may share the same slice of once one party has emitted CO2E into it, at least for a significant portion of a human lifetime.

      4. Is it excludable?

      Is there a way to prevent access in the Market to the lucrative commodity or service?

      At first blush, one observes you can’t really go around blocking up people’s breath. Well, you can. You can dump enough pollution into the air that people stop breathing, but that’s one of the things we’d hope to avoid.

      As the sale of carbon-based commodities intended for release into the air as CO2E is excludable, and as the intensity of CO2E in these commodities is well-known (by a treaty signed by all nations, a standard of weights and measures), yes, CO2E is excludable at the point of sale of carbon-containing commodities intended to emit CO2E.

      5. Is it administrable?

      Yes. Clearly. Nations administer VAT. Nations administer payroll and income tax systems that include returns to citizens. Combine the two systems, and nations in enforcing the standards of weights and measures of the sale of their private citizens’ Carbon Cycle right to use at the level of VAT collection can pay their private citizens their fair share by direct payroll return.

      That’s “privatizing” but not as AK falsely and wrongly asserts in his straw man, “the human contribution to the carbon cycle from fossil fuels by imposing a tax designed to make non-fossil energy competitive with fossil,” but the private dumping of CO2E into the air that requires the services of the Carbon Cycle to dispose of. It’s a disposal fee, “remitting the receipts to the populace on a per capita basis.

      The rational [sic] for this is _NOT_ a demand .. that adding fossil carbon to the biosphere represents a risk, that should be paid for. The rationale is that what can be made private, ought be, and people can then decide for themselves as individuals what they want.

      That Risk is involved, and consent for the acceptance of that Risk is not sought — since such consent is not administrably feasible — we can justify using the Law of Supply and Demand for all sellers as a single monopolistic entity. There are plenty of alternatives to CO2E-sourced energy, so the Law of Supply and Demand still applies, even with this single seller, and the condition of unconsented expropriation of private property is addressed with fairness and consideration.

      Does this work for AK’s absurdly broken wind emissions?

      No.

      While windmills are commodifiable, there are kites, sailboats, buildings, towers, antennae, utility poles, tall trees, aircraft, balloons, convection due smokestacks in countless conformations outside the Market’s ability to control AK’s broken wind.

      Wind further does not demonstrate scarcity, however much AK asserts his broken wind is blocked up by herniation of his large Ekman spirals. As the system of wind is complex and nonlinear, and not predictive, AK’s broken efforts at wordslaw to show scarcity are a mathematical impossibility. In contrast, we know CO2E levels rise, as observed by Keeling and countless adequate paleo proxies.

      AK’s wind breaking is not excludable. How are you going to stop someone from planting seeds of tall trees, building kites, launching balloons?

      AK’s broken wind is not administrable, too.

      So regardless of AK’s broken wind risk argument, there’s no redress for it in Capitalism. He’ll have to go to the EPA and get it to cork up his broken wind by red tape.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Is it readable? Who cares.

      • I’m pushing Capitalism, a reasoned system of Economic thought and methods designed to most efficiently allocate scarce resources fairly among all citizens.

        No, you’re pushing a bunch of absurd, armwaving, nonsense that you call “capitalism”.

        Methodical reasoning shows that what can be made private property, and thereby can be traded in the Market, ought be to allow everyone fair access to limited resources in a way that maximizes utility to every citizen.

        Reasoning, methodical or otherwise, is a method of progressing from assumptions to conclusions. GIGO.

        Where carbon can be sold to burn, everything connected with the burning of the carbon can be treated as part of that exchange at that point of transaction.

        Are you, or are you not, talking about fossil carbon? If yes, how do you deal with mixes, or special cases such as bio-fuels created from CO2 captured from stack emissions? (This applies to administration as well.) If no, well it seems totally unfair, as well as counter-productive, to apply your carbon-tax to renewable carbon fuels as well as fossil.

        While windmills are commodifiable, there are kites, sailboats, buildings, towers, antennae, utility poles, tall trees, aircraft, balloons, convection due smokestacks in countless conformations outside the Market’s ability to control AK’s broken wind.

        Energy derived from wind is easibly commodifiable, and other interference with boundary layer friction can be ignored as too little to worry about.

        Wind further does not demonstrate scarcity, […]

        It most certainly does. The total amount of energy in wind is finite, and if we assume that a limited fraction can be extracted without damaging the climate, that’s finite too. It’s also a good parallel with natural sequestration of fossil carbon: we don’t know how much of either limited resource we can use without causing damage. We don’t know to what extent human dumping of fossil CO2 is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2, we don’t even know for sure if that rise isn’t due to temperature increases as Salby has suggested. It’s quite plausible that the environment’s ability to absorb fossil CO2 is hundreds of times larger than the amount humans are dumping. Just like wind power.

        How are you going to stop someone from planting seeds of tall trees, building kites, launching balloons?

        As long as they don’t extract energy, we don’t bother.

        Bottom line, a tax on wind power, with its rate set by the “Law of Supply and Demand” is a very good parallel to a tax on (fossil?) carbon. The proceeds should be distributed to the populace on a per captia basis. As soon as possible.

        I want my money!

    • AK | August 12, 2013 at 9:10 am |

      Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I’ve read. But the sincerest post on CC is still pretty dubious, and you can’t flatter an idea.

      If you believe what is being pushed isn’t capitalism, take the idea on its face and use whatever generally accepted definition of capitalism you can defend and use that.

      If you think there are garbage assumptions, identify them specifically, and without the glittering generality incumbent in the hypocritical phrase “a bunch of absurd, armwaving, nonsense“; I’d be delighted to get a clear description of your exact rational objection, if you had one.

      And yes, I’m saying “carbon”, not “fossil carbon”; I regard biomass as a scam, as generally the carbon being burned would otherwise be sequestered for longer out of the system, buried and composted by microbes at a lower net rate of emission. If an innovator comes up with a net less emissive program for biomass treatment that sequesters more than less — such as if the University of Houston pyoil research (that leaves the majority of biomass residue in the form of biochar and hydrotreats the rest to be lower in carbon intensity) where combined with the university of Arizona study in solar energy to store peak solar as usable octane and diesel — that abstract and unusual case would benefit because, even though the carbon in the mix is still paying the fees, the sequestration is doubtlessly a form of waste disposal that avoids even higher carbon disposal fees.

      So your seeming ‘unfairness’ is just not an issue.

      Also, you continue to mistake carbon for energy. The idea of privatizing the carbon cycle is not to tax energy. It is not restricted to fuels. Asphalt isn’t ‘energy’, yet emits huge amounts of carbon volatiles into the air that are definitely GHGs. Some industrial chemicals are made to be sprayed on surfaces for various reasons that will then evaporate to GHGs. If it is disposed into the air and is a GHG, it ought pay the service fee.

      How are you so hung up on ‘energy’ that you can’t see this isn’t about that?

      We’re not talking about carbon ‘energy’, just carbon dumping. A parallel idea wouldn’t discuss wind ‘energy’, but just your broken wind dumping model. Demonstrate a Keeling Curve for broken wind that can be ascribed to windmills (WHICH ARE ALREADY PRIVATE, SO YOUR POINT ISN’T EVEN MOOT) even one percent as significant as the impact on wind of rising CO2E, and you might be able to make a case for broken wind privatization.

      Overcome your OCD and focus on what’s being discussed, not some straw man you’ve constructed in your own head.

      Because if you need to talk about something I’m not talking about, that’s fine. Just don’t ascribe it to my argument.

      • And yes, I’m saying “carbon”, not “fossil carbon”;

        So, for instance, if somebody follows the suggestions in my latest blog post, and comes up with a way to bio-convert hydrogen from solar electrolysis to methane using CO2 extracted from the air (or sea, which in turn extracts it from the air with a settling time of ~1 year, IIRC), they’d pay the tax despite the fact that they’re just recycling carbon already in the air? That’s absurd.

        Also, you continue to mistake carbon for energy. […] How are you so hung up on ‘energy’ that you can’t see this isn’t about that?

        Greenhouse gases represent a risk to the climate (among other things). Energy extracted from the wind represents a parallel risk. It is about energy when it comes to wind power.

        Asphalt isn’t ‘energy’, yet emits huge amounts of carbon volatiles into the air that are definitely GHGs. Some industrial chemicals are made to be sprayed on surfaces for various reasons that will then evaporate to GHGs. If it is disposed into the air and is a GHG, it ought pay the service fee.

        You forgot burning lime for concrete.

        I’ve got work to do, I’ll address the rest as I have time.

      • AK | August 12, 2013 at 11:17 am |

        .. a way to bio-convert hydrogen from solar electrolysis to methane using CO2 extracted from the air (or sea,..), they’d pay the tax despite the fact that they’re just recycling carbon already in the air?

        Wow. Getting CO2 from the air or sea, where it’s measured in ppmv, is very much the hard way to do this, though I don’t deny it’s possible. (However, it is taking up resources that could be used more advantageously to get CO2 from emissions at flue, but that’s not my issue.)

        If you want to sell your CO2 disposal service in competition with the carbon cycle, who am I to stand in the way of that?

        Go for it.

        Just adjust your prices, and pay the owners of the carbon cycle their share for your use of it. They won’t charge you anything for taking CO2 out of the system. As that’s not commodifiable, scarce, rivalrous, excludable or administrable.

        And as explained before you chased your tail, wind mills are already privatized. You’re arguing for doing something that’s already done.

        Also, I assure you, lime is always on my mind.

      • Using solar energy to get hydrogen from water would seem to be a better and more practical idea. Carbon-neutral too.

      • @Jim D…

        Using solar energy to get hydrogen from water would seem to be a better and more practical idea. Carbon-neutral too.

        Far from practical. The technology for storing and transporting hydrogen is very far from “shovel-ready”. Methane technology is mature. I’d be fine with hydrogen if the technology can become mature in time, but IMO methane will have to fill in for a few decades.

        The question is whether the bio-technology for tailored methanogens would be quicker to roll out. IMO it would. And it would be carbon-neutral as well, since the carbon would come from the atmosphere in the first place.

      • @Bart R…

        If you believe what is being pushed isn’t capitalism, take the idea on its face and use whatever generally accepted definition of capitalism you can defend and use that.

        I’m not sure there is any “generally accepted definition of capitalism“, certainly my own working definition while based on older work, has undergone much development during my studies of the Industrial Revolution and other social innovations.

        I turned out to be much more effort than I expected, as the original documents from which I got my ideas aren’t easily found on the Web, but I can put together some bits and pieces to back up my own summary:

        Capitalism is the ideal of investing wealth in the means of production, rather than simply raw materials or finished products. For instance, from Wiki:

        The accumulation of capital refers to the process of “making money”, or growing an initial sum of money through investment in production. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, whereby financial capital is invested in order to realize a profit and then reinvested into further production in a continuous process of accumulation. In Marxian economic theory, this dynamic is called the law of value.

        This is one out of a large number of somewhat inconsistent definitions present in the article, which I’ve cherry-picked as representative of my own working definition.

        From another, “socialist”, site:

        The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means and methods of production up to date.

        This points up the fact that the current systems of capitalism also include a somewhat “free” market in goods, services, and especially investment capital.

        It is also possible (at least in theory) to have a free market economy that is not capitalist. Such a ‘market economy’ would involve farmers, artisans and shopkeepers each producing a particular product that they would exchange via the medium of money. There would be no profit-making and no class division—just independent producers exchanging goods for their mutual benefit. But it is doubtful whether such an economy has ever existed. The nearest that may have come to it would have been in some of the early colonial settlements in North America.

        Actually, my own studies suggest, to me that something along these lines existed in the archaic and pre-classical Hellenic “city-state” polities. Whether or not it actually did, it can be used to point up a more general idea of “capitalism”:

        If a farmer expends his free time on social activities, he is spending wealth in the form of labor, real or potential. This wealth could also be spent clearing rocks from farmland, investing it in improving the current means of production. I find the story of Deucalion interesting:

        Zeus loosed a deluge, so that the rivers ran in torrents and the sea flooded the coastal plain, engulfed the foothills with spray, and washed everything clean. Deucalion, with the aid of his father Prometheus, was saved from this deluge by building a chest (literally “chest,” as in “box”).[2] Like the Biblical Noah and the Mesopotamian counterpart Utnapishtim, he uses his device to survive the deluge with his wife, Pyrrha.

        It’s interesting that the Greek word for “chest” is “arcos

        Once the deluge was over and the couple had given thanks to Zeus, Deucalion (said in several of the sources to have been aged 82 at the time) consulted an oracle of Themis about how to repopulate the earth. He was told to cover your head and throw the bones of your mother behind your shoulder. Deucalion and Pyrrha understood that “mother” is Gaia, the mother of all living things, and the “bones” to be rocks. They threw the rocks behind their shoulders and the stones formed people. Pyrrha’s became women; Deucalion’s became men.

        This might well be a metaphoric reference to such early capitalism, clearing the stones from farmland.

        I would derive the name “Prometheus” through syncope from “pro-ment-theos“, ancient sources equate it with “forethought”, which is certainly embodied by capitalism as the ideal of investing wealth in the means of production.

        Note that in my (working) definition, capitalism and relatively free markets were essential to the successful Industrial Revolution, but not identical either to it or each other.

      • “I’m not sure there is any “generally accepted definition of capitalism“, certainly my own working definition while based on older work, has undergone much development during my studies of the Industrial Revolution and other social innovations.”

        Capitalism is not socialism. It’s word coined to distinguish socialism
        in contrast to it. So, start religion called Mud, Socialism is Mud, Capitalism
        is the infidels. Or socialism is this, and capitalism is the stuff other than that.
        One could describe capitalism as self selecting specialization, and free
        markets. Socialism is governing specialization and markets.

      • AK | August 13, 2013 at 8:46 am |

        Really? Okay, autodidacts are admirable in a number of ways.. spiraling into crackpottery however is not one of the characteristics some autodidacts are prone to that could be considered admirable.

        Awe-inspiringly point-missing?

        Maybe.

        Admirable?

        No.

        Wouldn’t it be great if education — including self-education — furnished greater clarity of categorization and organization of thoughts and ideas?

        To wander so murkily into haphazard and obtuse understanding of such a simple concept as Capitalism — at least how it works — is bizarre.

        What I mean when I say Capitalism is the descendant of Adam Smith’s “Natural Liberty”, which even Wikipedia describes more or less decently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalist_theory#Adam_Smith

        http://capitalism.columbia.edu/theory-capitalism makes the argument that, as Capitalism is the subject still of new study today, is a dynamic philosophy that evolves as the Market evolves, that views of the theory change as perspective changes, there will always be innovations. In that sense, AK’s approach is not wrong in premise. But to get to the point where he renders the word less than useless?

        That’s not how Capitalism works. It’s not an exercise in investing effort to reduce utility.

        As this is what’s happened, we clearly need to take another tack.

        For the purposes of this discussion about individual choices of what resources to allocate by private negotiation, what I mean when I say Capitalism is a competitive, fair, stable profit-seeking market economy in preference over command and control regulation or supplements or support or gifts or favors at the expense of taxpayers to a select few telling individuals what to do. Both approaches have their place in the effective allocation of resources necessary to a nation justified by the uplifting of its people, but Capitalism prefers the former.

        In this sense, privatization removes these decisions about the object of privatization from the government (or, by default, accident, which is often the same as the effects of government) and hands these decisions firmly over to people in the Market by a minimal set of rules of conduct such as standards of weights and measures, enforcement of currency and laws against false advertising and theft.

        Economists find several conditions necessary for a more ideal or ‘perfect’ Capitalist market; I focus only on two:

        1. Reduction of barriers to entry and exit of sellers (such as subsidies to some that skew competition, arguably overcome generally by subsidies to new innovators for the short term);
        2. So clear information for all sellers and buyers regarding prices and offers as practical.

        The rest is quibble. My principle is minimizing the role of government as an actor in the Market by giving people the opportunity to decide what they want for themselves, not letting some expert interfere to tell them what they ought do.

        If the government takes resources from people — taxes them — sometimes there’s a valid argument for that, like the defense of the nation. When it does this to decide for people that they ought prefer oil or coal more than they would if they were deciding on price — including price of disposal — alone, with perfect knowledge of the cost of that disposal obscured by failing to put a price on it, that’s not cheap energy: that is subsidized fossil and the opposite of Capitalism.

      • @Bart R…

        Okay, autodidacts are admirable in a number of ways.. spiraling into crackpottery however is not one of the characteristics some autodidacts are prone to that could be considered admirable.

        What an appropriate comment to make about your own absurd notions.

        To wander so murkily into haphazard and obtuse understanding of such a simple concept as Capitalism — at least how it works — is bizarre.

        Many people think “Climate” is a simple concept too. A simple “definition” of “Capitalism” would be “that which won the Cold War – against ‘Comunism'”. Indeed, that’s how many use the word. (See gbaikie above.) Your own link has (IMO) roughly the same functional definition, although I suspect they would object to my saying so.

        In that sense, AK’s approach is not wrong in premise. But to get to the point where he renders the word less than useless?

        That’s not how Capitalism works. It’s not an exercise in investing effort to reduce [sic] utility.

        I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. What you said is the exact opposite of the hypothetical example I gave, where effort is invested in increasing the utility of the means of production, by transforming poor farmland to good, and (as I didn’t mention) using the rocks extracted to create terracing of hillsides, which happened quite often in Classical era Greece.

        If we consider farmland as the “means of production”, which it was in that culture, creation of new and/or better farmland constituted investment in means of production just as creation of new and better factories in the 19th century. As such, it was capitalism in action. Moreover, there was (probably) a similar “free market” approach where land was owned and managed by individual farmers, analogous to European land after Enclosure.

      • Bart

        Sadly you again take far too long to make your basic point- which seems to be:
        “When it (government) does this to decide for people that they ought prefer oil or coal more than they would if they were deciding on price — including price of disposal — alone, with perfect knowledge of the cost of that disposal obscured by failing to put a price on it, that’s not cheap energy: that is subsidized fossil and the opposite of Capitalism.”

        The issue is your statement “with perfect knowledge of the cost of that disposal obscured by failing to put a price on it”
        Please consider that there is never “perfect knowledge” of the costs or even generally accepted estimates of the net costs. If government applies the additional costs you advocate to only segments of the energy market and not all providers then government is distorting the marketplace.

      • AK | August 13, 2013 at 12:29 pm |

        I have to agree with Rob Starkey | August 13, 2013 at 11:41 am | that this has gone on far too long for a basic point.

        Arguing the definition of Capitalism is, at this point that drags through ancient Greek farms, like arguing the definition of Thermodynamics with Sky Dragon Slayers, or the definition of temperature with stefanthedenier or Myrrh: an unproductive diversion unlikely to lead anywhere, when commonplace and sufficient definitions are available and well-accepted.

        If you want to seek to privatize your broken wind, who am I to stand in your way?

        Go for it.

        It isn’t as if I hadn’t imagined and considered that many other candidates for privatization might follow in CO2E’s path: aerosol particulates, NOx, SOx, mercury (indeed the whole gamut of heavy metals), and on and on. Of all the cases I contemplated — each of them a thousand times more likely valid than I estimate your argument — CO2E recycling by the carbon cycle alone stood up as a present and patent candidate.

        If you can get a non-IPCC body that specializes in broken wind — I suspect the NIPCC to be just the group for you — or even some well-funded tax-exempt lobbyists with expert marketers and seasoned tabloid copywriters on its payroll (call it GiantWindbagPollutionFlatulence.org if you like), and put together studies and make a sound argument, I might even be persuaded to support your argument.

        But you have to agree, Carbon Cycle privatization is much more valid on every point than your broken wind.

  34. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Don Monfort posts:

    The Denialist Creed

    • Scientists are hysterical Chicken Little clowns.
    • CAGW is near the bottom of most folks’ lists.
    • The CAGW scare has jumped the shark.
    • Greenie Eurocrats are backing out.
    • Green energy subsidies are running out of steam.
    • How are you doing in the carbon market?
    • The Aussie greenie carbon tax dummies are about to get dumped.
    • The pause is killing your cause.
    • Denialism is triumphant.

    The reviews are in!

    PokerGuy  I agree with all of these. Thanks!

    Peter Lang  Good summary!

    Willard (@nevaudit) Join the bandwagon!

    Bob  “As long as totalitarian – oriented pissant progressives such as yourself exist we will fight to the death.”

    ———————————————–

    The scientific response:

    ▶  Recognize that no rational scientific dialog is possible with denialists whose faith asserts “scientists are hysterical Chicken Little clowns.”

    ▶  Reply with simple scientific questions, e.g., “If global warming is over, then when will the oceans stop rising?

    ▶  Reply with simple moral questions, e.g., “How will our grandchildren survive on a too-hot planet?

    ▶  Reply with simple natural questions, e.g., “What will happen to Nature if we burn all the carbon?

    ▶  Denialists have no rational answers to simple natural questions; and their abusive, irrational, cherry-picking, ideologically driven responses invariably serve to isolate denialists in ever-smaller, ever-more-pure ideological “bubbles”

    ▶  Once isolated in bubbles of ideological purity, denialism can recruit only stupider-and-stupider adherents; the resulting denialist bubbles thus are loud-but-harmeless; most denialists will not recognize that this isolation process is occurring.

    ———————————————–

    Conclusion  Climate-change denialism is fated for extinction.

    \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}

    • Conclusion Fan? More like ‘CAGW-climate-change is fated
      fer extinctshun and CAGW-skepticism feted fer distinctshun.’

      A short-term-predickshun:

      First ‘hide the decline’ must give us pause,
      and next the ‘pause’ that is killing the cause,
      then cometh green Eurocrats closing the doors
      on costly renewables’ demonstrable flaws …

      Uh-oh- soon the collapse of the climate wars.
      Bts

    • Fan,

      That a movement promoting self-hatred, self-righteousness and self-pity leads to its own undoing has yet to be shown.

    • Even if one is a sceptic, one could answer your questions if you could put them into an intelligible form.

      I suspect that “fan of more….” and “lolwot” are basically sociologists so they are incapable of rational scientific or technical thought.

    • Steven Mosher

      Fan

      please watch gavin


  35. “Governments around the world have watched Europe as it has moved to implement generous subsidy schemes like Porter’s to meet ambitious green energy goals and race towards a future free of fossil fuels.

    But with skyrocketing costs, major infrastructure challenges and biting austerity measures brought on by the debt crisis, some wonder why Europe has gone through the trouble of promising so much green so soon.

    Across the English Channel, Germans consumers are waking up to the costs of going green: As of Jan. 1, they are paying 11% more for electricity than they did last year thanks to government plans to replace nuclear plants with wind and solar power that requires significant and constant public money to be made cost effective.”

    “But her decision had little to do with the safety of Germany’s nuclear reactors, say analysts. Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union were worried over regional elections, and federal elections in September: If she wants to remain chancellor she needed to siphon votes from the Greens and Social Democrats, both anti-nuke.

    Dubbed the “energy transition,” the move has become a logistical and financial headache for Berlin. Nuclear power had represented one-fifth of the country’s energy supply, and Environment Minister Peter Altmaier recently estimated the shift to renewables could total up to $1.3 trillion by 2030.”

    “”Eighty percent of households don’t even know what their electricity bill is,” she added. “A lot of people simply don’t think about it – they know their computer bill, their flat-rate (phone bill), their iPad well, but when you ask about electricity they don’t know.”

    Politicians in Germany are worried over consumers, aka voters, waking up and the backlash it could create.

    Still, the cost of trying to change the climate by reducing CO2 emissions has become too much to bear for other European nations mired in debt or hobbled by overspending.

    As austerity measures take hold from Spain to the Netherlands, governments have been rushing to cut the very subsidies for green energy they once eagerly waved through to help the infant sectors grow.”

    “European governments have now realized this growth – which saw consumers footing the bill for investors’ soaring profit margins – was out of control: The UK and Czech Republic have already cut their subsidies in half, while Italy imposed a cap on new renewable energy providers. Germany cut subsidies by up to 30% and announced a major overhaul of the program Thursday.

    “Germany needed to act,” said Matthias Lang, an attorney with Bird & Bird in Dusseldorf that specializes in energy. “The previous rate was simply not sustainable. There is a limit where even the most willing consumers will object.”

    The problem now, says Lang, is that with the shutdown of eight nuclear reactors and more to close, something has to fill the gap quickly. And in Germany, renewables are supposed to do so but no one knows how to do that affordably.

    The German government has poured millions of euros in the past two years into trying to update the electricity grid system, and plans to build thousands of miles of electricity lines to accommodate the increasing influx of renewables. But huge gaps still exist because the infrastructure wasn’t in place when the decision to accelerate the nuclear exit was made.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/21/europe-renewable-energy/2006245/

  36. “But, with the levy added to German power bills to help pay for this growth nearly doubling to €0.053 per kWh – and an election looming in September – environment minister Peter Altmaier has unveiled plans to freeze renewable subsidies for two years. He has also said future rises would be limited to 2.5 per cent a year after that. ”

    “Investors are scared,” Reed Smith’s Stefan Schmitz told a recent Mergermarket conference of renewable energy financiers in London. “A number of very big investors have already decided to pull out of the German market because of the uncertainty.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5f615850-9ddd-11e2-bea1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2bfViNrI6

  37. “Must we really? According to news reports, fiscal pressures in Spain and Germany are causing them to renege on their expensive promises to subsidize solar and wind power. Reuters is reporting:

    The Spanish Parliament approved a law on Thursday that cuts subsidies for alternative energy technologies, backtracking on its push for green power.

    That measure, along with other recent laws including a tax on power generation that hit green energy investments especially hard, will virtually wipe out profits for photovoltaic, solar thermal and wind plants, sector lobbyists say…

    Spain’s Industry Minister Jose Manuel Soria defended the law in Parliament on Thursday, saying that the measures were necessary to eliminate the accumulated 28 billion euro ($37.4 billion) tariff deficit in the electricity system…

    That deficit, built up through years of the government holding down electricity prices at a level that would not cover regulated costs including renewables premiums, is at the heart of Spain’s energy sector woes…

    The problem was that the cost of the subsidies were not passed on fully to consumers because that would have pushed prices to unprecedented highs.

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/renewable-energy-goes-bust-in-europe-les

  38. “OSTERATH’S 12,000 citizens are angry. Their quiet backwater in the Ruhr, close to Düsseldorf, is the proposed site for the biggest converter station in Europe. This vast installation will transform high-voltage direct current to alternating current. It will be an important link in Germany’s new “power highway”, a network of transmission lines that will send electricity generated by wind farms in the north of the country, and offshore in the North and Baltic Seas, to the manufacturing belt in the south. Osterath’s residents reckon it will be a monstrous eyesore, and intend to stop it. A bill to determine the outlines of the new power highway is making its way through the federal parliament. Of 3,300 objections from the public, 2,300 are from Osterath.”

    “Businessmen say the Energiewende will kill German industry. Power experts worry about blackouts. Voters are furious about ever higher fuel bills. The chaos undermines Germany’s claim to efficiency, threatens its vaunted competitiveness and unnecessarily burdens households. It also demonstrates Germany’s curious refusal to think about Europe strategically.”

    “In recent months efforts to keep a lid on companies’ power costs have led to even more perverse policy shifts. Germany, Europe’s self-professed leader in the fight against climate change, did nothing to stop the collapse of the European carbon-trading system (the EU’s main collective tool for reducing carbon emissions). The market had not been working well, largely because too many permits to emit carbon had been issued. The European Commission proposed reducing their number, but Mrs Merkel refused to support the proposal, mainly to avoid spooking big German firms already worried about power costs. Silence from Europe’s most powerful government helped to sink the commission’s plan in the European Parliament.”

    “The strategically minded are pushing for more fundamental overhauls. Bold ideas include replacing the pricing distortions with a market based on production capacity rather than output: power producers would be paid by the amount of capacity they had installed rather than the amount of electricity they actually produced. There would also be a greater focus on energy conservation, including more incentives for investment in retrofitting buildings; more public investment into energy-storage research; and, from planning the expansion of the grid to the creation of new renewables capacity, a European, rather than a national, vision for the Energiewende.

    Such boldness would be good for German economic rebalancing and for Europe as a whole. After all, Europeans live so close to each other that a national energy policy makes little sense: how safe is a reactor-free Germany when nuclear power stations go on running next door in France, the Czech Republic and, in due course, in Poland? And in a supposedly single European market, is a renewables revolution at national level even possible? Instead of a national Energiewende marked by U-turns and uncertainty, Germany needs to think European. Fortunately it has already begun to do so to manage its second big economic transformation: its looming skills shortage.”

    http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21579149-germanys-energiewende-bodes-ill-countrys-european-leadership-tilting-windmills

  39. ” The problems for the supergrid lie more in the area of whether the participating countries will be inclined to fund such a costly project while they are having such severe financial problems. Eddie O’Connor gave evidence to the UK’s parliament in 2011 that it would cost 200 billion Euros ($275 billion) in total, with a first stage of 28 billion Euros by 2020. Though this sounds like a colossal amount, spread over the decades and between perhaps 20 countries, it is not that a great investment for a major move forward in infrastructure. In addition it is expected to lower offshore wind costs by 25%, and create jobs. The first “nodes” of the Supergrid are likely to be in the North Sea or between the UK and Ireland, where connections either already exist or are planned. If the EU framework is in place then the network can grow organically as more connections are added. It would encompass all forms of renewable energy, but wind turbines would be a major component. The EU wind energy sector installed 11.6 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in 2012, bringing the total wind power capacity to 105.6 GW, according to the 2012 annual statistics from the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), which was 2.2 GW more than was installed the previous year.

    Image
    Supergrid territory

    Unfortunately the harsh economic conditions are starting to bite and roll-out of new projects is stalling. Overall, the EU is almost 2 GW (1.7%) under its National Renewable Energy Action Plan forecasts. Eighteen Member States are falling behind, including Slovakia, Greece, Czech Republic, Hungary, France and Portugal. It remains to be seen how this will impact on the whole supergrid project. ”

    http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/876/66/

    • For the times, they are a changin’. I was particularly amused by the quote that said the big renewable energy investors are already pulling out of Germany. Lucky devils, they must know a better place now to get obscene returns through the malfunction of a market.
      =============

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Jim2 posts “Voltage converter stations … will be a monstrous eyesore”

      LOL … JimD, it appears that denialists need to look up the definition of monstrous eyesore!

      That would be smart, eh Jim2?

      And maybe listen to the conservative folks who speak against this monstrous desecration.

      Aye, Climate Etc lassies and laddies, that’s the TRUE voice of conservatism yet hear’n!!!

      \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 smart thing for you to do, Fan of More BS, simply is to admit you are wrong in just about everything you say.

  40. Arctic below 0 degrees centigrade still, will the refreeze come 4 weeks early this year what will it mean if it does? Should certainly drop the anomaly back towards zero and maybe give us record world sea ice levels [hoping]
    as only way to restore common sense.

    • Growing annual sea ice levels would take the wind out of the alarmist sails, that’s for sure. Then, if glaciers begin to build as well, that will take the sea level problem off the table. That would leave them with the decreasing alkalinity of the ocean as the only arrow in their quiver. And that arrow is missing feathers.

      • Jim, You are absolutely right. And to put it into perspective, in 2005, there was an enormous hurricane season in the North Atlantic; Katrina and all that. Since then, the number and intensity of hurricanes, and the other names they go by, have decreased in all respects. The warmists touted this enormously in 2005, now they hardly mention it. Except they try to kid us that Sandy was somehow unusual, and caused by too much CO2. Hopefully the same sort of thing will happen with Artic sea ice.

        I know it is early days yet for the hurricane season in the North Atlantic; maximum does not occur for about 6 weeks; and Andrew came in late August. Nevertheless, the hurricane season in the NA is very quiet so far. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

      • Hmm what happens if global temperature jumps 0.2C in the next 5 years?

        I guess climate skeptics would have problems then.

        Even worse what if we get another Arctic minimum record next year? or the year after that?

      • The number of named Atlantic tropical storms in a season has exceeded 15 ten times since 2000 (every year except 3, including the last 3 in a row). Prior to 2000 it happened 5 times total in the 20th century. We are lucky that hurricane landfalls have gone down, but activity has certainly gone up.

      • I was amused by a comment about hurricanes from Muller in a presentation I saw on youtube. He said the ability to spot hurricanes has greatly increased during the satellite era because we no longer have to rely on ships to report them. He then pointed to a swath of ocean water and said no hurricanes reported in this area. Why? Because the area was known to be dangerous because of hurricanes and ships avoided it. You just have to laugh sometimes.

      • JIMD

        Can you cite your source please. I came across printed copies of the US weather review to 1872 in the Met Office library which details storms. I am sure the info must have been digitised so I would like to compare the data.
        tonyb

      • JimD

        Thanks. I had hoped it might be NOAA rather than Wikipedia. :)

        steven hit the nail on the head with his comment about ships avoiding certain areas BECAUSE of hurricanes. There is something to that effect in one of the Weather reviews I glanced through.

        I think Judith might have done some work on this which might be more objective.
        tonyb.

      • You can also look at
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/tropical-cyclone-history-part-i-how-reliable-are-past-hurricane-records/
        Up to two per year may have been missed prior to the satellite era, which doesn’t change things much. 15 is quite exceptional in any accounting.

      • jimd

        real Climate seem dubious about the accuracy of data prior to 1900 so not sure the link demonstrates your hypothesis.
        tonyb

      • I only talked about the 20th century. How many of those years could be raised to 15 apart from the 5 listed. Remember 10 so far since 2000. It might be an increase in frequency is all I’m saying.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Dr. William Gray at the Colorado State University has pioneered research efforts leading to the discovery of La Niña impacts on Atlantic hurricane activity, and to the first and, presently only, operational long-range forecasts of Atlantic basin hurricane activity. According to this research, the chances for the continental U.S. and the Caribbean Islands to experience hurricane activity increases substantially during La Niña.’

        ‘Cool neutral ENSO conditions are currently present in the tropical Pacific, and we believe that these conditions are likely to persist for the remainder of the Atlantic hurricane season. While sea level pressure a
        nomalies across the tropical Atlantic have been relatively low during June and July, sea surface temperatures have anomalously cooled in the eastern tropical and subtropical Atlantic. These cooler SSTs are typically
        associated with less favorable thermodynamic conditions which we believe could cause slightly less TC activity than expected earlier.’

        http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2013/aug2013/aug2013.pdf

        You should look at the news for 07/22/13. Is Bill Gray part of the ever more absurd 97%?

        http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/

    • “Arctic below 0 degrees centigrade still, will the refreeze come 4 weeks early this year”

      Answer = No

      Arctic ice is now a lot more fragile than you think!

      • But colder temps mean it will be beefing up again. It has already survived some hefty Arctic storms.

      • It’ll be weeks until it reaches minimum, it’s got some way to go

      • Iolwot

        Sceptics are being very premature. The sun stays above the horizon at the North pole until the Autumn equinox although obviously its angle and heating properties are diminishing all the time.

        http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_seasons.html

        The low point for ice melt is often around the second or third week in September so there is another month to go, notwithstanding any storms.
        Stop counting chickens sceptics…

      • David Springer

        It dropped below freezing 14 days before the average for the past 40 years. A betting man will bet on ice extent halting its seasonal decline 14 days earlier than average too.

      • lolwot, you write “Arctic ice is now a lot more fragile than you think!”

        I suggest you tell that to the Mainstream Last First expedition.

        http://mainstreamlastfirst.com/news/page/2/

        29th July A Tough Day at the Office.

        Quote “We then woke to the crunching sound of a large ice berg nudging up against the boat. The ice berg had pinned our anchor line and hard as we tried, we couldn’t free the line. Because the berg was moving, the nose of the boat was starting to be pulled underneath it so we had to cut the line and in doing so say good bye to our anchor.”

      • Tony, you write “Stop counting chickens sceptics”

        I am not counting chickens, yet. In my remarks, I have pointed out over and over again, that we are a long way from minimum. Nevertheless, the signs coming from what is happening to the melt, all point to an early minimum, with sea ice extent in excess of 5 msk. Sure, something weird could happen before minimum, but it doesn’t look to be very likely

      • Against the forces of storms and ocean currents, a few metres thickness of ice cannot be described as being robust, not by any stretch.
        Now one can argue how long the ice has been so thin, how long it took to get that way or what caused it to get that way, but the fact is, with the state it’s in, things could go either way, and a few degrees either way in the air temperature isn’t going to make much difference.
        The point is, the state of the ice is a flimsy argument either for or against anything.

    • Steven Mosher

      Arctic below 0 degrees centigrade still

      its not about air temperature

      • It’s not about the air temp “Mosher”
        True we both know that, but why is the air temp so cold for so long.
        Possibly it reflects the fact that the sea temp is marginally colder,
        In which case less ice melting. We know the sea is colder because um, because um
        Because Piomas(s), DMI and sea ice extent and area are all well above the last few years. I am sure Steve this means the arctic sea water under the ice has been colder this year.

  41. “(Reuters) – Chesapeake Energy has given up a two-year legal fight to retain thousands of acres of natural gas drilling leases in New York state, landowner and legal sources told Reuters.”

    “A moratorium on hydraulic fracturing imposed in 2008 continues to halt development in New York’s portion of the Marcellus shale, one of the United States’ biggest gas deposits, while neighboring states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia experience an energy drilling renaissance.

    The Oklahoma City-based company had been appealing a decision by a federal court in New York state which ruled in November that Chesapeake could not use a state ban on hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, as a reason to declare force majeure and hold on to leases beyond their expiry without offering landowners better terms.”

    “With litigation continuing, it is unclear when, if ever, fracking will be allowed in New York. It has been a graveyard for energy company hopes in recent years.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/06/us-chesapeake-newyork-idUSBRE97517V20130806

  42. “Environmental Advocates is seeking another two-year moratorium on fracking while a more definitive assessment is conducted. The Assembly has approved a measure, but it has stalled in the State Senate. Proulx says despite the now five-year delay, New Yorkers still don’t know about potential public health effects.”

    http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/22414/20130724/ny-fracking-moratorium-enters-6th-year

  43. David Springer

    WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | August 11, 2013 at 1:38 am |

    “Robert Park is past president of the American Physical Society, of whose members would laugh hysterically should someone like Dembski try to apply for the position.”

    Who exactly told you that?

    http://www.aps.org/about/governance/presidents.cfm

    I can’t seem to find his name on the list. LOL

    No wonder you don’t attach your real name to the stuff that exits your pie hole.

  44. Will 2014 be the year Climate Denialism dies?

    WUWT apparently is bleeding readership rapidly.

    Barack Obama and an increasingly chastened Congress appear to be planning a full court press on American climate action.

    China is making noises that it isn’t going to lose the initiative on this issue to the USA.

    Australia has.. well, who cares, really?

    The example of the British Columbia revenue neutral carbon tax, right on the USA’s back step, from an ultraconservative government, and in a form palatable to US tastes (so, unlike anything Australia will ever offer), is discussed far and wide, with admiration. How you gonna keep ’em down in the coalmine, after they seen BC?

    The NOAA, BAMS, the AGU, have issued strong statements shored up by thousands of studies each, refuting every element of Denialist dogma.

    IPCC AR5 is due out in many parts, starting in only a month.

    By the time AR5 is done, we know the Science — which never rests — won’t be settled; will decrepit, wheezing Denialism be settled into its grave, to rest in peace?

    • I can’t think of anyone who denies climate, Bart.

    • “Announcement: WUWT success earns an invitation to “Enterprise”
      Posted on August 7, 2013 by Anthony Watts

      You are probably aware of the ongoing improvements to WUWT I’ve made. They seem to be paying off. Lately, things have been looking up for WUWT:

      Alexa_WUWT-compare_8-7-13

      Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com#trafficstats

      WUWT has been in the top 5 on wordpress.com lately, and recently often in the top 3. Today, we are number 1 in all the millions of wordpress blogs out there and we are number two for all posts system wide:”

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/announcement-wuwt-success-earns-an-invitation-to-enterprise/

      • jim2 | August 11, 2013 at 3:01 pm |

        Would you call the shape of that graph on Alexa a hockey stick?

      • Anthony continues …
        “As a result, I’ve been invited by the higher ups at WordPress.com to join WordPress Enterprise, at a reduced rate from the normal $500 per month. There’s a backstory that I might be able to tell someday, but suffice it to say that I believe I owe this opportunity to something Al Gore did against WUWT .

        This Enterprise level of service will add lots of functionality, and the best news: it will allow you to edit your comments to fix typos and other issues, a feature most often asked for.

        It will open a whole new dimension for WUWT in many many ways with new features and ways to improve global visibility. This, all while maintaining the high level of uptime and hardened network firewall against the attacks from people that want to bring it down.

        I’ve accepted the offer. Thanks to everyone: the moderators, the readers, and the guest authors for bringing WUWT to the top.”

      • Bart R

        Would you call the shape of that graph on Alexa a hockey stick?

        Yeah.

        But, unlike Mike’s “shtick”, it’s based on real data.

        Max

      • manacker | August 11, 2013 at 4:09 pm |

        Based on real data?

        In the same sense as real data shows 80% of the world prefer Bing over Google and all other search engines combined?

    • Bart R

      Will 2014 be the year Climate Denialism dies?

      I hardly believe that there are any sane people today who “deny climate” (so there is no “Climate Denialism” as such today.

      I also don’t believe that there are very many who believe that “climate” doesn’t “change” (= “Climate Change Denialism”). [Maybe there are some nuts that believe it has been in “static equilibrium” for thousands of years until humans started the Industrial Revolution, but these can be written off as climate doofuses.]

      So let’s say you are referring to those who are rationally skeptical of the CAGW premise, as outlined in detail by IPCC in its AR4 report.

      As a member of this group, I hardly believe, in light of all the recent findings, that this group (Webby’s 3%, who actually comprise a much larger %age) will “die” in 2014.

      Do you?

      If so, on what basis?

      Max

      • jim2 | August 11, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
        manacker | August 11, 2013 at 4:03 pm |

        Wow, so ingrained is the instinct to deny in denialists, they are driven to demonstrate their denialism in metadenial their denial even exists.

        Are they disingenuous or just that deep in denial?

        Are they redefining the word in some Orwellian — sorry, since Frank Luntz redefined Orwellian it no longer means the same thing — in some Luntzian way, or do they really suffer such piety for their cause they can delude themselves into not being able to acknowledge any meaning injurious to it?

        You be the judge.

      • Bart R

        It’s pretty simple.

        The term “Climate Denier” is asinine.

        No one “denies climate”

        Nor does any sane person deny “climate change” (it changes all the time and always has).

        What a considerable group of people ARE rationally skeptical of is the validity of the CAGW claim as outlined in detail by IPCC in its AR4 report. The cornerstone for this claim is the IPCC model-based hypothesis that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will lead to global warming of 3C (mean estimate).

        So it is actually “CAGW deniers” we are talking about here.

        And these reject (or “deny”) the CAGW claim of IPCC and the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity hypothesis on which it is based.

        And recent observation-based studies on 2xCO2 climate sensitivity are validating this skepticism.

        Got it now?

        (It’s really not that complicated.)

        Max

      • “CAGW” is also asinine.

        Checkmate.

      • Sorry, Willard.

        The term “CAGW” is NOT asinine in itself, as it has become the term generally used for the IPCC premise as outlined in detail in its AR4 report.

        It refers to the potentially “catastrophic” effects and impacts that are projected by the models cited by IPCC to occur in the distant future as a result of “AGW” (anthropogenic global warming) resulting from human emissions of greenhouse gases, unless these emissions are curtailed dramatically.

        If you would like a quickie summary of this premise, I will be glad to oblige.

        And if you have a more descriptive or pithier one-liner definition of this premise, let’s hear it.

        Max

      • > The term “CAGW” is NOT asinine in itself

        The term “denier” is NOT asinine in itself.

        Checkmate.

      • willard got his bottlecap to the other side of the board and now he can stack two together.
        =========

      • The word “alarmist” is asinine.

      • The word “intolerance” is asinine.

      • Wow, so ingrained is the instinct to believe in alarmists, they are driven to demonstrate their faith in denying that their very faith is mere faith.

        Like religious people who “know” god exists, the alarmists “know” CAGW to be true.

        They also use religious terminology to denounce unbelievers, hethen – they call them “deniers”, even though they know full well probably 99% of non-believers in the CAGW faith are not deniers, but skeptics. But, as we know from Climategate et el, honesty and integrity is not the alarmists’ strong suit.

      • Neither alarmism nor “CAGW” are asinine.

        It’s the adherents of those positions that are. Broadly speaking, the consensus-truebelievers.

      • “True believer” is asinine.

      • “alarmist” is asinine.

    • A translation of Bart:
      Alarmism becoming increasingly dubious, those who seek to put politics before science are now increasingly desparate to get political action entrenched asap, in case the alarmist position completely collapses.
      Could this be the year the politically orchestrated CAGW meme is finally laid to rest ?

      • Mr B | August 11, 2013 at 5:32 pm |

        I’ll trust readers to translate what they think I’ve written for themselves. I really require no intermediary to filter people’s thoughts for them or tell them what to think.

        Is this instinct for tyranny of yours something innate, or were you raised that way?

  45. What exactly is “climate denialism”?

    Is it that one does not believe that CO2 has an absorption band in the IR?

    Is it that one denies the logarithmic relationship of absorption vs concentration?

    Is it that one is unconvinced that the effects of CO2 will be amplifiedby water vapour in view of the failed predictions of this hypothesis?

    Is it that one might be better scientifically educated than cretins like “fan of more ..”, lolwot, Bart R etc and have some experience in dissecting out strands of scientific thought? If these individuals stopped regurgitating slogans that they think will blow our minds and using concepts beyond their limited limited intellects, it would be a relief.

    • It would be those that think the whole of the IPCC 2-4.5 C per doubling range is 100% for sure definitely wrong. They are not called deniers for nothing.

      • Jim D

        Nope.

        It is NOT someone who believes that “the whole of the IPCC 2-4.5 C per doubling range is 100% for sure definitely wrong”>

        Let me define it for you (since I am a member of this group, which you apparently are not).

        It is someone who is rationally skeptical of the “CAGW premise”, as outlined in detail by IPCC in its AR4 report, which in turn is based on the IPCC model-derived hypothesis that a doubling of CO2 will have a mean global warming impact of 3.2C on our climate (range 2-4.5C at equilibrium).

        That’s what this “CAGW denier” is rationally skeptical of.

        Got it now?

        Max

      • Are the warmists supposed to be taking the whole IPCC report as a Bible (or Constitution), or are we allowed to have varying opinions on different parts too? You make a big grey area with your definition. I’m even a skeptic with some things in there. Since it doesn’t mention CAGW, this is something you defined to be skeptical of. Maybe I can also define a CAGW that I am skeptical of or even deny. It is too easy to be a skeptic or denier when you make up a term like CAGW as a bogeyman.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

        ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation. We place strong emphasis on using isotopes as a means to understand physical mixing and chemical cycling in the ocean, and the climate history as recorded in marine sediments.’ http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246

        They are not called faith based space cadets for nothing.

    • “Is it that one denies the logarithmic relationship of absorption vs concentration?”

      You deny that?

      “Is it that one is unconvinced that the effects of CO2 will be amplifiedby water vapour in view of the failed predictions of this hypothesis?”

      You deny water vapor feedback?

      Climate denial is a term used to refer to those so desperate to deny the overwhelming evidence for AGW and the threat it poses that they fish for excuses and silly arguments.

      • Look trollwot,

        I do not deny the effects of CO2 and its absorption, that it conforms to the Beer-Lambert Law.

        I have considerable doubts about the amplification effects of water vapour since some of the key predictions of the model have not been confirmed. This is known as keeping an opened, sceptical scientifically educated mind.

        Your post says nothing except uses schoolboy (or girl) “yah-boo sucks” argument. If you have nothing better to say why not take your stupid comments to another blog where you might be appraciated by fellow, uncritical believers and leave adults in peace.

      • RC Saumarez | August 11, 2013 at 4:48 pm |

        Apparently, not everyone shares your view of you.

        http://theidiottracker.blogspot.ca/2011/10/mathturbation-richard-saumarez-joins.html

        And what view people have of me, as I go to great lengths to not make me, but only the facts and arguments and cases — or as someone elsewhere observed ‘climate porn’ — the issue, you can’t know. Which tends to rather affirm the view others have of you.

      • Do you really think I’m worried about a blog post like that? It is juvenile and utterly offensive.

        As for your comment about one of my posts being about an obscure branch of engineering – you simply display your complete ignorance.
        The post said that the mathematcal formulation of FEEDBACK that you amd lolwot seem so exercised about, was incorrectly formulated mathematically.

        You seem to be incapable of understanding that, which does not surprise me. Why not try and learn something instead of shouting slogans about something you haven’t got a clue about.

      • Arsey Saumarez says: “I do not deny the effects of CO2 and its absorption, that it conforms to the Beer-Lambert Law.

        I have considerable doubts about the amplification effects of water vapour since some of the key predictions of the model have not been confirmed. This is known as keeping an opened, sceptical scientifically educated mind.”

        Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Water vapor increases as it warms.

        Both have happened.

      • @lolwot

        “arsy” takes me back to when I was eleven.

        Water is a greenhouse gas – yes.

        Water vapour has increased – to some extent

        So what? That is a non-sequitur (Latin for it doesn’t follow).

        Do you imagine that all the enegry that falls on the Earth stays there indefinitely?

    • RC Saumarez | August 11, 2013 at 4:16 pm |

      I’d say Climate Denialism starts with faulty assumptions, and combines failure to READ HARDER with impaired logic and confirmation bias to arrive at deluded ends hostile to reason, and then adds a touch of fanatic zeal to the conviction in their cause.

      This has nothing to do with the faulty assumption of level of education, in science or otherwise.

      Besides not knowing the education of those he baselessly seeks to insult, studies have shown indeed that Saumarez’ naïve assumption is backwards: extreme conviction on both sides of climate science questions are independent of or correlate positively with educational attainment and more likely to align with cultural markers or personality disorders. I’m skeptical of these studies’ impartiality and find them a bit contrived, but hilariously funny — most especially when the response of highly educated people sharing the predicted cultural markers jump on the bandwagon of those denying there is any merit in them at all, calling into question their personality disorders.

      Anyone who thinks my beef is about the science and not the economics has failed to READ HARDER.

      More specifically, I don’t find focus on SST — only one of at least fifty essential climate variables — either likely to furnish a very fulsome picture of the situation, or warranted by any pressing need, rather to only ever play into the hands of the unreasoning zealots on either side of the issue.

      But just so, I don’t find those who focus on any one ball in play of the fifty, be it sea level or sea ice cover or, as https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/climate_feedback.pdf attempted, specific feedbacks — especially when founded only on over-extending the parables of the works of Spencer (His Name Be Praised) with an inappropriate metaphor from some obscure and unrelated subfield of engineering.

      Educated?

      Sure.

      Valid?

      Only in the eyes of a true believer willing to overlook dozens of problems with the approach for the sake of the team.

      Which is illogical.

      I leave demonstration of confirmation bias, hostility and zealotry as an exercise to the reader, as I wouldn’t want to bias their conclusions, or seem hostile, and I’m just not zealous enough to respond further to this trollish attack.

      • Pathetic.
        My post on feedback was analysis. The feedback arguments were based on incorrect mathematics and signal analysis.

        The fact is that you have no arguments and seem to be incapable of doing more than screaming slogans at everybody.

        It simply confirms my impression that you must be a liberal arts type who is incapable of undersatnding science.

      • “Pathetic” is asinine.

    • > What exactly is “climate denialism”?

      Mike Hulme made an important discovery in Judy’s last op-ed:

      https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/08/after-climategate-never-the-same/

      To deny is to deny something, and that something can change on case to case basis.

      This changed ClimateBall forever.

    • Steven Mosher

      RC

      climate denialism isnt really a position. Its rather a charge people will use against you to end a conversation.

      For example, I believe that C02 is a greenhouse gas, I believe ( like the IPPC does) that the probability of high sensitives ( >3C) is lower than the probability of lower sensitivities ( <3c), I believe the threat is large enough that we should take action.

      Yet, I have been called a denier for

      A) requesting data
      B) questioning models
      C) writing about climategate
      D) being a friend of Anthony
      E) criticizing Mann
      F) suggesting lower discount rates
      G) Liking McKittricks Tax plan
      H) trying to find common ground

      The list goes on.

      Fundamentally its a charge with no referent. Here is what you will find. People will accuse you of being a denier for any reason they like. It has nothing to do with science. Nothing to do with the actual consensus. Nothing to do with your politics.

      • Ah but see there you’ve been wrongly called a climate denier.

      • I’ve never witnessed Moshpit denying there was a climate.

      • Rather an interesting juxtaposition:

        Its rather a charge people will use against you to end a conversation.

        Ah. So you know why they use the term, eh? They use it to end a conversation. OK.

        People will accuse you of being a denier for any reason they like.

        Hmmm. So now it isn’t clear why they use the term, as they do it for any reason they like.

        Rather an interesting juxtaposition.

        Yes, but denier.

  46. Steven Mosher

    Gavin. worth watching the whole thing.
    If your view of gavin is shaped by limited experiences at RC or a few incidents at CA, you might benefit from this. I did.

    • Right at the end, he says these things that he is not. Things outside his area, for instance knowledgable about cap and trade. He says that he is a climate scientist. So as he is talking about communications, his conclusion is a good one. “I am a Climate Scientist.” His home, his base.

      • This is typical of scientists in the 97%. They don’t get political. They stay in the science and are quiet on policy. The public don’t even hear from most of them.

      • Yes, the 97% don’t GET political, they ARE political – right off the bat.

        They are selected by political institutions, and paid by political institutions. Their basic brief is thus simply to serve and advance politics (which is why they are mostly leftwing – their basic sentiment is statist/totalitarian), and this is the route for them for promotion and grants.

        And all this does not require public pronouncements, it is mostly done by producing alarmist studies, thereby giving support to the argument for more politics in society – eg carbon taxes .

        Politically-funded science giving a boost to its paymaster, what could be less surprising ? Given the way the 97% politically are recruited and funded, it would be hugely surprising of their ‘science’ did NOT hype the cagw line.

      • “statist/totalitarian” is asinine.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Do 97% of scientists admit the possibility of no warming or even cooling for decades at least? Does Gavin? Do 97% of climate scientists understand the implications of abrupt climate change, chaotic models or nonlinear systems? Do they understand the impossibility of climate prediction? Do they know all of the feedbacks and couplings? Do they admit uncertainty?

      • There is a middle of the spectrum, but there is a spectrum on sensitivity in that 97% and each would have their own uncertainty range. Some would use paleoclimate to be concerned with abrupt climate change (we heard about Arctic methane recently for example).

      • Chief Hydrologist | August 11, 2013 at 6:13 pm |

        Do they prefer crunch peanut butter over smooth peanut butter?

      • When do you think interest rates will rise, Chief?

      • Do 97% of scientists admit the possibility of no warming or even cooling for decades at least?…Do they admit uncertainty?

        Heh.

        Have you read the iconic IPCC statement?

        Have you read some of yours?

        It is still not warming for a decade or three at least.


        Plenty where that came from Chief.

        “Chief Hydrologist is my name. Unintentional irony is my game.”

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Do they understand the new climate paradigm?

        Nothing to do with interest rates or peanut butter despite the silliness from the usual suspects.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Joshua,

        I have shown you the models and the observations. We are in a cool mode. It is not warming for a decade to three as is becoming increasingly clear.

        ‘The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.’ http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

        Equally the trend from 2002 – following the latest climate shift – is negative. How long do these modes last? Well 20 to 40 years. That can’t be – because well it just cant. Given that we are at the height of the current 11 year solar cycle and a quiet Sun it seems a lock. Get used to it.

        http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

      • Chief –

        Compare and contrast (noting the emphasis):

        This:

        Given that we are at the height of the current 11 year solar cycle and a quiet Sun it seems a lock.

        and this:

        as is becoming increasingly clear.

        with this:

        It is not warming for a decade to three…

        and this:

        It is still not warming for a decade or three at least. [plenty more where that came from]

        You see, out of one side of your mouth you acknowledge uncertainty and out of the other side of your mouth you ignore uncertainty.

        I must say, that last comment was a doozy as you manage to contradict your approach to uncertainty not just once, but twice within one relatively short sentence.

        “…it seems a lock… “
        “…a lock….as is becoming increasingly clear….”

        Now that takes talent.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        As usual you lack any of the seriousness of an informed technical discussion. Is it because you utterly lack the ability to understand what is established science expressed in terms a simpleton could understand? You want to cloud the discussion with tedious and trivial semantics? You have a faith based inclination not to believe?

        Whatever it is – it is ultimately very boring. Bet against the trend if you wish – for no rational reason. But your nonsensical complaints repeated endlessly are the antithesis of good faith. We are used to that from you Joshua.

    • Steven Mosher

      The you tube by Gavin Schmidt is worth watching – thanks for posting it.

      What he says generally makes sense (even if one does not agree with his beliefs on “CAGW”, for example).

      Why communicate?
      – criticize something “bad” (a book, movie)
      – for political reasons
      – to convince someone
      [as I see it, number two and three are often combined]

      What to communicate?
      – be strategic
      – know your subject
      [makes good sense]

      How to communicate?
      – use blogs, other means
      – interactive Q+A
      [indeed! but guard against censorship of undesired or inconvenient comments]
      – also press releases, briefings are a good use of time

      Be responsible:
      – to the people who pay you
      – to avoid sensationalism
      – to correct those who misuse your communication for advocacy
      [number one is number one, no doubt – and I see no mention of “telling the truth objectively”]

      There is a “politicized element” in climate science that leads to “fake debates” – avoid or ignore these
      [oops! – who defines “fake” – is the science “settled”?]

      “Advocacy” issue in science is “bogus” – we are all advocates
      [I disagree – if you are acting as an “:advocate”, you are no longer acting as an unbiased, objective “scientist”]
      – we must be clear up front “what we are advocating”
      – ex. “greater public understanding + clarity”, greater “awareness of a problem”, or “to change people’s behavior”
      [“greater public understanding” is OK for a scientist IMO – the next two are not, because they go in the direction of alarmism and advocacy]

      Present info so your audience can understand it (“layering”)
      [makes sense]

      How do scientists cope?
      – understand background conversations
      – tell people what you CAN’T conclude
      – tell “stories” rather than just present facts
      – use “art” (graphs are OK, but pictures are much better)
      – when in hole, stop digging!
      [yeah, man – all good stuff – but stick to the data and don’t just “make stuff up” to get a message across]

      What to avoid:
      – any discussions of “free speech”, FOI requests – don’t go there!
      – don’t be an excessive advocate
      [what’s “excessive”?]
      – don’t be arrogant, don’t be mean
      [yes – temper blog comments to avoid arrogance, do not censor other opinions]
      – don’t overgeneralize: “science shows…”, models prove…”, etc.
      [tell it to the press (and your boss), Gavin – and make sure they understand it!]
      – don’t be naïve in what policy makers want from you – ask them
      [this is loaded – if you deliver what “policy makers” want, rather than what the data show, you are not a scientist]
      – don’t talk about stuff you have no knowledge of (carbon tax vs. cap and trade, etc.
      [amen, Gavin! (tell it to your boss, too)]

      It’s definitely worth watching, Mosh, even if it is coming from an “advocate par excellence”.

      My thoughts.

      Max

      • Steven Mosher

        Funny I say its worth watching and some people ( not you ) assume I endorse it all.

        I think its worth watching for a bunch of reasons.. you picked some of those out.

        I think we might focus on the claim that Gavin appears to make and that at times I think others here make ( who shall go nameless — hehe gavin trick ) : over generalizing the meaning of the word ADVOCATE such that it is impossible not to advocate.
        very simply, you speak or write for a reason, you are trying to do something with words, therefore you are advocating in some manner or other. And since advocating is unavoidable, arguments against advocating are moot.

      • That’s interesting, steven

        I hate it when people over-generalize about advocacy. Next time you see someone doing that, please point it out.

        But you know what else I hate? It’s when people selectively define advocacy and selectively apply the term (contingent on whether they agree with the advocacy).

        I’ll be sure to point that out to you the next time I run across it.

      • John Carpenter

        “I hate it when people over-generalize about advocacy.”

        “But you know what else I hate? It’s when people selectively define advocacy and selectively apply the term (contingent on whether they agree with the advocacy).”

        So Joshua, you really give Steven no room for error, you hate (strong word) both over generalization and selective definition. Neither of which he will possibly be able to avoid in future conversation because you will be the judge of when he has either over generalized or selectively defined and it will be likely one of the two. (Alert Michael, more binary thinking going on here). Not that he should expect any different result based on historic comments between the two of you, but I love getting some foreshadowing of what may come the next time advocacy is a topic of discussion.

      • Hey John –

        I’m guessing this ship as sailed, but I was being sarcastic through and through in the comment – pretending like I didn’t know what steven was referencing….

        In seriousness, over-generalizing about advocacy – to the point where everyone is always an advocate is, of course, a legitimate problem. There are legitimate distinctions to be made. My point was that I disagree with the distinctions that Judith has made. I think that her distinction between advocate and non-advocate tends to be arbitrary – not in the sense of having no rationale, but in the sense of having a subjective rationale (i.e., it is very selective that she doesn’t apply the term to a Spencer or a Christy or an RPJr, etc).

    • Gavin. worth watching the whole thing.

      gavin speaks at a Chapman conference. Mosher misses the irony,

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003EO290002/abstract

      • Steven Mosher

        good you found the irony. it was worthwhile for you.
        other people can watch and come away with other experiences. why is that?

  47. Chief Hydrologist

    ‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27).’ http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full

    Science has certainly moved on but you wouldn’t know it listening to faith based assertions to the contrary. This year is not warming. This decade is not warming as the Sun declines in the 11 year cycle and the Pacific cool mode intensifies. Will the ocean cool as well? It depends on what happens to top of atmosphere radiant flux. It seems entirely possible that we can return to 1980’s levels of cloud. Climate activists are on the back foot – which is a cricket metaphor. The inability to understand this possibility – probability more likely – is a significant ’empirical obstacle’ to acceptance of their extreme views and so cannot possibly be right.

    The basis of actual climate science evolves from nonequilibrium physics, nonlinear physics, regimes of atmospheric and ocean circulation and the carbon cycle. They seem hardly to understand any of it. Not want to understand? Are unable to understand as a result of cognitive dissonance? Are just too dimwitted to understand? Whatever. Sans any real ability to comprehend climate science – we are left with trivial nonsense from the usual suspects.

    More importantly – it continues to distract from real progress in addressing potential anthropogenic sources of instability in the coupled nonlinear system that is Earth’s climate. An obsession with a one dimensional approach in carbon taxes is simply utterly impractical with an issue that has multiple technical, social, political, economic and environmental dimensions. New and creative, practical and pragmatic approaches are required if more decades of lost opportunities are to be avoided.

    • Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability.

      expand

      • The bounds are cooling and warming. Natural variability will be + or – in the future.

      • Ragnaar

        Variability may be + or – in the future.

        Yeah.

        And the cycles may be multi-decadal, centennial or even longer.

        Until we understand them, we cannot attribute changes to any one specific forcing factor.

        That’s what “uncertainty” is all about.

        Max

    • Chief Hydrologist

      ‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’

      Yes I did provide the link and can read. Expand numbnut – especially your mind. Your response epitomizes the argument from tendentious semantics with no depth at all. There are two elements I was highlighting. The lack of near term – perhaps multi-decadal – warming and the problem this poses for carbon mitigation over decades at least. Despite unpredictable and perhaps extreme responses in a nonlinear climate system. Is this too difficult to get your silly little space cadet brain around?

      The critical words in the passage are wild and surprises – on both ends of the warm/cool spectrum.

      Sensitivity here is a nonlinear response to small changes in control variables – and there are multiple control variables not just CO2. The behaviour of the system changes out of proportion to initial change. It is the definition of abrupt climate change. Such as in the shift in 1998/2001 to a cooler mode.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/bifurcations.png.html?sort=3&o=51

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Wee willies war on reason continues.

    • Steven Mosher

      Interesting, rest of the story

      Cecilia Payne came up to Newnham to study Natural Sciences in 1919. She had had a brief fling with botany earlier, but decided to dedicate herself to astronomy after attending a lecture by Eddington. Believing, correctly, that she would find it easier to pursue a career in astronomy in the United States than in the UK, she invited herself to Harvard as Harlow Shapley’s graduate student, and arrived there in September 1923. In just two years she produced what Otto Struve described in 1962 as “the most brilliant PhD thesis ever written in astronomy”. In “Stellar Atmospheres” Payne applied the new theory of Quantum Mechanics to show that the spectra of the stars were determined entirely by their temperatures, and that the abundances of the different chemical elements were essentially constant throughout the Galaxy. This central conclusion still stands today, but at the time she was persuaded by Henry Norris Russell to pull back from it, because it was seemingly at odds with the abundances in the earth itself. Only when Russell himself arrived at the same conclusion via an entirely different argument was it eventually accepted, and although he acknowledged her earlier contribution in his short 1929 paper, the credit is generally given to him, rather than to her.
      In 1934 she married Sergei Gaposchkin, and for much of the rest of her life worked with him on variable stars. They had three children. In 1938 she was eventually given a proper faculty job, and in 1956 was made a full professor, and became Head of the Department, a position she held for ten years.

      “Mrs G” was remembered by Owen Gingerich as “a formidable, rather remote presence, of imposing stature and stormy personality.” A chain-smoker, “a pack of cigarettes and a single match could get her through an entire [lecture]”. She was a many-sided personality, “known for her wit, her literary knowledge and for her personal friendships with individual stars.” Perhaps because of her experience with her thesis research, she remained unassuming to the end. In her biography, “The Dyer’s hand” she said of research “Your reward will be the widening of the horizon as you climb. And if you achieve that reward, you will ask no other.”

      Points of interest: A theory about the composition of stars..

      Now, one could not at the time travel to star to collect a sample and observe and measure it.

      And at the time she was persuaded to pull back from her theory because real measurements of what the earth was made of, were vastly different than what her hypothesis said stars were made of ( it would be simpler if everything in the universe had similar compositions ) So, it takes a second line of argument ( and different gender ) to establish what we believe today.

      the scientific method(s)

    • Have a read of the life and work of
      Henrietta Swan Leavitt
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Swan_Leavitt

      Rosalind Elsie Franklin
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

  48. States Tell Insurers: Ignore Reality, Believe In Politics

    Here we see the insanity of global warming hysteria, distilled to its essence: “Some climate models suggest” that tornadoes, hurricanes and floods are increasing, so it must be true! But wait–don’t we actually know whether such severe weather phenomena are increasing? Can’t we just count them? Of course we can, and the reality (as opposed to the model) is that severe weather is not increasing at all.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/states-tell-insurers-ignore-reality-believe-in-politics.php?ModPagespeed=noscript

    • “Hysteria” is asinine.

      • Willard

        “Hysteria” is asinine

        Agree with you that “hysteria” (regarding AGW) is “asinine”.

        Tell it to the media (and to James E. Hansen, while you’re at it).

        Max

    • Hysteria you say. The climate doesn’t change. Look at these graphs. No change.

      My guess is that states and the insurance industry are going to do a bit of a more thorough job analyzing observed natural disasters than a couple of graphs on a blog!

      • lolwot

        Insurance companies love to frighten people into buying their product.

        Makes sense to me.

        Max

  49. In Willard’s world, “asinine” means any idea he doesn’t like, can’t counter, but won’t change his mind on.

    • You don’t like CAGW. You can’t counter it. And you won’t change your mind.

      I guess that makes CAGW asinine.

    • “In Y’s world”, where Y refers to any entity (e.g. Wyman) is asinine.

      I do hope you’re getting that I’m making a point, Mr B.

      Thank you nonetheless for playing and for your overall concerns.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        We get that you are deluded that you are making a point – but it is really just asinine nonsense.

      • Chief,
        You musn’t use asinine. It’s willard’s favorite word

      • With a little bit of luck, willard will get the point.
        ==============

      • Yet again, Chief goes for highstickin’:

        A real leader we have there.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        You don’t expect me to look at an asinine clip from an asinine movie? Asinine diversions because you have nothing substantial to say. Endless trivialities in pursuit of an asinine agenda.

      • I love how Chief pretends he didn’t watch the clip.

      • It’s a good movie, Chief.

        Here’s my favorite part:

        Please continue throwing “asinine” around.

        Adjectives are very important to raise concerns.

      • How do you find time to watch movies, willie? Or have you seen just that one movie?

        The various climate blogs that you habitually haunt could get along without you for a couple of hours. Get yourself some scotch, microwave a packet of popcorn and take a freaking break, dude.

      • I’m waiting for your Bitcoins, Don Don.

      • Don’t wait for funding from me, willie. You are not worthy of my financial charity. I am just willing to help you with sage advice.

        They have made a lot of good films, since Slapshot. You have missed some very entertaining and often thought provoking cinema. Stop flogging the blogs for a little while, willie. You will be a better man for it. The world is not going to burn up in 1hr32min. If you can’t stay away that long, watch a couple of Spongebob’s. You will have to Google that.

      • You know, Don Don, I’m just entertaining the thought of offering a don some kind of protection. You would like someone to shut up? Bitcoins.

        Not that it would come with any warranty. Think of it as a bid, like the Google does with keywords. And since G does that, it wouldn’t be evil, right?

        Anyway. You do have a point.

        Good night.

        PS: My boys love Sponge Bob, BTW. I do too, as you can guess.

      • I am not trying to shut you up, willie. Just suggesting (semi-seriously) that you expend way too much of your valuable time (and exceptional, but misguided brainpower) flogging the climate blogs. Take 3 days, or 3 months off. The 97% consensus juggernaut won’t collapse in your absence. When you come back you will find the same cast of characters recycling previous rehashings of the same old arguments.

        I have a ten year old son. My top priority is spending as much time with my boy as possible, before he becomes a surly teenager.

  50. willard

    definition of “asinine”:

    1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior.

    2. Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.

    Game over.

    Max

    • The game has only just begun.

      And yet the dominos fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

    • Let’s review the bidding:

      > The term “Climate Denier” is asinine.

      First, notice why it is so: because no one denies climate. Or no one denies that climate change. This reason presumes that expressions need some kind of litteral transparency to make sense. Now, try to interpret expressions like “warmist” or “CAGW advocate” that way.

      This is an asinine conception of language.

      ***

      Second, see to what comment this was suppose to be a response:

      Wow, so ingrained is the instinct to deny in denialists, they are driven to demonstrate their denialism in metadenial their denial even exists.

      Are they disingenuous or just that deep in denial?

      Are they redefining the word in […] in some Luntzian way, or do they really suffer such piety for their cause they can delude themselves into not being able to acknowledge any meaning injurious to it?

      You be the judge.

      Notice: “Denialist”, “denial”, “metadenial”. Where’s “climate denier”? Just behind MiniMax’ strawman eating a red herring.

      This is an asinine response.

      ***

      Third, notice that MiniMax raises concerns over the quality of semantical choices. Now, why would he do that? To help improve the property of the linguistic ecology?

      To test that hypothesis, notice all the terms I underlined. All are slurs. As an interchange device, all are self-defeating. All are as unclear and indefinite than “climate denier”, a term Bart R did not even use.

      For the ClimaBaller that he is, MiniMax is using an asinine trick.

      ***

      Finally, one does not simply try to win a game of Doing Things with Words by pointing to a dictionary. It signals an asinine semanticist.

      ***

      See how easy it is to play Monday morning quarterback, even on Sunday nights.

      • . This reason presumes that expressions need some kind of litteral transparency to make sense. Now, try to interpret expressions like “warmist” or “CAGW advocate” that way.

        Along a similar vein is the “concern” over the use of “denier” by people who regularly use similarly derogatory terminology at the drop of a hat.

        The terminology is inherently a problem in this debate. Certainly “denier” is suboptimal. But what isn’t? “Warmist?” “CAGWer?” “Statist?” “Eco-Nazi?” “Alarmist?”

        The list of suboptimal terminology is infinite. If you’re interested in hearing what you want to hear, there is an endless source for “concern”

        What’s decidedly finite are the number of folks that are interested in listening to what others have to say.

      • Steven Mosher

        more like this

      • Steven Mosher

        “Along a similar vein is the “concern” over the use of “denier” by people who regularly use similarly derogatory terminology at the drop of a hat.”

        I see they do it too.
        ##########################
        The concern over the use of the word denier is pretty simple and it doesnt have to do with the holocaust, although that is the reason that is given.

        The reason is it is seen as an escalation toward non verbal remedies.

        we argue. you tell me that the discussion is over. the matter is settled.
        I continue to talk. You try a non verbal cue. you ignore me. I keep talking.
        you remind me the discussion is over. I keep talking. You start to call me names. I continue to talk. Then you start to talk about me like Im crazy, or a criminal. Then you start to fantasize about punishing me. maybe you threaten it.Then you actually take action.

        we all know how this plays out. So the minute folks start characterizing each other as crazy, as nuts jobs, as criminals, that’s just one step closer to the actual imposition of force to end a conversation.

        Now, does using the word denier mean that folks want to imprison skeptics and put them to death? Of course not. Thats not what Im arguing. Im arguing that by taking this rhetorical step we are moving in that direction. It’s not a good move.

        Of course as you point out mommy mommy they do it too.

        fair enough.

      • Im arguing that by taking this rhetorical step we are moving in that direction. It’s not a good move.

        With that I agree. I think that your conclusion that it is an attempt to shut down the convo is simplistic. Even you seem to think so as a few sentences after you said that you said that there are any number of reasons to use the term.

        But I am of the opinion that there are no good reasons – as in I don’t think that it is beneficial in balance.

        However, I also think that it is also relatively trivial. Yes, “skeptics” make a great deal of it, and thus it becomes a focus of negative interactions. That gives it an appearance of being significant. But “skeptics” would substitute a similar way to vent their feelings of victimization if that term weren’t being used, IMO. IMO, It is a symptom of disease, not a morbidity in and of itself.

        Of course as you point out mommy mommy they do it too.

        Yes, I thought someone might call me on that. I rationalized that there was a distinction. I am not justifying the use of the term by pointing out that others use similar terms. That is the textbook definition of mommymommyism. But I recognize that I could be “motivated” there.

        So then let me try again. The term is counterproductive – but I don’t believe the sincerity of those who claim “offense” when they use similar terms to characterize others.

        Still mommymommyism?

      • > I continue to talk.

        Indeed, and some use synonyms for “talk”:

        Replace “talk” with “ribbing” in Moshpit’s story.

        See what happens.

    • Willard

      As a scholar of the French language, I’m sure you are aware of the French word “asinien (or asinienne)”, referring zoologically to the species known as an “âne” (“ânesse” or “ânon”) and translated into English as “asinine” (“like an ass”).

      Then there is the story of the Mexican peasant (campesino) who was sitting on his ass (culo), riding across the desert in the evening twilight on his ass (burro), when they fell into a deep crevasse (fisura muy grande). Luckily the peasant managed to save his own ass, but his ass disappeared into the black hole.

      This led to the situation where the peasant, peering down into the crevasse, no longer knew his ass from a hole in the ground.

      Happens all the time, I’m told.

      Max

      • PS The expression “MiniMax” is asinine (as I’m sure you are aware).

      • Considering that it seeks to describe your overall participation at Judy’s, it might be tough the the expression “MiniMax to be otherwise.

        Thank you for your concerns, MiniMax.

      • Merdre on the Asinine Express.
        ======================

      • Willard

        I ASS-U-ME you are right.

        Max

      • Spoken like a true Père Ubu connoisseur.

      • Heh, it’s as if you never heard it pronounced by somebody pissed off.
        ==========

      • Willard

        On an earlier thread I made the asinine error of judgment of referring to you as “wee willie”. You countered by calling me “MiniMax”, an equally asinine error.

        I have “seen the light” and have corrected my asinine behavior.

        You have apparently not gotten that far yet.

        Enjoy your journey, Willard.

        Max

      • Wee Willie Winkle
        Hadn’t a science pot in which to tinkle.
        ==========

      • So manacker proves that he’s not asinine by telling us he’s stopped asinine name-calling while implying that willard is asinine.

        As they say in the blogosphere, you can’t make that one up.

      • or somebody pissed on?

      • Dear MiniMax,

        I know it costs me to call you “MiniMax”.

        Considering your failure to acknowledge the suboptimatily of your “asinine” comment, your patronizing story about a Mexican squirrel, and your pursuance to act as if nothing happened, I might be willing to afford it.

        Thank you again for your concerns.

        w

      • Willard

        Hold off there, ol’ buddy – you’re using too many fancy words, but it doesn’t look like you’re saying much.

        Don’t try to justify your (apparently) asinine behavior with big, meaningless verbiage.

        Instead: close your eyes, meditate, think happy thoughts, clear the clutter out of your mind and transcend into a better person.

        It’s worth the voyage, ol’ pal.

        Max

      • MiniMax’ response to Bart R was suboptimal.
        MiniMax refuses to acknowledge it.
        Meanwhile, MiniMax throws mud with all his serenity.

        Very tough to get, that.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The mud is in your eye wee willie.

      • I must have misplaced it there.

      • Ah, the little willful pouts over suboptimal responses and refusals of acknowledgement. Beware the wrath of the willard spurned.
        ===============

      • It only earns you a nickname, Koldie.
        Just like the Auditor does.
        Please tell me I am being bad to the bone.

        Bababababbababba bad.

  51. I see this blog as jazz fashioned around a melody that can’t be heard.

    • I’m not implying anything about Willard; just reporting what transpired.

      Right. Chief didn’t watch that clip. PG only reads my comments by accident. Judith doesn’t advocate. “Skeptics” are “concerned” about the term “denier.”

      And you weren’t implying anything about willard.

      My bad.

      • Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception and sanity. Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

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

  52. Josh

    Wrong, ol’ buddy.

    I’m not implying anything about Willard; just reporting what transpired.

    As they say in the blogosphere: facts are facts.

    But thanks for your concern, ol’ pal.

    Max

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Wrong place again Joshua. Story of your life it seems. I didn’t watch the video and I didn’t imply anything about wee willie – or indeed yourself – being incredibly silly little asswipes whose trivial opinions and distractions can be safely ignored. That’s an idea.

      • I didn’t watch the video..

        Uh huh. Just like you have repeatedly told me that you don’t read my comments, and how you’ve repeatedly told me you were going to stop responding to my comments?

        Ok. I believe you.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Liar – liar – pants on fire. What I have told you is that I read perhaps 1 in 20 of your comments. Usually the ones directed to me. They are all appallingly obnoxious and always endlessly repeating the same whine. I’m sure I don’t miss anything important.

      • > whose trivial opinions and distractions can be safely ignored.

        Indeed, and this while constantly commenting on them.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        You will find I spend much more time discussing feedbacks and nonlinear systems. You flatter yourself if you think that I take you at all seriously. You specialise in trivia and distraction. In imitation of Kim. You lack the subtlety. You lack the finesse. You lack the brains quite frankly. Thanks for playing but you are just not any good.

        The game with Joshua as to not read his comments and reply anyway. Very simple because he says the same thing over and over again. Easy with people who imagine the enemy is dumb and themselves clever. Easy to tell because they mumble something about 97% and have no clear argument.

      • > You will find I spend much more time discussing feedbacks and nonlinear systems.

        I thought you simply copy-pasted the same bits of text on these subject over and over again, Chief. As I already said to Web:

        A world of chaos.
        Not enough data.

        https://judithcurry.com/2012/09/22/pbs-ombudsman/#comment-244034

        (H/T to Brian H.)

        Next time you’re having a conversation, please let me know.

      • What I have told you is that I read perhaps 1 in 20 of your comments.

        Heh.

        It is interesting to reflect upon why you feel some compulsion to deny what you do. Is it some kind of shame?

      • The game with Joshua as to not read his comments and reply anyway.

        More denial? Anyone reading this thread with even a smidgeon of skepticism would see through your denial, Chief.

        Why the shame for your own actions?

      • Usually the ones directed to me.

        Right. You write that comment a few comments down in the thread where you just interjected your comment between a comment of manacker’s and my response to him.

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/10/open-thread-weekend-27/#comment-363810

        What is this behavior about?

        Is it shame, Chief?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I have some guilty little frisson in reading Joshua’s comments? What a joke.

        I actually find new quotes all the time – as you would realise if you the capability of understanding them. I reference peer reviewed science, leaders in the field, credible web sources. Hundreds of sources in all. I copy brief quotes typically and link to the source. Not enough data? You’re an utter idiot.

        ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246

      • Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change…

        OK, then:

        Oh. Wait…

        It is still not warming for a decade or three at least.

        Does that count, jim2?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches.’

        I’m not sure why you can’t distinguish between our current location in a particular state space on the almost infinitely dimensioned topology of the climate strange attractor – and a future shift of an ergodic system to a different state space.

        Oh wait – yes I can – you’re a dimwit.

        As for future shifts to a new fractionally dimensioned state space.

        ‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’

      • Here, Chief:

        The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/29/uncertainty-lost-in-translation/#comment-355540

        One day, when you’ll act like a human being, we might talk about formal stuff. You might be surprised. Until then, beware the Archivist:

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/917366704

      • Just to make sure I am serious:

        The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.

        http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/23/uk-met-office-on-the-pause/#comment-350368

        That one was six days earlier than the above.

        You really should ignore my comments, Chief. You have nothing to gain.

      • Again, six days earlier:

        ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’

        http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/15/agw-skeptics-in-the-professional-community/#comment-345785

        Followed by the usual tragic epilogue.

      • Two days after the last one I quoted:

        ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation. We place strong emphasis on using isotopes as a means to understand physical mixing and chemical cycling in the ocean, and the climate history as recorded in marine sediments.’

        http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/17/why-farmers-dont-believe-in-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-346044

        You want me to continue, Chief?

      • One last for the night:

        The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to […]

        http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/19/open-thread-weekend-25/#comment-348152

        This one was a few days after the last one quoted.

        Good night, Chief.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Archivist can be a very effective and fearsome Warrior.’

        Archivist is an utter twit. Wally Broecker has been a favourite quote for a few weeks. Is there a rule against repeating quotes? Is there a rule against quoting Wally Broecker? Does this distract from hundreds of different references to science. How does this compare with webby’s obsessive self referencing to his loser blog science? Or reflect on the depth of science brought to the table by me?

        I have made 10 serious references under this post alone. Several of them quite new.

        If you want a serious conversation you will have to say something serious first wee willie.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘If Wally Broecker is trying to understand – I doubt very much that the rest of us have progressed very far at all.’

        Tragic epilogue? Archivist is a wanker.

      • > Is there a rule against repeating quotes?

        No, there’s no rule against repeating your Broecker quote to substantiate that you “find new quotes all the time” either, Chief.

        Nor are there rules against reacting the way you did to the Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin tweet.

        There are no rules against pretending to be a scientist either.

        ***

        You don’t have to respond to my comments.

        You don’t have to call me names.

        You don’t own this place.

  53. Sometimes, you guys just need to ignore each other. Judy should put some of you in the corner. Learn to get along.

  54. It is all rather entertaining.

    I am reminded of watching small boys in a playground exercising their intellectual prowess by saying “poo” to each other. I think the winner was the intellectual giant who shouted “You’re a poo-poo head”, and ran away.

    Now I can observe presumably adult persons exhibiting the same sort of behaviour. Keep it up!

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      So here is another giant intellect who can’t see the game of trivialisation played by these guys. It is rule 5 for radicals.

      * RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

      The object is to shut down discussion rather than otherwise. Mind you Mike starts with it arse backwards so it is no surprise he ends with his head up his… No surely I can’t say that even though it is what I mean.

      • Chief Hydrologist,

        I presume you are referring to me as a “giant intellect”. Thank you. I prefer it to you calling me “an idiot”. Only joking – I have no preference. Call me what you will, if it makes you feel happier.

        Your rule 5 seems incorrect. Even small children have a defense. I have heard them say “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” This seems rational and logical to me, if not to you.

        I’m not sure what you are implying with the crude language. If it is meant as some sort of ad hominem attack, then I admit defeat. You win.

        In regard to your prior admonitions about what I should think, and how I should express myself, I trust you will accept my decision to ignore your no doubt well-meant, but unsolicited advice, gracefully.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        You have pet theories that you pull out of your arse that would take 10 minutes – or just a little background knowledge of geology or physics – to discredit. You then defend with more arguments pulled out of your arse instead of taking the hint and doing the most basic fact checks.

        You can express yourself anyway you like and I will feel free to regard it is as nonsense and tell you so in whatever colorful language seems appropriate.

      • Chief Hydrologist,

        I wonder if you could provide one of these “pet theories”. You might be so kind as to actually quote what I said, rather than what you thought I said, or what you thought I meant, rather than said.

        I can’t remember any “pet theories” being expressed – not one. Maybe I’m wrong. If so, please feel free to cut and paste any “pet theory” of mine with which you disagree.

        If you are annoyed that I don’t subscribe to the theory that CO2 in the atmosphere heats the Earth system, that’s your affair. If you can adduce some proof that it does, I will change my view.

        It seems that the “scientific” community can weigh an electron, observe spooky action at a distance, and all sorts of other things that are almost beyond normal understanding, but when faced with demonstrating warming a body by surrounding it with CO2, discover it’s all too hard.

        At the moment, even the “lukewarmers” seem to accept that the Earth is not warming, even though CO2 levels are increasing. If this is true, then the Warmists have to hypothesise that the “warming” has changed its modus operandi. Maybe Doug Cotton is right – the “heat” may be creeping underground, into the abyssal depths where it can’t be measured, maybe the Earth’s core.

        Or maybe not. Maybe the “missing heat” is a figment of the imagination. If you choose believe in the heating properties of CO2, then good for you. If you choose to believe that the Earth is warming in the face of the evidence that it doesn’t seem to be, then even better for you.

        So if it makes you feel happy to use colourful language in order to evade providing facts, be my guest. It may even provide some of the global warming that seems to have gone missing.

        If I base an argument on an assumption such as the Earth has cooled since its creation, and you don’t agree, you might care to correct me by providing an alternate scenario. Maybe you believe that the Earth was created very cold, and has warmed up since. It’s not my theory – just one possible explanation for observed fact. Lord Kelvin was wrong about the age of the Earth. Who am I to claim to be smarter?

        So once again, if I have inadvertently stated a “theory”, please feel free to correct me (facts rather than beliefs would be warmly appreciated).

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn

      • Chief Hydrologist,

        I followed your link, but maybe it went to the wrong place.

        I couldn’t see anything relating to a pet theory. Would you mind doing a bit of cut and paste?

        Maybe you have misinterpreted something I said, or maybe you misread something. I am not sure.

        Thanks,

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

  55. Wow.

    Two days. Two full days.

    Three handwaving references to papers recently published. Repeated a day later just to be sure.

    And not a single request for citation. Not a single reference to the contents of any of the three studies.

    An entirely content-free weekend (with the welcome exception of Yoram’s delightful illuminated text, on another question).

    People arguing about arguing about arguing, forgetting entirely the topic at hand.

    These are important studies, significantly moving forward the whole field of climatology, connected to the next large IPCC release — which promises to profoundly radicalize what has gone before.

    And you want to count angels dancing on the head of a pimple on the buttocks of a flea instead?

    • Chief Hydrologist

      This is an open thread weekend – and to be fair I have linked to a number of studies. You want to discuss the NOAA estuaries study go right ahead. Estuaries are one of my pet topics. They have unique biogeochemical processes being the meeting point of fresh and marine waters. They tend to be hugely productive for this reason. You want to discuss the utter incompetence of US authorities in managing these systems?

      http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/education-and-outreach/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/science_focus.shtml/dead_zones.shtml

      Want to talk about the AGU position statement? Old news – and not terribly interesting when it wasn’t.

      BAMS – you mean the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society?

      I notice a reference to a story on planting trees in the desert on the blog. A bunch of academics recommending a tree that needs lots of water for planting in the desert. Oh for Gods sake. Try this one instead.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/10176217/The-underground-forests-that-are-bringing-deserts-to-life.html

      Apparently I can’t say the word fraud even when appropriate.

      • Chief Hydrologist | August 12, 2013 at 4:05 am |

        Apparently I can’t say the word fraud even when appropriate.

        Don’t worry about it.

        A lot of Australians have the same speech impediment. Most of the world can’t understand a marblemouthed word your upsidedownland nationals say. It comes out like you’re trying to say “Fred”, which is just confusing.

        We make allowances for your upbringing and drifted accents and inability to form vowels. Just try to sound more American. Watch some John Wayne films. You’ll get it yet.

        But congratulations on bringing content to the weekend, by Monday.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Now that’s the heights of scintillating wit we are used to from you Bart.

      • Apparently you also can’t say the words “I’m sorry, Judith, thank you for hosting this site, I’ll try to be less of a bother knowing how much time and effort you’ve put into providing this forum, which I’m grateful for”, even when appropriate.

        Come to think of it, I ought say them more often, too.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        You ought to say sorry for the lies, obfuscation, misdirection, slurs and disingenuous babble. By all means say something serious about estuaries – I dare you.

      • Hmmm.

        You ought to say sorry for the lies, obfuscation, misdirection, slurs and disingenuous babble.

        and

        the usual suspects have a tactic of burying serious comment with personalized and trivial spam.

        A link for ya’ Chief.

        http://bit.ly/14vPlMe

      • Chief Hydrologist | August 13, 2013 at 9:21 pm |

        Pessaries? Ossuaries? Eschewaries? What are you trying to say there?

        Oh. Estuaries.

        I have nothing serious or otherwise whatever to say about Gillanders et al. (2011)..

        However, it seems your good friends Lester, Rebecca E.; Fairweather, Peter G.; Webster, Ian T.; et al. do. As do Walsh, C. T.; Reinfelds, I. V.; Ives, M. C.; et al, and Sheaves, M.; Molony, B, and Doubleday, Zoe A.; Clarke, Steven M.; Li, Xiaoxu; et al. and Tanimoto, M.; Robins, J. B.; O’Neill, M. F.; et al. (about barramundi) and Koehn, John D. and Pratchett, Morgan S.; Bay, Line K.; Gehrke, Peter C.; et al. and Hobday, Alistair J.; Lough, Janice M. and Morrongiello, John R.; Beatty, Stephen J.; Bennett, James C.; et al. (http://cel.webofknowledge.com/InboundService.do?product=CEL&SID=4DojzjvOrhkGFdfKBx4&UT=000295083900010&SrcApp=resolve1&Init=Yes&action=search&Func=Frame&customersID=uniAdelaide&SrcAuth=uniAdelaide&viewType=summary&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=CitingArticles).

        Why not write something serious, submit to publication, get peer freaking reviewed, and answer them, instead of asking someone who’s never been on the underside of the planet to wallow around your lagoons and swamps amid the outflow of your industrial wastes dumps and overly supplemented hobby farms?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Climate change will have an impact on estuaries; however, predicting impacts is difficult because changes will occur in freshwater and marine systems that subsequently influence estuaries. Differences are likely among different regions of Australia, as well as among different types of estuary. Few estuaries are pristine environments and other anthropogenic
        stressors, such as water abstraction, habitat modification, urbanisation and exploitation of resources, will interact with climate- related variables to profoundly influence estuarine waters and associated assemblages. Long-term datasets on environmental variables in estuaries are needed. We also lack basic life-history information for many species of fish that use estuaries, making predictions of potential climate related impacts difficult. Assemblage-level responses are also likely to depend on habitat
        changes and trophic interactions. Potentially compounding climate-related impacts is significant urban development, especially because most people in Australia live on or near the coast.’

        http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MF11047.pdf

        You mean this one Bart? The climate impacts are predicated on changes in hydrology. You point to a NOAA study on estuaries – in which US estuaries have the same problems only 10 times worse with dead zones multiplying around the coastline.


        http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/2013029_deadzone.html

        You are incapable of not distorting any science for your own purposes. Mixed with tedious jibes about accents and whatever else emerges from your fetid imagination. And Joshua’s chimes in with one of his repetitive and addlepated whines.

  56. Bob Watson: Climate Activist

    For all the improvements in the models and computational methods of projecting climate change, for Watson the greatest achievement of his generation of scientists is simply that they have managed to cement the issue on the political agenda, and particularly that they have been able to map out the impacts on development.

    He says, “We’ve clearly raised the issue of climate change as a major social issue. It’s not just changing the environment. This is a key issue for development, it’s a key issue for developing countries and poor people who will be most affected to climate change.

    “We’ve linked it to changes in health, food, water, human settlements being flooded. We’ve shown that there are technologies that can be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve talked about the social and economic issues. So we’ve clearly raised the issue.”

    http://www.rtcc.org/2013/08/12/bob-watson-ipcc-must-address-slowdown-in-global-warming/

  57. Global Warming Is Greatly Increasing Crime and Other Conflict

    A rigorously peer-reviewed study published in the latest issue of the world’s leading science journal, Science, finds “remarkable consistency of available quantitative evidence linking climate and conflict.” This article’s summary says that, “we assemble and analyze the 60 most rigorous quantitative studies, and document, for the first time, a remarkable convergence of results. We find strong causal evidence linking climatic events to human conflict across a range of spatial and temporal scales and across all major regions of the world.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/global-warming-is-greatly_b_3696529.html

    Bill Clinton Address at Warwick U while on farewell tour
    Remarks at the University of Warwick in Coventry, United Kingdom
    December 14, 2000

    I might say, parenthetically, I believe there are national security and common security aspects to the whole globalization challenge that I really don’t have time to go into today, so I’ll just steer off the text and say what I think briefly, which is that as we open borders and we increase the freedom of movement of people, information, and ideas, this open society becomes more vulnerable to cross-national, multinational, organized forces of destruction: terrorists; weapons of mass destruction; the marriage of technology in these weapons, small-scale chemical and biological and maybe even nuclear weapons; narcotraffickers and organized criminals; and increasingly, all these people sort of working together in lines that are quite blurred.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=941

    • It is nice to see a truly objective article in the Huffpo with all the emotional paranoid rants that are so common.

      “In other words: anything that we may do from now on to reduce the rise in global warming that will be due to the carbon that we’ve already put into the atmosphere will reduce the hell that is to come, but won’t prevent it. There is already too much carbon in the atmosphere for hell on earth to be able to be prevented. People like the Koch brothers and other oil and coal barons and George W. Bush and the Heartland Institute, have already doomed future generations, by successfully propagandizing and deceiving millions of today’s conservatives to think that either there is no global warming, or global warming is good, or global warming isn’t affected by carbon in the atmosphere, or science on these matters hasn’t yet reached sufficient consensus to take action on them, or other such lies.”

      Since it is too late, might as well party like its 2049.

      “Page 13 of this article presents graphs showing clearly that, as the temperature rises, there are proportional rises in: “Violent personal crime,” “Rape,” “Violent inter-group retaliation,” “Inter-group riots,” “Political and inter-group violence,” “Redistributive inter-group conflict,” “Civil war incidence,” and “Political leader exit.”

      I guess the unleaded gas study must have been wrong, I sure that the rigorously peer reviewed study published in Science magazine that analyses 60 also rigorously peer reviewed studies funded to find impacts of climate change would be totally unbiased. I mean, in other words, they not only made it through peer review but rigorous peer review.

  58. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/slowest-arctic-melt-on-record/

    “The past two weeks normally produce the fastest Arctic ice loss of the year, about 750,000 km². This year, less than half that much ice melted.”

  59. For those who may still think that Bart understands even the simplist science issues of sea level rise, please look at these excerpts from his posts above, replying to my posting of several actual articles in science journals, including a recent one in Nature which finds that Greenland contributed about 2 to 3 meters of sea level rise during the Eemian, the previous interglacial, over 7,000 years during which temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees higher than today. I calculated the increase in sea level rise per century, which comes out to about 2 inches per century (times 70 centuries). Look at Bart’s scientific reaction to the calculation.

    Bart also seems to think that ice shelves, behing 90% underwater, contribute to sea level rise (further down).

    Now, HERE’s BART!:

    “Wow. The math is simple. Divide 120 by 70.

    Why didn’t the 134 contributors to the paper think of that?

    Oh. Because it makes ZERO sense.

    The authors, actual experts who got their paper peer reviewed and published and study this professionally never thought of 5″ because an assumption of equipartition is unwarranted. It is most likely an extreme sigmoid shape represents the ice loss in Greenland, with much of the melt occurring in the first one percent of the time under consideration. Not 70 centuries, but 0.7 is far more plausible.

    What’s 120/0.7?….

    …And you did this at a party with people you call friends? (John again: no, I didn’t do the math at the party.)

    What do you do to people you don’t like?”

    Now, here’s Bart again, telling us his view of the science of sea level rise:

    “…a sea level rise, which could be anywhere from a foot by 2060 to two meters by 2100…”

    John again: I took the time to show the actual Nature article, quotes from the author, to show the actual science which says that Greenland during a much hotter period contributed about 2 inches a century. I hope somebody appreciated that! All the literature I’m aware of says that if Greenland contributes a couple of inches this century, then sea levels will rise about a foot, give or take, by 2100. There isn’t another big source of sea level rise in this time period. Bart, after doing his own math above, saying that virtually all of Greenland’s contribution would be have been front loaded in the Eemian, citing no sources, nor saying why the first 100 years of heat would melt far more ice than the next 6900 years, now says that we could see 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100, without giving us the science sources.

    Back to Bart again:

    “…Ice has that funky and almost unique quality that at its freezing point it expands to be less dense than its liquid form. That’s why it floats. But as it gets colder, it does get denser and denser, as well as harder.

    Antarctic land ice is the largest ice cube on the planet; if it’s getting a few degrees warmer, it’s softening and expanding. The softer it gets, the lower peaks it can maintain and the flatter it spreads out. The more it expands, the wider that flatter expanse of land ice gets. It already essentially covers all the land, so every bit of expansion results in new sea ice. The new sea ice is 90% below the water line, so is 90% contributing to higher sea level.”

    John again: that sure sounds like Bart thinks that the ice shelves off Antarctica add to sea level rise, doesn’t it?

    I want to point these bits of Bart’s wisdom out so that anyone who still thinks that Bart might understand climate science will now have a better view of that supposition.

    • John | August 12, 2013 at 5:00 pm |

      Really?

      And this was the tone you took at the party with your friends?

      I realize those suffering Dunning-Kruger can’t understand that they’re not actually as qualified as they believe themselves. I ought keep that in mind as I slowly, painstakingly have fun at your expense while pointing out your errors.

      First, let’s look at your glaring ice shelf straw man. Note how you dropped the word “NEW” from what I said?

      I did.

      If floating sea ice doesn’t increase, the sea level they contribute to doesn’t change. If floating sea ice forms entirely from sea water (all other things remaining equal, and ignoring the density change effects due to warming and cooling), the sea level they contribute to doesn’t change. If floating sea ice that was always floating melts, the sea level they contribute to doesn’t change, following the same considerations. That’s perfectly reasonable, and no doubt what you’ve heard.

      If NEW floating sea ice moves from land (or air) to sea, then it contributes to sea level rise equal to its volume, under the same considerations as above. Sure, there’s some rebound of land due the loss of mass, in some cases, but this hardly helps since the rebounds are mainly of Greenland and the Antarctic, which only makes sea level rise more on other coasts.

      Do you care to explain how you came to believe NEW sea ice from land wouldn’t contribute to sea level rise?

      Did you read a report that didn’t say it, and just decide that’s what it must mean?

      Here’s an experiment you can do to prove this to yourself: take a glass of water full to the brim. Add ice. Shout “Eureka!”

      How much ice can you add without spilling?

      Science has known this for three millennia. You needed it explained to you on a blog. Twice.

      And if there’d been drinks at the party and ice, it could’ve been demonstrated to you then, by anyone who you’d gone to the trouble of explaining your rationale to, instead of swaggering around boasting about what you claimed you read in a study, that wasn’t actually in any study.

      Which brings us back to that claim and the assumption of equipartition.

      Guys like Neven, and 133 people who got peer-reviewed and published this past February, and a few hundred others, study the curves and patterns of ice melting. They fit these curves to the best equations for describing the pattern.

      Those equations are called Gompertz Law, or Richards’ Equation, or the Logistics Function, or the SIGMOID. They produce an elongated S-shape with a relatively flat tail leading in and exiting, a gradual rise that rapidly becomes at least exponential, followed by a section of slowing as the limit of the process is reached. It applies to the growth of populations, and the melting and forming of ice, among other things studied with time series. I don’t pretend to be some kind of scientist, but it’s not pretense to say these elements of trendology don’t take some kind of scientist to grasp. Go ahead and look it up, laughing boy.

      The reason none of the 133 authors said 2″/century was this function and the uncertainties associated with it. At some point, the exponential function will kick in, and most of the melting will happen in a very brief time, and so while they know it isn’t going to be a 2″/century change, they can’t really at the moment call what the exact start and intensity of the exponential portion of the melt pattern will be.

      But me?

      I don’t have a professional science reputation on the line, so I can say “about 1%” and “the portion we’re interested in”, and assume a match with the eight most similar incidents on record from the Vostok ice cores, and I’m offering the simplest, most universal explanation without requiring exceptions, within broad strokes.

      You just pulled something out of thin air and claimed scientists said it.

      At a party. To your friends. And you still can’t see you did anything wrong at all. Even though you can’t address any of the other errors of yours I pointed out, with a full day to think about it.

  60. The following information was not paid for by big-oil or the taxpayer. I assign no accuracy to this information and I refuse to divulge my methodology.
    Out of curiosity I analyzed who was commenting on the August 10 “Open Thread Weekend” and have the following unaudited results. I used 719 as the total number of comments but people were commenting while the count was being made. Fifty one individual commentators averaged 14 comments per individual.
    The following 15 individuals (29%) exceeded the average and made 69% of the comments:
    Willard (@nevaudit) – 72 (10%)
    Jim D – 51 (7%)
    Bart R – 46 (6%)
    Chief Hydrologist – 42 (6%)
    Kim – 38 (5%)
    manacker – 36 (5%)
    Joshua – 31 (4%)
    WebHubTelescope(@WHUT)– 27 (4%)
    David Springer – 27 (4%)
    jim2 – 25 (3%)
    Steve Mosher – 22 (3%)
    captdallas 0.8 or less- 21 (3%)
    Jim Cripwell – 20 (3%)
    DocMartyn – 19 (3%)
    lolwot – 17 (2%)

    My favorite and unanswered question:
    M. Hastings | August 10, 2013 at 11:46 am | Reply
    I read Tony B’s current article on sea level rise and found I’m in agreement with him on “measuring sea level is problematic.” I’m guessing because I’m not a scientist that problematic means close to meaningless, is that true?

    • PMHinSC | August 12, 2013 at 7:35 pm |

      From his phrasing and tone, I hadn’t read it as so much a question as a trick of rhetoric.

      In either case, it appears he’s asking for a scientist to address whether problematic means close to meaningless, and I’m not one of the few on your list of fifteen who claims to be a scientist in so many words.

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=problematic+definition+science

      Hope that helps.

      Btw, congratulations on your summary. Have you considered going through topic by topic and repeating the treatment, maybe searching for trends?

    • Looks like an even split on each side of the debate. I guess that’s what makes this site successful. You would not find such a split at other sites, but then there is no debate either.

    • PMHinSC,

      I am not sure what the definition of “close to meaningless” means.

      I am much more certain about a useful definition of “problematic” when used relation to the measurement of sea levels. It definitely means that the measurements are either correct, or not correct, plus or minus a bit.

      I hope this information is of assistance, and wish you every success in your future endeavours.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

    • Over approximately 2 days this thread consumed (yes consumed) approximately 69,000 words including time stamps, attributions, and links. Many of the 150 links contained thousands of word and eight people provided 50% of the comments. Based on antidotal information a large percentage of commenters were talking to each other, not to the issue. Perhaps some of the commenters can keep up with this information; I cannot. I would be curious how others decide which comments to read and which to skip.

      • Open threads tend to go all over the place. The more topical threads stick more (or less) to the topic, especially when I have time to moderate. In terms of whose comments to read, that discrimination comes from experience in reading the comments here. I agree that it is pretty overwhelming, and some commenters seem to spend more time on the blog than I do.

      • Most of the commenters who post 20 or more comments in a thread are passionate about the general subject of climate change and generally speak from their POV but do not engage very well with other commenters who may question them on the basis of their views. There is no real debate here.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        As Johanna noted elsewhere – the usual suspects have a tactic of burying serious comment with personalized and trivial spam.

        To quote myself – so here is another giant intellect who can’t see the game of trivialisation played by these guys. It is rule 5 for radicals.

        * RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

        Sometimes this is all there is – a mockery of real discourse. The issue is deliberate marginalization and trivialisation not so much of views but of people they disagree with. Getting narked enough to play the game is ultimately pointless – but should be done now and then to highlight the nature of this partisan strategy.

      • the usual suspects have a tactic of burying serious comment with personalized and trivial spam.

        So says Chief (pissant progressive) Hydrologist.

      • Information cancer?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Exactly Jim. Deniers are dumb conservatives with anti-science convictions on global warming, evolution and God only knows what else. The corollary is that pissant progressives are cult of AGW groupthink space cadets. They believe fervently that they are the heirs to the scientific enlightenment without conspicuous evidence of such. Their politics and and economics are just appallingly silly.

        Mind you I do have a problem with evolution. I can’t figure out how it works in a 4 dimensional space/time continuum.

      • OT but agree that Darwinian evolution theory is 3 dimensional. The whole universe and everything in it is evolving, not only organic matter. All the systems that form part of weather/climate are evolving too and the current warming/cooling that is being experienced in regions across the globe are manifestations of this.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent “now” objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.’ Albert Einstein

        Although it seems likely that arguing for blithely changing the composition of the atmosphere is an argument from ignorance.

      • Space/time seem to be a continuum if perceived from a standing position but the very act of perceiving is endemically affecting the elements of what is being perceived. Sudden changes in the behaviour of systems during their evolution seems indicative of yet another dimension in existence, which Tsonis et al have written on wrt to climate and its predicability.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        There are three great ideas in 20th century physics. Quantum mechanics, relativity and chaos theory. There is no unified theory of the three.

        On relativity Stephen Hawking said – and without contravening copyright.

        ‘There was a young lady of Wight,
        Who traveled much faster than light,
        She departed one day,
        In a relative way,
        And arrived on the previous night.’

        http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html

        Is it a coincidence that the 2012 sighting of ‘Thomas’ was in Cardiff – the location for Torchwood?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Actually I hope this represents fair usage.

        ‘It seems that what happens, is that when space-time gets warped almost enough to allow travel into the past, virtual particles can almost become real particles, following closed trajectories. The density of the virtual particles, and their energy, become very large. This means that the probability of these histories is very low. Thus it seems there may be a Chronology Protection Agency at work, making the world safe for historians. But this subject of space and time warps is still in its infancy. According to string theory, which is our best hope of uniting General Relativity and Quantum Theory, into a Theory of Everything, space-time ought to have ten dimensions, not just the four that we experience. The idea is that six of these ten dimensions are curled up into a space so small, that we don’t notice them. On the other hand, the remaining four directions are fairly flat, and are what we call space-time. If this picture is correct, it might be possible to arrange that the four flat directions got mixed up with the six highly curved or warped directions. What this would give rise to, we don’t yet know. But it opens exciting possibilities.

        The conclusion of this lecture is that rapid space-travel, or travel back in time, can’t be ruled out, according to our present understanding. They would cause great logical problems, so let’s hope there’s a Chronology Protection Law, to prevent people going back, and killing our parents. But science fiction fans need not lose heart. There’s hope in string theory.’

      • Its interesting Chief. The speed of light is assumed to be constant and since we’re looking at reflected light (refracted by gravitational pulls here and there) when looking at the stars then if one travels faster than the time that the reflected light takes to reach us then you are supposed to be travelling back in time…….but for shorter journeys it would appear that chronological time will always prevail since the absolute time taken for such a journey will always be a positive value in nano-seconds.

      • Chief Hydrologist | August 13, 2013 at 9:18 pm | failing to learn rule #7 since 1971.

      • Perfect

        Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

        old hat

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Your tactics have become a drag long ago Bart. Your comments are the same comment over and over again. Pure fantasy with no hint of actual science. Utterly unhelpful.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Peter,

        Relativity is a science of inertial frames. It compares 2 viewpoints. The simple formula for time dilation can be found here.

        http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm

        Travelling faster than the speed of light – in respect of any other inertial frame – is problematic as time and mass expand to infinity – and length contracts to the infintessimal. So perhaps this is not the way to travel back in time.

        Traveling forward in time is not a problem – and the faster you move relative to someone else the more you move forward in their timeline. If you crunch the numbers – the effect at low velocities is very small but it is still there.

    • Damn – and I thought I was #1. I was so close!

    • Notice how the more thoughtful commenters comment less.

  61. Looks like “climate change” isn’t getting much attention these daze.

    OFA Gets Zero Attendance for Climate Change Rally

    BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
    August 13, 2013 2:16 pm

    Not a single person showed up at the Georgetown waterfront Tuesday for a climate change agenda event put on by Organizing for Action, the shadowy nonprofit advocacy group born out of President Obama’s 2012 campaign, the NRCC wrote in its blog.

    http://freebeacon.com/ofa-gets-zero-attendance-for-climate-change-rally/

  62. Say jim 2,
    I took me harp to a party. …
    but nobody asked me ter play ….
    Bts

  63. Advocates of solar power and renewable energy may be interested in the comments starting here:
    https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/07/conflicts-between-climate-and-energy-priorities/#comment-363100

    My latest comment (critique) is here:
    https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/07/conflicts-between-climate-and-energy-priorities/#comment-365392