Open thread weekend

by Judith Curry

It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.

403 responses to “Open thread weekend

  1. R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

    I’ve recently referenced this bit of research from several years ago:

    It is some paleoclimate research that seems to indicate that counter to climate model findings, a permanent La Niña like state might be induced in the Pacific as we approach our current CO2 levels of 400ppm such as existed during the Pliocene. If this were to be true, it has some significant ramifications, some of which could be seen as corroborated by other paleoclimate findings coming from sediments at Lake El’gygytgyn in Siberia:

    • David Springer

      Then we shouldn’t hover at 400ppm for long, huh Gates?

      Given we can’t reduce CO2 down below 400ppm our only choice is now to drill, baby, drill and git ‘er up to what, is 600ppm safely beyond the La Nina sticking point?

      What a frickin’ circus.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The Pliocene is not an analogue for Quaternary ENSO. The shoaling of the Isthmus of Panana changed the Pacific and global dynamic pushing the system into glacial/interglacial regimes. It changed the character of ENSO.

      But we need look no further than the Holocene for permanent La Nina conditions.

      This from Tessa Vance and colleagues is a high definition ENSO proxy based on salt content at the Law Ice Dome. More salt is La Niña. There are 2 distinct states – El Niño periods at 1000-1260 AD and 1920 to the present and La Niña in between.

      A longer proxy from Laguna Pallcacochua shows long periods of droughts and floods.

      ‘Though not very strong, the ENSO-Mediterranean drying signal appears to be robust, and its overall effect was accentuated by a series of unusually strong and long-lasting El Niño events during the time of the Minoan decline. Indeed, a change in the dynamics of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system occurred around 3000 BC, which culminated in a series of strong and frequent El Niño events starting at about 1450 BC and lasting for several centuries. This stressful climatic trend, associated with the gradual demise of the Minoans, is argued to be an important force acting in the downfall of this classic and long-lived civilization…

      According to Fig. 5, a series of intense El Niño events (high red color intensity) begins at about 1450 BC that will last for centuries. In that period normal (La Niña) conditions have but disappeared. For comparison, the very strong 1998 El Niño event scores 89 in red color intensity. During the time when the Minoans were fading, El Niño events reach values in red color intensity over 200.’

      The drying of the Sahel commencing some 5,000 years ago is coincident with the shift in ENSO dynamics.

      ENSO is ultimately driven by the Southern Annular Mode with enhanced circumpolar winds driving cold water north in the Peruvian Current where it interacts with upwelling abyssal water setting off a chain of feedbacks across the equatorial Pacific. This is presumably related to solar/UV and ozone interactions in the polar stratosphere similar to hat seen in the north.


      Can we expect more frequent and bigger La Niña as solar activity declines from the modern Grand Maxima?

      • Chief Hydrologist | August 31, 2013 at 8:41 pm said: ”The Pliocene is not an analogue for Quaternary ENSO.”

        Chief, you must be running out of crap, to come up with something like that

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The nature of ENSO changed from about 5 to 3 million years ago with the closure of the Central American Seaway.

        ‘From sediment cores and other data, we know that until about 5 million years ago, North and South America were not connected. A huge gap—the Central American Seaway—allowed tropical water to flow between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

        A growing body of evidence suggests that the formation of the Isthmus of Panama partitioned the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and fundamentally changed global ocean circulation. The closing of the Central American Seaway initially may have warmed Earth’s climate, but then set the stage for glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere at 2.7 million years ago.’

      • Personally I suspect the Himalayan orogeny and the raising of the Tibetan plateau contributed to differences as well. Frankly, I don’t see how anyone can reasonably use the Pliocene as an analog for modern climate.

    • You might find the following website interesting, It is a collection of most of the pertinent datasets with sophisticated tools to plot graphs. The datasets include the NSIDC-seaice extent for both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The datasets appear to commence in 1978. What I found interesting from one plot I created is the steady decline to the Arctic extent overlaid on the steady increase of the Antarctic extent. For laughs you can plot the CO2 dataset against them, don’t forget to use the Normalize function. The webmaster is a Brit who is a self professed practical environmentalist and conversationalist and a software engineer with 30 years experience. This site is clearly a labor of love and very addicting. Read his Notes and he reminds you that you can prove just about anything depending on the starting point so act responsibly. Both satillite datasets are included.

      • Welcome to this blog alpha2actual and thanks for your suggestion but WFT is already quite often used by us on this blog. Suggest that you have a look around some of the discussions that already taken place here so you can see where we are at.

  2. Fall seems to have come early to the Arctic. Having seen average summer temperatures north of 80 barely make it above freezing, in mid-August these temperatures plunged below 0 C. Now there is news that the NW passage is blocked at both ends; since 28th August.—yachts-caught/113788

    Last year the NWP was open almost all of September. This year it appears some adventurers may be trapped, unless the Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers come to the rescue. But these vessels are carrying out their normal duties of escorting supply ships to northern Canadian communities. Typically, the destination furthest north, Eureka, is reached early in September. I dont see why scarce Canadina resources should be used to rescue foolhardy adventurers who believed the hoax of CAGW causing a massive melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer.

    • The idiocy is staggering.

      • David Springer | August 31, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
        Do you have any actual science to offer, anytime, ever?

        I wonder who the dork was that spent so much time acting as a bouncer on that ridiculous Intelligent Design blog?

        That was a twofer, a blog and bad science put together. Congrats.

      • David Springer

        Alright! Ad hom and guilt by association. That’s yer twofer, Pukite. LOL

        Do you have any science to offer, anytime, ever?

    • “the hoax of CAGW causing a massive melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer”

      But you said

      “Last year the NWP was open almost all of September”

      So it’s hardly a hoax is it.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Like all deniers, Jim is selective by year in the facts he’d like to focus on, whereas honest people look at the biggest set of facts they can get, like the past 1450 years of Arctic sea ice:

      • When the Arctic opens like it did last year, it turns the Snow Monster on and the following year and even a few more years are colder. This colder promotes less snow and it can warm again. The next extreme open Arctic are likely a few years out. Look at past data for patterns for the future.

      • “honest people look at the biggest set of facts they can get”

        Honestly, sometimes one fact is all you need.


      • lolwot and R. Gates. I seperate the “hoax of CAGW” from a loss of Arctic sea ice. CAGW is, I believe, a hoax. I have, in the past, detailed my reasons for this belief. I dont intend to be repetitive. What I tried to say is that these foolhardy adventurers believed that the CAGW hoax would cause ice levels in the Arctic, this year, to be similar to last year. Maybe that point was not made clearly. They believed the forecast, and now it seems they are stuck. Too bad!

      • The NW passage has been open for the last 5 summers now hasn’t it.

        And you expected it wouldn’t be open this year?


      • David Springer

        Gates is reduced to links to blogs. Is that how science works now Gates, we reference blog articles instead of refereed journals? Do you have any actual science to offer, anytime, ever?

      • lolwot, you write “And you expected it wouldn’t be open this year?”

        I did not expect the NWP to be open this year. Apparently the foolhardy adventurers whose yatchs now seem to be stuck in the NW Passage did. Why they believed it, I have no idea. You would have to ask them.

        All I am saying is that it appears some stupid people, with a lot more money than sense, believed that they could safely navigate the NWP this year, with impunity. This belief was based, as I understand the situation, on the forecasts of the warmists. Now they seem to be stuck. I dont want precious Canadian resources being wasted coming to the rescue of these people and their toys.

      • When warm oceans open the NW passage, the oceans stay warm for a lot of years and the warm wet polar oceans cause the snowfall that will cause the passage to close again years later.

      • It was open, it just did not stay open as long. That is how it works.

      • Just scanning newspaper articles over the last ~150 years one can find many periods where arctic melting is occurring and the NW passage is open. Often with very similar “scare” language to that today. Can also find the same pattern with warm periods.

        I see only one side using a few days of surface melting in Greenland or a fire as part of their “evidence”. When one side says the ice is in a death spiral and may never recover and may be gone completely by 2013, I think it is fine for the other side to call them on their stupidity.

        By the way, how many Science, Nature, Nature Climate Change, GRL and other articles will it take for you to admit your exaggerations were off-base? Or do you get paid by the word? (Sorry, I’ve been reading your side’s conspiracy theories).

      • lolwot

        Check the record.

        Every year, most of the ice melts over the summer months and then re-freezes over the winter months.

        While an open NWP would obviously be a boon for the shipping industry, counting on the NWP being open in any given late summer month is a dicey and potentially dangerous thing to do.

        (The polar bears don’t care either way.)


      • ‘And you expected it wouldn’t be open this year?’
        H/t lolwot.
        Hume’s problem is ours … oh and the turkey’s at Xmas.

      • Jim Cripwell: “I did not expect the NWP to be open this year.”

        Did you expect it to be open last year?

      • lolwot, you write “Did you expect it to be open last year?”

        No. As I have explained to Bob Droege, I dont know enough about sea ice to have any expectations as to what will happen in the future. Just hope.

    • Congratulations Jim,
      Your prediction of this years ice extent minimum was way better than mine.

      • David Springer

        Mighty white of you to say that. Did it hurt?

      • Bob, you write “Your prediction of this years ice extent minimum was way better than mine.”

        Thanks Bob. Just a slight correction. I did not make a prediction, I made a lucky guess, based almost entirely on hope. I would hate to give the impression I made a prediciton. Then if we have a similar wager next year, I would, have something to live up to. And I dont.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Mine was a prediction based on Pacific SST and winter AO and comparison to previous years – 5.7 million square km. A little high.

    • Shouldn’t laugh, really, but I did.

    • All points bulletin with a warning statement from the Canadian government:

      CAUTION. You are entering a zone that could freeze solid without prior warning. You are doing this at your own risk and are advised to ignore any predictions of ice-fee summers you may have read elsewhere. The Canadian federal and provincial governments assume no responsibility for rescuing you if your vessel gets stuck. If you call upon authorities to rescue you, you will be fully liable for all costs resulting from these rescue efforts.

      That should do it, Jim.


      • Max, you write “All points bulletin with a warning statement from the Canadian government:”

        This does not address the main problem. If there is a shipwreck in the Arctic, with lots of environmental damage, then we have to clean it up. And, believe you me, that is an EXTREMELY expensive business; c.f. the Exxon Valdez.

      • manacker, I am very sorry to say his, but you lack the finesses that governmental organizations have in spades.
        All you need to do is make the adventurers fill out a risk assessment exercise, an environmental impact study and be required to prove that the adventurer diversity quota and non-abled exclusion policy has been met.

    • alpha2actual

      You might find the following website interesting, It is a collection of most of the pertinent datasets with sophisticated tools to plot graphs. The datasets include the NSIDC-seaice extent for both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The datasets appear to commence in 1978. What I found interesting from one plot I created is the steady decline to the Arctic extent overlaid on the steady increase of the Antarctic extent. For laughs you can plot the CO2 dataset against them, don’t forget to use the Normalize function. The webmaster is a Brit who is a self professed practical environmentalist and conversationalist and a software engineer with 30 years experience. This site is clearly a labor of love and very addicting. Read his Notes and he reminds you that you can prove just about anything depending on the starting point so act responsibly. Both satillite datasets are included

  3. Simulations vs Evidence

    Once you start accepting that representations are the thing they represent, you in trubba.


    • Theo Goodwin

      Truer words were never written, maybe with the exception of ‘trubba’. I guess “trubba” is like trouble on steroids.

  4. Rather than a climate scientist I am a skeptical physicist.
    Q. If the arctic ice is freezing what is happening to the Greenland cover that I hear warmists telling me is vanishing? Haven’t seen any report on that in some time.

    • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist


      Are you really a physicist? If so, you’d know that the forcing to the climate caused by increasing GH gases is a long-term energy balance issue in the Earth System. You can’t look at one year or one part of the system. But to answer your question, overall both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice mass as the Earth continues to accumulate energy as less is leaving than arriving each year.

      • R. Gates, you write “If so, you’d know that the forcing to the climate caused by increasing GH gases is a long-term energy balance issue in the Earth System.”

        We have been here before, and I did not see an answer to this sort of question. Climate sensitivity is normally defined in terms of global temperatures. But there is no fundamental reason why temperature is the only measure of CS. “Long-term energy balance” is an equally reasonable quantity by which to estimate CS.

        So what is the CS for a doubling of CO2 as determined by the “long-term energy imbalance”?

      • R. Gates you write “See my reply here:”

        That does not answer my question. The claim is made that doubling CO2 causes a change of radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. The claim is then made that this 3.7 Wm-2 translates into a CS, measured by temperature, of between 2 and 6 C (or whatever).

        What I am asking is for the actual quantity of the “long-term energy imbalance” (LTEI) that is caused by a change of radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2, caused by a doubling of CO2. Please note, I am trying to understand what you are talking about. I dont pretend to understand what LTEI means, I assume you do. I dont know what Dimensions :LTEI has, or what untis it is measured in; I assume you do.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist


        These are rough calculations, but will give you a general idea of the energy imbalance in the Earth system. 1 w/m^2 per second at the TOA would roughly translate to around 1 x 10^22 joules in the system per year, thus, 3.7 w/m^2 per second TOA roughly is 3.7 x 10^22 joules per year. Of course, this is assuming that the straight 3.7 w/m^2 from doubling CO2 does not have albedo effects, induce methane releases, increases water vapor, and other effects that amplify this to 5 or 10w/m^2.

      • R. Gates, you write “These are rough calculations, ”

        Fair enough. From what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, the LTEI has the same Dimensions as a change in radiative forcing, and can be measured in units of wm-2. Is that correct?

        Assuming this is correct, we come to the hard part. There are countless peer reviewed papers which discuss the numeric values of CS measured by global temparatures. With all due respect, your rough calculations hardly classify as peer reviewed values. Where are the references to the estimated values of CS as estimated in units of LTEI in the peer reviewed literature?

      • “If so, you’d know that the forcing to the climate caused by increasing GH gases is a long-term energy balance issue in the Earth System”

        For the uninitiated a ‘forcing’ is an energy flux and so is a thermodynamic and a kinetic quality, beware though, some climate scientists use it in quite different ways.

        The fact that the amount of energy entering the Earth system is the same as that leaving the Earth system, over the course of a year is almost constant and unchanged over centuries do not stop ‘climate scientists’ from talking about a ‘long-term energy balance’.

        Note also they love to talk about ‘equilibrium’ and ‘equilibria’ when they mean steady state.

        Additionally, in this field all quantum packet are equal. I know, I know, bu stick with me. Illuminating the ocean with 200 w/m2 of photons at 400nm, 4µm or 40µm has EXACTLY the same effect; in climate science, is all about power.

        Finally, if where you live the Tmax is 25 and Tmin is 5, then you also live in the same climate as somewhere where the Tmax is 20 and Tmin is 10.

        Never does influx=efflux.

      • I believe he is talking about the articles where warmists made a big deal out of a few days where the temp. went above freezing in Greenland. Or calling a storm with 25 mph winds a tropical storm when it falls apart a few hours later and then trying to say it was an “above average” year due to a few week storms we would have never known about before the satellite age.

        Is this what you mean by the long term? Events that last a few hours or a few days? You need to get smarter friends.

      • The rapid response of temperature to day and night and the rapid response of temperature to summer and winter is clear evidence that Earth temperature is never very far out of balance. This accumulation of energy because less energy is leaving than arriving each year is a really bad idea that has no merit. When more energy arrives than leaves you measure the difference with temperature increase and that is clearly not happening. You are not fooling me with this junk.

      • When you really do not understand something, and they admit they do not understand the lack of warming, just quit trying to invent something new and suddenly different to explain the lack of understanding. They are digging an ever deeper hole of deception and traveling way too far down the Consensus Hole to ever recover and be respected as any kind of Scientist.

    • David L. Hagen

      DrFlip Search for Greenland at ClimateDepot e.g.
      Analysis: Turns Out The 97% Greenland Ice Meltdown Of 2012, Was Actually A Net Gain of Ice
      ‘Note that at the end of the summer of 2012, there was slightly more ice than a year earlier. During a normal Greenland meltdown year, the ice sheet gains almost 400 gigatons of ice’

      • Of Course, it always snows more in a warm year when oceans are wet and not frozen.

      • Steve Goddard is wrong as usual. That graph is only of surface mass balance, but greenland also loses mass at the edges as ice calves into the sea.

        It’s common knowledge that Greenland is losing mass. So rather than assuming the graph showed a gain in mass he should have instead thought “hmm what mistake have I made here…”

      • Common knowledge, you mean Consensus Knowledge.
        The snow falls on top of greenland, the ice that breaks off the sides is much less than what falls on top when oceans are warm and wet.

    • Updated daily

      Google GRACE for the ice mass balance, that isn’t updated as frequently.

      “the truth is out there”

  5. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    John Nielsen-Gammon’s Climate Abyss has an essay that makes a cogent point:

    Learning From the Hiatus

    I don’t like that term [“global warming hiatus”] because it’s only the atmospheric part of the globe that is enjoying a hiatus from global warming. The oceans continue to take up lots of extra heat, and the glaciers continue to melt.

    Call it an “atmospheric warming hiatus”, and I’ll be much happier.

    Conclusion  The “best available science” (in Judith Curry’s terms) speaks plainly: There Is No Pause in Global Warming. Which in predictive terms equates to:

    The “Best Science” Criterion  We’ll know that global warming is over when the oceans stop rising.

    Bonus “Best Science” Evidence  Watts/WUWT/Willis Eschenbach have posted an analysis, titled Accuracy, Precision, and One Watt per Square Metre, that shows plainly that There Is No Pause in Global Radiative Energy Imbalance.

    It’s nice to see the “best available climate-change science” strongly affirming the multi-decade arc of James Hansen’s climate-change worldview, eh?

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

    • Yes, JN-G says the deep oceans continue to warm and the Arctic continues to melt, and I would add that the land continues to warm. You have to look carefully for a pause dataset and mind you don’t include the 3 years just before it in your trends. The last decade ending as of this summer, was 0.14 C warmer than the previous one ending in 2003 and 0.25 C for land. This is an objectively chosen 20 years, just slightly longer than the so-called pause.

      • The pause is now longer than the steep warming if you start with Hansen’s “warning” in 1988.

    • Theo Goodwin

      “Bonus “Best Science” Evidence Watts/WUWT/Willis Eschenbach have posted an analysis, titled “Accuracy, Precision, and One Watt per Square Metre“, that shows plainly that There Is No Pause in Global Radiative Energy Imbalance.”

      But global average temperature has flat-lined for 17 years. How do you explain that temperatures have not been influenced by the combined radiation from the sun and GHGs for 17 years?

      • Do you have a cite for your flatline?

        Why don’t you use Bill’s nature trick and call it 25 years?

    • John Nielsen-Gammon comes across as a bit of a swine.

  6. Evolution of the Polar Ice Cycle

    For six hundred million years, water in all of its states, established the upper and lower bounds of temperature and there were no temperature set points in between. The temperature that the oceans froze set the lower bound and the temperature that water evaporated and created water vapor and clouds that provide IR cooling and Albedo protection set the upper bound. CO2 helped, but CO2 does not change state and has no set upper bound like a lot of water has. You can see the CO2 appears to not make a difference to the upper or lower bound for temperature.

    I took one of Dr. Curry’s plots from this recent posting.
    You can see the evolution of the Polar Ice Cycle in these five million years of data that has started showing signs of being pushed around and limited inside the bounds of the past.

    Continents have drifted, Ocean Currents have changed, Ocean Levels have changed, a Polar Ice Cycle is continuing to develop over the last 800k years and it is increasingly regulating temperatures inside the bounds of long ago.

    The Younger Dryas event dumped water locked on land into the oceans earlier in the warming cycle out of the last major ice age. This suddenly mutated the developing Polar Ice Cycle and now it can warm enough to melt polar sea ice enough, without melting Greenland, to get liquid water into the Arctic enough to cause snow to fall and rebuild ice on land. The polar ice cycle now regulates temperature in narrow bounds. This has been working really well for ten thousand years and a manmade fraction of a trace gas is not enough to overpower this new climate cycle.

    CO2 rose from 260 to 280 from 7000 years ago until just before the industrial age spike. Temperature did not follow then and it is not following now and it will never follow CO2. The Polar Ice cycle will always deliver as much snow as necessary limit the upper bound of temperature. The temperature that Polar Sea Ice melts and freezes does establish a Set Point that now provides the Thermostat for Earth. When the water is wet the snow falls. When the water is frozen the snow does not fall.

    These forecasts go above the upper bound of the past ten thousand years and this will not happen.

    Look at the narrow bounds for temperature over the past ten thousand years and offer a different means to bound the temperatures tightly around a set point. Only ice and water can do that. Only ice and water are abundant enough to provide control for earth’s temperature in tight bounds.
    Look at the evolution of temperature control on earth.

    IR radiation does provide most of the cooling for earth, but it does not have a set point. It for certain does not have a set point below the upper bound of the past 600 million years. Ice and Water is the only thing that is abundant enough and the only thing that has a set point below the IR bounds and Albedo Bounds of the past 600 million years.

    • I have explained the same thing many times. This is one more attempt.

      I have explained that the development of the modern Polar Ice cycle did occur just as modern temperature bounds were tightened and suddenly mutated into the temperature cycle we have enjoyed for ten thousand years.
      If you think this is wrong, then you need to offer a different explaination that meets the bounds of common sense and is supported by actual data as well or better than my theory.
      One scientist I know has suggested the sun has become more stable. Outside forces do not produce data with the same bounds. Only forces that have inside feedback can have temperature limits that do not drift around some. We have temperature bounds that do not get violated. You cannot get that with outside forcing that has no feedback.

      IR cooling is powerful and provides most of the cooling for earth but it has no change of state or hard bound.

      Only Ice and Water Change State in Polar Oceans and control the Snowfall and Water Vapor and Reflective Clouds.

      This is the Thermostat for Earth.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        So why is late spring/early summer snow cover decreasing and global land ice disappearing?

      • I have searched for more than five years to find a different way to explain the change in temperature bounds that is reasonable, I have not found it. The Polar Ice Cycle is the only thing that has a Set Point and powerful influence with Snowfall that could enforce these new wonderful tight bounds.
        If you have a different method to enforce tight bounds on temperature that stay the same for ten thousand years during many warm and cold cycles, put it out here for all of us to see.

      • So why is late spring/early summer snow cover decreasing and global land ice disappearing?

        The more snow on land does not extend the summer snow cover.

        The snow that makes a difference falls on top of the multi-year ice and that ice advances years later.

        Global Ice Extent is now holding steady. Global Albedo is not decreasing, that is why temperature is not increasing. Global Ice Volume is growing. The Ice Volume grows when oceans are warm and wet and the Ice Advance occurs later and causes the cooling later.

      • Polar Ice Cycle. It is similar to an Alternating Current Electrical Circuit. Read this and think about it and tell me what you think.

        If you have a different theory, please share it.

        Consensus Theory don’t count. There is, by definition, nothing new in Consensus Theory and I have all the old stuff figured out.

      • HAP, you have completely disregarded that 90% of the earth’s last billion years have been iceless hothouse conditions averaging several times the current CO2 level. You think these can’t be returned to?

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        HAP said:

        “Global Ice Volume is growing.”

        Please share the data for that assertion. This would be directly contrary to every piece of research I’ve read.

      • HAP, you have completely disregarded that 90% of the earth’s last billion years have been iceless hothouse conditions averaging several times the current CO2 level. You think these can’t be returned to?
        I do not think we will go back.

        Planets do move forward. Evolution of Planets moves forward and not back. The future may have some really bad news in a hundred or a thousand or a million or a billion years, but these disasters are not anything that we will likely cause. We will not go back. Steady State repeating cycles will happen again and again. Past cycles that quit occurring will continue to not happen again.

      • R. Gates
        You have really latched on to some bad research.
        Ice Volume is increasing.
        There is a really lot of bad data out there.

      • HAP, your whole steady state assumption is built on sand if you wish to neglect the previous billion years for context. You are saying forget all the wild changes in that billion years, the next billion will be different, and it is just an assertion.

      • R. Gates - The Skeptical Warmist

        Again HAP,

        How about some links to research or data backing up your assertions?

      • John Carpenter

        “Again HAP,

        How about some links to research or data backing up your assertions?”

        R Gates, don’t hold your breath. I’ve asked the same question a number of times to the response of crickets chirping.

      • How about some links to research or data backing up your assertions?

        I have done that and I will do that again in the future.
        My data is NOAA and NASA Data and NIST Data.

        It is out there for you to look at any time you like.

        Look through my website to see what data I have used to figure this out.

      • There are many links to excellent data on my WebSite;

      • Consensus Theory uses an unknown external forcing to make earth cold and then build ice. Consensus Theory uses an unknown external forcing to make earth hot and remove Ice. They cannot match the ice with any external forcing that is large enough so they claim feedback helps them. They can’t explain it and they can’t make their models do it.

        Earth works much like my Air Conditioner at home. The sun warms my house until the the thermostat switches the cooling system on and keeps it on until the temperature is driven back down. Earth lets the sun remove ice and lets the earth warm. When the Polar Sea Ice Thermostat thaws, Earth turns on the Snowfall and keeps it on until the Polar Sea Ice Freezes.
        Earth temperature does not drift around as it would in response to an external forcing. Earth temperature is driven back and forth over the Set Point. Look at the Data Signature. Consensus Theory does not explain what happens to temperature data. My Theory does explain what happens to temperature data.

      • We have been in a warming period ever since the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. We warmed because oceans were frozen and the sun melted more ice in the warm seasons than was replaced by snowfall each cold season. Oceans and Land are still warm and some ice Extent is still retreating. The Oceans are warm and wet and the Ice Volume on Land is increasing on the tops of Glaciers and on the tops of ice fields. This ice will advance later and the advancing Ice Extent will then cool earth again. This fits perfect with actual data.
        Climate Models don’t do this. Climate Model Output does not match actual data. Consensus Theory is wrong and the actual data will prove it.

    • How the Ice Cycle Works. It snows at the top while it melts and retreats at the bottom and When the Ice at the top grows enough it advances.

      • This is how a real Glacier grows and retreats.

        Consensus Theory Makes Earth cold and adds ice extent at the edges of ice fields and at the bottoms of glaciers. They add the ice after some strange force makes earth cold. The moisture to add ice is only available when oceans are warm and wet.

  7. R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

    John’s insights are pretty brilliant.

  8. Regardless of the arguements for and against, each quoting infallible sources, it remains a fact that …
    : There is a big melt in place both north and south.
    : Seasons are about a month earlier in the south and a month later in the north.
    : Ocean levels are rising.
    : Seasonal rain patterns have changed dramatically in the last 20 to 30 years.
    : Natural events like cyclones are much stronger than previously

    and so on.
    So something is happening!

    • David Springer

      R.Chalmers | August 31, 2013 at 11:28 am | Reply

      WRONG : There is a big melt in place both north and south.
      WRONG: Seasons are about a month earlier in the south and a month later in the north.
      RIGHT: Ocean levels are rising.
      WRONG: Seasonal rain patterns have changed dramatically in the last 20 to 30 years.
      WRONG: Natural events like cyclones are much stronger than previously

      1 out of 5 is pretty good for an alarmist.

  9. R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

    Great news…court allowing Mann’s defamation lawsuit against the National Review to proceed:

    You just go around defaming people. Good for him.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Yes, it is evident (literally!) that the editors of National Review deployed the full gamut of Prof. Trish Roberts-Miller’s handy compendium Characteristics of Demagoguery“ (as Climate Etc readers are welcome to verify for themselves).

      The National Review‘s court-acknowledged demagoguery is grossly incompatible with rational pursuit of “the best available science.”

      That’s ordinary common sense, eh Climate Etc readers?

      Conclusion  For good reason, young scientists are repelled by abusive cherry-picking demagoguery in the style of National Review, and are attracted by the creative and adventurous rationality of traditional climate-change science

      \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}

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Let’s hope that the National Review feels some pain from all this.

      • Wait for the defense to ask for full disclosure.
        I wonder when the full set of ‘ClimateGate’ emails will be ready to be viewed by all?

      • My measure for the effect of each CA post is the length from the last one.

    • David Springer

      This is indeed good news. I wish it would get more press especially what comes to light in the discovery phase. Keep us posted, Gates.

      You announcement does however raise a question. Do you have anything scientific to contribute, anytime, ever?

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery David. Nice to know your mind has been so easily influenced by my original thoughts.

      • David Springer

        Hypocritical retards need simple things repeated over and over to them for there to be any chance of them understanding. In that vein….

        Do you have anything scientific to offer, anytime, ever?

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        You would be the best person to assess your personal needs, David. Keep up your self-talk as you see fit.

      • RGates

        There has been such a human volcano of articles posted by Judith recently that I don’t know if you saw my post confirming the origin of the phrase?

        I haven’t seen you use it since so you might have read that I had copyrighted both ‘human carbon volcano’ AND ‘Anthropocene’ and you require my permission AND a fee each time you use them. The fees are VERY large but permission easily obtained if the large fee is paid.


      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist


        Since copyrighting is something I happen to know a bit about, and I seriously doubt you have done such, then I do know that I am free to use the phrase as much as I like, just as I can say Coke or Pepsi or McDonald’s as much as I like, so long as I don’t defame them or use their names for commercial purposes.

        Regarding the very accurate description of what humans have done by pulling so much fossil fuel from the ground and burning it, I can speak of the human carbon volcano as often as I please, without so much as paying you even one shilling, euro, dollar, or carbon credit.

        Oh, you are the kidder aren’t you!

      • Can I patent Anthrocano? A Google search, as of now, shows it doesn’t exist yet, so I hereby mark this word as mine, henceforth going forwards. Feel free to spread the word, as it were.

      • RGates

        Carbon credits? worse than useless. Of course I’m kidding…(or am I?)
        Anyway, the phrase from the 1970’s is slightly different in phrase and source. Hers how I noted it.

        ” Book ‘Climates of hunger’ by bryson and murray

        They coined the phrase ‘human volcano’ in reference to the potential impact of human generated particulates on climate. they suggested that widespread changes in farming, more ploughing, dry climate, drought causing extensive dust clouds i,e a ‘climate feedback.


      • I will use my word in a sentence. Paleoclimate has shown that the earth’s CO2 has risen in several episodes several hundred million years apart, most often associated with enhanced volcanic activity, except for one period starting around the 20th century which we designate an anthrocanic episode that similarly elevated CO2 levels to those not seen for millions of years by returning deeply sequestered carbon into the atmosphere and surface oceans. This produced unprecedented warming rates that later caused mass extinctions, sea-level rises of tens of meters swamping primitive coastal dwellings like New York, and heralded the end of the Ice Ages.

      • Rgates

        You earlier referenced that hoary old chestnut from Kinnard re Arctic ice. We have had this conversation before. Have you ever read the paper and seen the proxies used?

        How were the Vikings able to sail the arctic for four centuries if the ice was so widespread?

        We have excellent references that I have seen in the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge that suggest the ice had receded so much in the first decades of the 16th century that the Northern sea route was explored.

        I have previously posted extensive material illustrating that the arctic ice extent from the 1920-1940 period appears to be wildly overestimated.

        I had originally sent the following information to Fan in my bid to be one of Hansen’s young scientists (definition by Fan; anyone younger than Hansen!) but it is relevant to this conversation as it includes glacier melt and sea level information. (this is the graph you thought interesting and fun and comes from thousands of references from luminaries in the ice/glacier world.)

        As you can see glaciers have receded and advanced numerous times. It is stretching credulity to its limits to imagine that static levels of sea ice for 1400 years could coexist with the warmer periods that precipitated well documented glacier retreat.

        The kinnard graph does not stand up to scrutiny. Do you believe in the Hockey stick as well, as his graph closely mirrors it?


      • David Springer

        Peewee Herman just called. He wants his “I know you are but what am I”” retort back.

      • tonyb, you ask “How were the Vikings able to sail the arctic for four centuries if the ice was so widespread?” Well, as archaeological evidence has clearly shown, they fitted skis to the long-boats and hitched up huskies when the prevailing wind was not favourable. Tying furs around the oar-blades was also done in extreme circumstances.

        And you call yourself an historian! :-)

    • So, the judge reviewed her own work and decided that, notwithstanding a few pesky factual errors, it was all good?

      No wonder she likes Mikey Mann.

      • Possibly the worst judge in DC, surely the most politically connected plaintiff’s attorney. All the KIng’s horses and all the King’s men, can’t keep Mike’s icon from bits on the floor.

      • Honestly, it was just like the True Believers. She was forced to admit the factual errors, but went on to say that they didn’t affect the underlying premise.

        Spooky, huh?

      • Heh, Heh, she said ‘witch hunt’.

      • We got a bad judge….. boo hoo, sob, sniffle

        HA HA ! You cry babies are a hoot.

      • Well, if it wasn’t already, she has laid it open for discovery about those panels that cleared climate science and Michael Piltdown Mann, particularly the one at Penn State and it’s analogue, the cover-up of Sandusky.

      • It’s deliberate, to show malice, and it’s stupid and I’ll bet plaintiff’s attorneys are grinding their well-cared for teeth.

      • Max seems to think it’s better the suit proceed. Well, Max, I’m with you on that one. Is this a first?

      • Brandon Shollenberger


        We got a bad judge….. boo hoo, sob, sniffle

        HA HA ! You cry babies are a hoot.

        Cry babies? The judge was so bad she is leaving the case. Not only did she make grave factual errors, she assumed as fact things directly disputed by the defendants. The level of bias or incompetence required to do that is immense.

        It’s ridiculous to criticize people for complaining about a judge when that judge is leaving the case in what appears to be a direct connection to the complainant’s concerns. Apparently the judge herself doesn’t even feel like you do.

      • Lindzen was fabuloso: ‘What is going on here?’

    • That is great news. I hope Mann wins.

      • I rather think that it would have been better for Mann to have had his case turned down, because then he would have made his point and get to back out of this situation without losing face. I agree with Judith when she implied that Mann will run into problems when he gets cross examined on the quality of his science.

    • “You just go around defaming people. Good for him”
      Funniest thing I’ve read all day. Oh yes, the highly principled Michael Mann. BY all means hitch your wagon to that shining star. How many lawsuits is it now? It’s a wonder he’s got the time to practice all that good science, he’s so busy with his lawyers. Oh wait…

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Abusive Denialist Response  “Lolwot, you are yet another Jerry Sandusky of climate change science, who molests and tortures data.

      Truly, in recent months climate-change denialism has been showing all of the traits of demagoguery!

      Conclusion Thank you lolwot, for your sustainment of respect for the traditional norms of science.

      \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}

      • David Springer

        So Sidles is it your belief that equating holocaust deniers and bandwagon climate science skeptics is somehow not abusive?

        Pray tell, John.

      • MAkes me wonder, do you guys…you rock solid, never to be swayed in this lifetime or the next no matter what happens, ever look around at your allies and wonder how you ended up in such company? Lollywot, Josh, Max_OK (for a 14 year old) etc. etc…

        I don’t mean to be cruel, and after all beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but from my point of view it’s quite the rogue’s gallery….

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        At the extremes both sides have their colorful eccentric personalities, who are more akin to religious zealots than scientists.

      • R. Gates,
        I don’t disagree…

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Common sense and an increasing body of the best available cognitive science both affirm that abusive denialist demagoguery can be pathognomonic of various cognitive spectrum disorders (individual, social, political, and corporate).

        On the other hand, simply being afraid and/or ignorant and/or malicious and/or ideology-driven and/or drunk all can motivate abusive and/or denialist demagoguery too.

        Fortunately, ignorance and fear can be remediated fairly effectively. The other demagogic motivations, not so easily.

        \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}

      • PG –

        MAkes me wonder, do you guys…you rock solid, never to be swayed in this lifetime or the next no matter what happens

        A rather typically inane post, PG.

        Do tell – what is it that I am “rock solid” about…. “never to be swayed…” about?

    • This is a graph of the last 20 years. You can’t see last week on it. It looks to me that the average in the first half is about 0.1 and in the 2nd half about 0.2 Are you seriously concerned about a tenth of a degree? What are the error bars on those data points?

      • It’s the last point on the right. What I find notable is it rivals many of the points at the height of the 1998 El Nino, the 2003 and 2005 El Nino and the 2010 El Nino. But we are not in an El Nino. If anything ENSO has been closer to La Nina for quite a while.

  10. Let’s commit an important truth here.

    NG has zest and gusto:

    If we’re not extinct, I’d hate to see what my neighborhood looks like after another 2000 years. Put another way, 2000 years is many, many infrastructure lifetimes. We will have done the equivalent of building new cities many times over in that interval. So far, our rate of abandonment of land due to toxic waste is much larger than our rate of abandonment due to sea level rise, and as long as the human race maintains its current level of intelligence, that trend will continue for a while, with no signs of major economic disruption.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      willard (@nevaudit) claims (wrongly!) “2000 years is many, many infrastructure lifetimes.”

      Not for this guy and not for buildings like this (5 meters above sea level) and not for conferences like this.

      Learn more history, willard (@nevaudit)!

      \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}

      • > willard (@nevaudit) claims (wrongly!) “2000 years is many, many infrastructure lifetimes.”

        NG said it, not me.

        I’m committed to the truth that NG has zest and gusto.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Your point is undeniable willard (@nevaudit) and thank you for making it!

        Three cheers for zest and gusto in public discourse! Boo on abuse and willful ignorance!

        \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}

      • “Three cheers for zest and gusto in public discourse! Boo on abuse and willful ignorance!”

        Hey Fan,
        And yet, you’d be a little more convincing if you dropped the “denialist” stuff. How’d you feel if you were habitually characterized as a fanatic, or a zealot?

      • He already is, Poker.

        By you, among many.

      • Willard, that’s simply not true. In fact I’ve defended the woman’s passion and commitment several times. Unlike most of the alarmists who hang out here, I think I have a sense of where she’s coming from, which is that she’s simply adopted Oreskes’ ideas, or more likely arrived at them on her own, about how it’s too dangerous, given the stakes, to even keep our minds open in this area. I understand that (though of course I strenuously disagree), and I admire her courage, and her obviously fine mind (which unfortunately she does not use to take a more objective look at things).

        If in the heat my own passion I’ve been impolite to FAn, it’s been the exception/ For the most part, I just laugh off her unyielding, propagandistic , “indoctrination camp” type approach. Ironically, I think she’d be much more effective if she were less strident, and took more care with the links she provides, but she’s always entertaining to read.

        All just my take naturally.

      • Nice image of the Pantheon, one of the largest buildings in Paris.

        Do you know why Paris has a poverty of high-rise buildings FOMD?

        Do you know the constraints that architects in Paris have to work with?

        Now building in London, with a possible rise in sea-levels is a piece of piss compared to dealing with building on the Swiss Cheese that is Paris.

      • Poker,

        I will point at this:

        > How’d you feel if you were habitually characterized as a fanatic, or a zealot?

        And I will point at this:

        > For the most part, I just laugh off her unyielding, propagandistic , “indoctrination camp” type approach.

        That will be all, as it suffices to disprove your “that’s simply not true.”

        If you need more examples, you’ll have to raise.

        How many chips do you have, again?

      • but she’s always entertaining to read.

        So I guess that PG doesn’t only read Fan’s posts “accidentally.”

      • Willard, . You conveniently ignored the positive things I said about her in order to draw your own narrow conclusion Why is that?

      • Jest running low on jokers out of raveled science sleeves.

      • I acknowledge your paternalistic moments toward a commenter you consider a woman, Poker.

        Now, please retract your false claim.

    • David Springer

      John N-G fails to consider the vast improvement in his neighborhood 2000 years hence brought about by his no longer living in it. Indeed, near as I can tell, that’s an improvement with global scope.

    • Anyone who considers that humans may be extinct within 2,000 years disqualifies themselves from rational debate.

  11. Professor Curry,

    Please allow me to post this one-page synopsis:

    The book was first summarized in messages to the Congressional Space Science & Technology Committee:

  12. Some time ago James Hansen concluded fro the global temperature bell curve says ‘the world is warming’. Prompted by an article on the WUWT I constructed distribution curve for the CET, since I couldn’t find one available on line
    The CET appears to show opposite to what Hansen has concluded, but I will leave to those with better statistical dexterity to comment.

    • How about if you provide bell curves for the last 60 years versus the time before that. Major shift, I would guess. This would be more like Hansen did.

  13. Dr. Curry:

    Suggestion for topic: Is the Climate Anti-Fragile?

  14. Doug Badgero

    Dr Curry,
    Do you know if there are any serious efforts to use the Cesium plume from Fukushima to learn more about ocean currents?

    • My Ph.D. supervisor, during his Ph.D. spread strontium 90 around the British countryside and tracked it moving into different.
      He died of cancer quite young.

    • That does sound like an opportunity to ceas upon.

  15. David L. Hagen

    Political Uncertainty
    At Seeking Alpha, Robert Wagner writes:

    The markets are defined by “Black Swan” events where previously unknown risks emerge and overnight the markets are down 10, 20, 30% or more. 1929, 1987, Long-Term Capital Management, Barings Bank and of course 2008 and the mortgage crisis. . . .
    I always try to identify and discuss risks in my articles, and one risk I always try to highlight is the political risk embedded in the green economy. . . .
    In 2013, only about one in five Republicans told Pew they thought human activity should be blamed for global warming, while nearly nine out of 10 Democrats thought the two were connected. . . .
    The GOP recently announced that they will be having “mega” hearings on climate change starting on September 18th, 2013. I anticipated such an event and recently wrote an article detailing what likely will be discussed in these hearings.

  16. David L. Hagen

    Cloud Uncertainty
    New paper finds cloud assumptions in climate models could be incorrect by factor of 2

    The authors find that changes in vertical stacking of clouds can change radiative forcing assumptions by a factor of two [100%]. However, state of the art climate models do not take vertical stacking into consideration, and most global datasets of cloudiness also do not contain this information.

    AGU Journal Highlights:

    Atmosphere’s emission fingerprint affected by how clouds are stacked

    Clouds, which can absorb or reflect incoming radiation and affect the amount of radiation escaping from Earth’s atmosphere, remain the greatest source of uncertainty in global climate modeling. . . .based on which parameterization is used, similar changes in the portion of the sky covered by clouds (especially the clouds in the middle and lower troposphere) can lead to spectral fingerprints that differ by up to a factor of two in the amplitude.

    Source: Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50562, 2013
    Non-negligible effects of cloud vertical overlapping assumptions on longwave spectral fingerprinting studies

    h/t The Hockey Schtick

    • David L. Hagen

      Unknown Unknowns

      Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know,
      there are known knowns;
      there are things we know we know.
      We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
      But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
      And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.
      The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or vice versa.

      Donald Rumsfeld From Department of Defense news briefing, February 12, 2002 [1].
      Cloud vertical stacking appears to be one of Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns” by cloud vertical stacking just doubling cloud uncertainty from 98% in climate models!

  17. David L. Hagen

    Resiliant farming vs perverse policies
    Building a drought proof farm
    Federal crop insurance

    actually rewards the type of farming that makes land less resiliant in the face of drought and other weather extremes

  18. The UAH global temperature anomaly for August should be available shortly after Labor Day. Anyone have any inside information as to what the value might be?

    • Who cares, it’s just a single month. Try not to get distracted by ego feeding trivia.

      • Howard, you write “Who cares, it’s just a single month. Try not to get distracted by ego feeding trivia.”

        I care. You are sort of right, but miss the point. If CAGW is correct, and it is a mighty big IF, but if it is right, then some month has to start the inexorable rise of global temperatures. Should that happen, then the first sign will be in the UAH temperature for the most recent month. So, yes, it matters.

    • South American countries gripped by snow

      Unusually cold weather and snow in parts of South America have affected thousands of people in several countries.

      The cold spell has killed at least seven people in Peru, four in Bolivia and two in Paraguay.

      In the latter, the authorities blamed the weather for the death of more than 5,000 cattle too.

      Weather forecasters say a cold front from Antarctica entered the region almost a week ago.

      On Friday, the Peruvian deputy education minister, Martin Vegas, said schools were closed in 43 provinces in 10 regions.

      “They will remain closed next week as more snowfalls have been forecast,” he said.

      Thousands of llamas and alpacas have died in the cold weather.

      Peruvian President Ollanta Humala visited some of the worst affected areas earlier this week.

      He said blankets and alpaca covers were needed, as well as medicines and clothes.

      In Bolivia, roads closed by the snow have disrupted supplies to mines in the province of Inquisivi, in La Paz.

      Work in five mines in the region, which employ thousands of workers, had to be suspended since last weekend because of the snow.

      Correspondents say they were running out of supplies.

      One of the driest places on earth, the Atacama desert in northern Chile, also saw snow earlier this week.

      Forecasters said the snowfall was the heaviest in the area, about 1,000km (600 miles) north of the capital Santiago, in three decades.

  19. David Springer

    pokerguy | August 31, 2013 at 1:02 pm |

    “MAkes me wonder, do you guys…you rock solid, never to be swayed in this lifetime or the next no matter what happens, ever look around at your allies and wonder how you ended up in such company? Lollywot, Josh, Max_OK (for a 14 year old) etc. etc…”

    95% of warmists are rational and well informed.

    The other 5% post comments on

    • D.S,
      Funny, how that works. I guess the other 95 percent are over at Revkin’s. What a reasonable, measured, sober lot they are.

      I was too quick to agree with Gates about extremism on both sides. Of course there are some on the skeptical side….but there really is no valid equivalency overall. For the most part, alarmists do a pretty fair impression of rabid dogs…

      • Woof woof snarl grrrrrrh frrggg grrh%%%$$
        slobber slobber snarl grrr woof woof

      • David Springer

        Will the real Bob Droege please stand up?

        Oh wait, he just did. Nevermind!

      • Bob Droege

        Kindly control yourself.

      • I agree, extremists on both sides unfortunately. Us moderates have to stick together.

      • I just try to go where the science leads me, unfortunately I find Jim to be spot on and to have done his homework most of the time…


        woof woof

        but seriously, comments from two guys who have been busted repeatedly for making stuff up.

        I see a bone

  20. David Springer

    How about those hurricanes this year, huh?

    Oh wait…

    • The lack of hurricanes is a fingerprint of AGW. You should stop sticking your Gomer into your Pyles.

      • David Springer


        I missed you man. Or whatever you are.

        AGW = Anthropogenic Global Weirding?

      • dennis adams

        I love it. For the last 4 years since I got interested in this issue, all I have heard is how AGW causes MORE extreme weather, including Hurricanes. Do you all get look- alike hymnals sent out to you each week or what?

      • It’s not my fault you tools are not up to speed: the AGW reduced delta between the equator and poles is responsible for the reduced globrulally abrudged hurricane strength.

      • David – you MUST know, too many hurricanes is a sign of global warming and, just as legitimately, so also is a dearth of hurricanes a sign of global warming. Too many, too few, it’s ALL due to ACO2.

      • I miss the huricanes.

    • David, the number and strength of hurricanes has in fact risen over the past 15 years, but, because of the increased levels of CO2, the majority are now sub-aquatic. It is the hurricanes that are transmitting heat from the surface to below 300m.

    • They moved to the Arctic?

      The Cape Verde waves are coming of a little to the south this year and seem to be falling apart, but really a little early to tell. Still a bit behind.

      I thought someone said fewer but stronger, warmer water but more wind shear.

  21. In the last couple of years the climate science establishment has been forced to deal with the fact that there has been no net warming since 1997,that the warming trend peaked in about 2003 and that the earth has been in a cooling trend since then .- see Figs 1 and 4 in my blogpost at
    Figs 1and 4 are but two examples of an ever increasing number, showing the growing discrepancy between model outputs and reality.This disconnect has been acknowledged by the establishment science community which is now busy suggesting various epicycle like theories as to where the “missing” heat went.Some say its in the oceans (Trenberth) some say its due to Chinese aerosols (Hansen) but the all main actors still persist in the view that it will appear Lazarus like at some unspecified future time.This is like the Jehovah’s witnesses recalculating the end of the world each time a specified doomsday passes.
    In Britain , the gulf between the Met Office expectations for the last several years and the actual string of cold and snowy winters and wet summers which has occurred has made the Met Office a laughing stock-
    to the point of recently holding a meeting of 25 “experts” to try to figure out where they went wrong.
    The answer is simple.Their climate models are incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First that CO2 is the main climate driver ,second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks cannot be positive otherwise we wouldn’t be here to talk about it .
    Ms Curry found a recent paper mind blowing.What is really mind blowing is that the IPCC – Met Office model outputs were ever accepted as having any useful connection to the real world.
    Much of the the discussion on this site however still accepts the model outputs as a basic framework for rational discussion and policy guidance. They are not.
    A completely different approach to forecasting is required.One such is outlined in the link above.Others have exposure mainly in the Blogsphere- eg Scafetta and Easterbrook.It is the forecasts of these type of approaches which should be the topics of discussion .The IPCC modellers can only advance by scrapping their basic assumptions and restructuring their models completely.For most of them this is psychologically and professionally impossible.
    Here are the conclusions of my approach based on the recognition of quasi cyclic – quasi repetitive patterns.
    “To summarise- Using the 60 and 1000 year quasi repetitive patterns in conjunction with the solar data leads straightforwardly to the following reasonable predictions for Global SSTs

    1 Continued modest cooling until a more significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
    5Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
    6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
    8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and more CO2 would help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !!
    The Solar Cycles 2,3,4 correlation with cycles 21,22,23 would suggest that a Dalton minimum could be imminent. The Livingston and Penn Solar data indicate that a faster drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures might even be on the horizon.If either of these actually occur there would be a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.”

    • “The IPCC modellers can only advance by scrapping their basic assumptions and restructuring their models completely.For most of them this is psychologically and professionally impossible.”

      But the IPCC was set up to validate the fears of politicians, not to be a scirntific research establishmeny. However very long temporal cycles (hundreds or thosands of years) would be difficult to prove and perhaps no need to. See my contribution below which suggests the reason for the present ‘pause’ can be found in better understanding of the vibration modes of the CO2 molecule.

    • “the fact that there has been no net warming since 1997”

      Hmm UAH shows net warming since 1997

      “that the warming trend peaked in about 2003 and that the earth has been in a cooling trend since then”

      According to UAH warming hasn’t stopped and has accelerated since 2008

      • lolwot.The SST data are the best metric for climate change.(see the HAD SST3 plot in Fig 1 Linked above.The land data are seriously distorted by the UHI effect, and constant mangling and massaging adjustments to the earlier data made by Hansen and co,and by the natural high frequency regional variability.
        The SST data, though not without problems. smooth out short term noise because of the thermal inertia of the ocean and the uniform sea level.Perhaps more importantly we should really be measuring not the temperature but the enthalpy of the system.This varies wildly on land and is not measured by temperature. The changing ocean enthalpy varies much more in tune with the SSTs .For confirmation of the temperature trends as I describe them see also the NOAA SSTdata at

      • lolwot:

        The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average.

        Let’s use the middle of the above is 1995 ½. We are at about 2013 ½ now. I get 18 years. 0.17 C per 18 years. Roughly 0.10 per decade. 1.0 per century. Is that a pause?

        What is a problem with the Spencer’s graph? Extreme volatility depending on the most recent number. Not that long ago, look at the graph, the number was over .40 C, not the current .17 C. Which would show a doubling of the rate. Perhaps a longer term running average would help.

    • Denial

      At the moment field is between Anger, Bargaining and Depression

  22. “This disconnect has been acknowledged by the establishment science community” All except for our very own lollywot.

    @ Dr. Page,,,Seriously, you make some superb points. And of course you’re right re the IPCC being unable to walk any of this back. They’re up to their professional/personal eyeballs in this thing. Very few human beings have the integrity and courage required to put themselves and their livelihoods on the line.

    I follow markets and financial bubbles in a casual kind of way, and it would be perfectly in line with historical patterns if it turns out this mania occurred on the very cusp of another LIA. In fact, I think it’s likely that’s the way this will turn out.

  23. Some thoughts on the concept of long-term energy imbalance (LTEI); espoused by R.Gates. From what I can gather, and please if I am wrong, will someone tell me where i am wrong.

    1. The value cannot be measured with current technology.
    2. There is no peer reviewed study that estimates the value.
    3. Therefore no-one has any idea what the value is. Any value anyone quotes is little more than a guess.

    So I cannot see how LEIT has any benefits whatsoever compared with climate sensitivity. It adds nothing to the (un)certainty with which the warmists claim that the hypothesis of CAGW represents the reality of what happens in the earth’s atmosphere, when more CO2 is added from current levels.

  24. Topic seems to be arctic polar ice and foolish people getting their boats stuck in it..

    I think it would better to have less polar sea ice.
    If we had national [international] policy to remove polar sea ice. Could this be inexpensive to do, and what benefits could there be to doing it?

    So we could make sea lanes. You have weather and ocean currents, so make to lanes wide- say 10 km wide.
    So you could put something black on the ice, prior to the sun returning to the north.

    If you want to spray it from planes, you probably want large, propeller driven ground effect planes. This largest ever made:
    But you need it being nuclear powered, nor the “six P-270 Moskit guided missiles armed with nuclear warheads”. As it says:
    The “wing in ground”effect allows the fully loaded 2 million pound aircraft to fly low over the water and even get decent fuel economy

    And there little need of it going 340 mph, top speed could instead be around 200 mph. But generally such vehicle could deliver lots of tonnage
    quickly and cheaply. So using ships you could pre-postion thousands of tons in depot locations thousands of miles apart, from which such planes could spread over a large area.

    The substance that blacken the snow, could plant food- so ocean fertilization.

    Another thing one could do reflect sunlight from Space:
    “If it can be done, proponents say, providing sunshine at night could save billions of dollars each year in electrical lighting costs, extend twilight hours during planting and harvesting seasons to aid farmers, allow more working hours on large construction projects and help in rescue and recovery operations after natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes. ”
    But have as additional purpose causing large sea lane areas to be kept
    warmer during winter, and form less ice.

    So if spent hundreds of millions per year, could the result be billions of dollar per year of increased economic activity, and making life in arctic more prosperous.
    So such a thing would help the Russia a lot, as they have huge land area in the north, but politically it could quite cheap. Compare to what Russia has cost the US in terms of Cold War, and in terms aiding Iran, such project cause Russia to focus on more constructive activities.

  25. Antonio (AKA "Un físico")

    Has anyone from the IPCC (or other climatologists) demonstrated that doubling CO2 concentrations implies an increase on the surface global temperature of 3+-1.5 K?.
    And by “demonstrate”, I mean a logical scientific deduction. Not a model that uses a climate sensitivity of 1.12K(=0.303·5.35·ln2) and then many feedbacks can be introduced; neither that linear equation dT=L·dF where L is set to 0.8 (and dF is 5.35·ln2).
    If that demonstration exists, could anyone post the reference(s)?

  26. How long can the pause last? Can it last for ever?

    CO2′s voracious appetite for energy can omly be satisfied in two ways: kinetic and vibrational energy. We can forget kinetic, because it is no worse than O2 or N2 and it is less than 1% of the atmosphere. The answer has to be in the vibrational modes, of which there are many. When CO2 leaves the cylinders of your car or the furnace of the power station it is over 1,000C – very hot and most of, if not all. of its vibrational modes will be excited. When it exits the tail pipe or chimney it is still very hot and we would expect it to rise in the troposphere as a plume of hot gas passing its heat to the N2 and O2 as it rises. As it rises in the troposphere (like a hot air balloon) it can more readily radiate its heat into space, because the atmosphere above is thinning. So what propottion of heat is radiated into space, instead of heating our planet?. As the CO2 cools, density increases, it will fall again, maybe having used up all its excitation modes, it can no longer heat the planet. So this simple but apparently little understood chain of events may not be such a threat?

    So this explanation of CO2′s behavior in the troposphere can explain the pause. So long as the hot, new proportion of CO2 from exhaust or chimneyremains below the presert level the pause will continue. Note that this new metric of CO2, if accepted, focuses not on total CO2, but on the proportion of new,hot CO2.

    • Completely wrong. CO2 is excited all the time by photons from the earth which far outnumber any it might have emitted initially. This is why CO2 absorption bands are seen from space.

      • JimD: thanks for your commesnt. Yes, we know that the CO2 molecule absorbs radiation at 14.99 microns IR, but even more power per photon at shorter wavelengtths that are excited when hot. So when CO2 leaves the cylinder of your car or chimney it will be excited at those shorter wavelengths and as it rises in the troposphere, passes this heat onto the N2 and O2. That is why I believe the ‘pause’ will continue.

      • The CO2 coming out from your car is not much in the big picture of atmospheric CO2. These other molecules are meanwhile keeping us warm and making us warmer gradually with time. It is like building insulation.

      • Something odd about these Australians such as Alexander Biggs and Chief Hydrologist that clamp on to this easily debunked ideas of CO2 combustion alone causing the heating of the planet.

        I think their larrikin culture fosters this contrarianism, and the more style you show, the more you get lauded by the fellow Aussies. The art of being a contrarian is that you can’t simply say NO as an argument; to be effecyive, you need something else as a contrarian counter-argument. And so they grab on to these somewhat plausible arguments — plausible enough to pull suckers in — but ultimately completely wrong.

        Lots of other skeptics apparently get pulled in, because it is always up to the realists to point out the krank theories.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Alexander is wrong as I have pointed out – but no more egregiously so than webby or Jim.

      CO2 radiative forcing is calculated as the difference between forcing at one concentration of CO2 from forcing at another holding surface temperature constant. The physical reality is of course that temperature at least theoretically rises and emissions therefore tend to equilibrium.

      The other physical reality is that most anthropogenic emissions of CO2 cool to ambient temperatures in the atmosphere rather than warm. This is of course an undeniable reality – other than by webby or Jim.

      The other undeniable reality is that the atmosphere warms the oceans and not the Sun. Oh wait – no – that’s webby’s reality and is easily deniable.

      • WordSalad++

        The reality is that GHG’s such as CO2 and water vapor warm the planet via their radiative properties. How this warming gets partitioned amongst the land, ocean, and atmosphere is what climatologists research. I do my best to try to model that as concisely as possible, and this concerns the Chef Waterboy to no end.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Word salad seems code for the vast amounts you misunderstand. What you do is badly fit curves to data. In no sense at all can it be considered modelling. The is no freakin’ point in the known universe to any of it.

        How energy gets ‘partitioned’ is via flows of energy between the Sun, surface, atmosphere and back out to space.

        Less mathturbation and more data is the cure for you..

      • The Chef/Waterboy is one of those all talk, no action types.
        About all he has to show for his efforts are a context-free archive of photobucket images. Chew on that.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The graphs are all labelled with author and date. You may of course have the reference if you like. I commonly do supply the link as well. Graphs are of course a good way of visualising data. Personally I always look at the graphs in scientific publication first. The collection represents years of reading of scientific literature broadly in climate science from ENSO influences on the Minoan civilisation to the impact of the closure of the Central American Seaway on ENSO and the effect of ENSO on TOA radiant flux. Perhaps there is a bit of a theme emerging here. I am currently looking at SAM data along with Claus Wolter’s MEI – attempting to prove my idea of a solar UV origin for ENSO – and indeed the PDO. Perhaps SAM and Nino1+2? Perhaps stratospheric temperature and Nino1+2? I have been thinking about this for a couple of years. The correlation of SAM and ENSO is negligible – but there are delays and feedbacks. It is not a simple connection – and it is generally thought that ENSO influences SAM rather than the other way around.

        Webby takes wave data at a wave buoy – for instance – and fits a curve to it over the period of data. This is a trivial exercise. If you have the data you can work out pdf’s more precisely. The wave regime is unique for every location. For bigger waves – there are statistical methods for estimating extremes. For wave heights at different locations you then need to model wave movement over local bathymetry. This is no point to any of webby’s curve fitting. Merely an amateur out of his depth to make a pun.

        There are a few people here who read and understand very little seemingly and have dogmatic views that are almost entirely wrong.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist


        In your research on ENSO and the SAM/UV connections, don’t forget about the QBO. See:

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘In the winter polar stratosphere, the solar cycle (SC) signal was thought to be detectable only when the data are stratified according to the phase of the equatorial quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO; Labitzke 1987; Labitzke and van Loon 1988, hereafter LvL88). Why this is so has never been explained, and this has created confusion as to the mechanism of the solar cycle response in the stratosphere. Is the QBO essential for the amplification of the solar cycle signal? What is the dynamical mechanism linking the two phenomena? A prevailing school of thought [see recent discussions in Labitzke (2003) and Labitzke (2004)] believes that the structure of the solar cycle response takes different forms according to the phase of the QBO. A different possibility, which we shall explore here, is that the solar cycle influence is not intricately tied to the QBO mechanism. The solar cycle merely represents an “additional” perturbation, comparable in magnitude to the QBO, to the least-perturbed state of the polar stratosphere, which is represented by the state of solar minima (denoted by SC-min) and westerly QBO (denoted by wQBO).1

        The variation of total solar irradiance over an 11-yr solar cycle is known to be small, having been measured by satellites at approximately 0.1% of the solar constant (Willson et al. 1986; Lean 1991). It is generally accepted that a dynamical amplifier to the radiative forcing is needed to account for the observed solar cycle signal in the lower atmosphere (the lower stratosphere and the troposphere). The variability in the solar ultraviolet wavelengths is larger, at approximately a few percent. Energy at these wavelengths is absorbed by ozone, which is abundant in the stratosphere. It follows then that the atmosphere’s solar cycle response should be largest over the lower latitudes in the stratosphere where the solar radiation is strong. Both models (e.g., Haigh 1996) and observation (Labitzke 2001; Haigh 2003; Hood and Soukharev 2003; Crooks and Gray 2005) found a tropical solar cycle signal of about 1.5–2 K in the upper stratosphere and 0.5–1 K in the lower stratosphere. Yet the largest signal is found during winter over the pole (Labitzke 2001), where the solar radiation is the least. The magnitude of the solar cycle warming during the polar night is about 7 K, from solar minimum to solar maximum (see later in this paper), which is much larger than that observed over the Tropics and larger than can be explained by radiative consideration alone.’

        Cracking this problem is certainly not simple. For the ENSO connection we are looking for the mechanisms resulting in high pressure at the poles – pushing storm tracks into lower latitudes – or which intensify the polar cyclones.

  27. Since all I ever do is hawk over the science of the system, here is a guest post on The Oil Drum. This site is going away but I will continue predicting future CO2 levels based on fossil fuel reserves.

    • David Springer

      The Oil Drum is going away?

      Hearts will be breaking all over the intertubes!

      • Several sites will take over The Oil Drum, including my new environmental blog and semantic web site

      • Chief Hydrologist

        New website – same old crapola. Which you can now access by pushing a button.


        You can badly fit a curve to data for all sorts of things. Who would of thunk it? Of course if you have data – what is the point?

      • Chief asks a question:

        ” Of course if you have data – what is the point?”

        That gets to the point of the burgeoning field of data science. To be able to reduce millions of data points to stochastic models of a couple of parameters has its obvious uses, and there is a demand for it:

        … this hot new field promises to revolutionize industries from business to government, health care to academia.
        The field has been spawned by the enormous amounts of data that modern technologies create

        Chief is upset that he has missed the boat once again, so what else can he do but lash out.

        It really doesn’t bother me, because I used Chief’s “what is the point” to motivate me to find the NY Times article I linked to above. That link is going on the blog as a rationale piece.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        You are a total wanker. About the densest data field I have ever used is various water parameters every 15 minutes. So 96 a day – 35,304 a year. We are interested in perhaps the maximum for the day or running 6 hour averages. Unless you are looking at calibrating sediment suspension models – in which case you would look at a few weeks at the times of highest and lowest tidal range. In the normal course of climate we are interested in a couple of data points a day, one a month or even one a year. Of course if you have spatially distributed data – such as with ARGO – you might gets thousands of data point a day. I assume that the data processing is automated – outliers flagged – points logged – etc.

        I repeat – if you can graph data there is utterly no point in fitting a curve to it. Unless for specialist statistical purpose such as estimating extreme values. But that’s not what you do is it?

        To imagine that your curve fitting of 5 year running mean ocean heat content this is anything like data mining billions of transactions daily – looking for criminal transactions for instance – it just the sort of utter insanity you are capable of.

      • There’s Wankels, and cankles, and cankers and such,
        It’s clankers that rankle, the wankers not much.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Web Hub Telescope: … this hot new field promises to revolutionize industries from business to government, health care to academia.
        The field has been spawned by the enormous amounts of data that modern technologies create

        This is absurd. What you have is a new name for “statistics”, and it is a continuation of decades old trends. As always, some things will work better than others, and the progress will be specific to subject matter.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Chief Hydrologist: I repeat – if you can graph data there is utterly no point in fitting a curve to it.

        Don’t be stupid on purpose! Consider, for a start, the sagas of Kepler and Newton. Fitting equations to data always produces good results in the long run, where “long run” may be surprisingly soon.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Which bit Mahler – calculus or the laws of motion? Kepler could predict approximately the path of the planets, Newton a little more accurately.

        In no sense can you predict climate data except as probabilites. We do like to do stochastic probabilities of data – for instance of floods – and apply a presumed distribution over that to obtain extreme values – but it is a design device and not an explicit formulation.

        So we are left with fitting a curve to data for no rhyme or sane reason. It serves no purpose. It gives no insight into the physical processes. It is as insane as you are if you think that this makes sense.

      • David Springer

        Chief Hydrologist | September 1, 2013 at 12:59 am |

        “You are a total wanker.”

        He’s a Minnesota atheist so that’s a given.

      • I see the sour grapes contingent is at it again.
        Those who have the talent and the motivation tend to do the stuff,but those that are past their prime just bitch and moan.

        Some of us also like to rub it in.

        Data Science: The Numbers of Our Lives — NY Times

        “Data scientists are the magicians of the Big Data era. They crunch the data, use mathematical models to analyze it and create narratives or visualizations to explain it, then suggest how to use the information to make decisions. “

    • Maria Popova writes that “One of Russell’s key assertions is that science education is key to attaining a future of happiness and democracy.”

      I write as one for whom Russell was a hero, and who heard him speak (at LSE in the early’60s). The above assertion is flawed, and shows Russell’s crucial limitation – believing that the rational mind was paramount, and that it was the basis for human improvement and happiness. To an extent, that is true, in terms, e.g., of technological advancement and freedom from poverty. But happiness ultimately depends on the habit patterns and reactions of our sub-conscious, which can not be changed by rational thought or the so-called conscious mind.

      • +1

        Intuitive thinking will provide the pathway for human civilisations to flourish in future.

      • Russell said somewhere, perhaps in his biography, that one
        day as he was riding his bike, it occurred to him that some of
        the most important occurences in his own life were prompted
        by irrationality. Russell said he almost fell off his bike when
        this insight hit him. )

      • By chance it was only an insight.

        The bike might have him think what Iris thought:

        > The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart.

    • You think taking a quote from a famous philosopher makes you look like an intellectual do you Willard?

      You are a clown. I will not follow Jesus’s command to forgive those who know not what they do; because if you try to pull a argumentum ad auctoritatem, you better make damned sure you know your authority figure better than your audience.

      I am a scientist and if you are a scientist, it is good to reflect on the horrors that previous generations of scientists and philosophers have inflicted on the human race.
      When faced with a problem of morality, especially if you are a scientist, Russell is always worth a read.
      With Bertie, as with Haber, you can always know what is right and what is wrong.

      On ‘lesser’ races

      “This policy may last some time, but in the end under it we shall have to give way—we are only putting off the evil day; the one real remedy is birth control, that is getting the people of the world to limit themselves to those numbers which they can keep upon their own soil… I do not see how we can hope permanently to be strong enough to keep the coloured races out; sooner or later they are bound to overflow, so the best we can do is to hope that those nations will see the wisdom of Birth Control..

      .. We need a strong international authority.

      —”Lecture by the Hon. Bertrand Russell”, Birth Control News, vol 1, no. 8 (December 1922), p.2

      On Eugenics

      “”…impregnation will be regarded in an entirely different manner, more in the light of a surgical operation, so that it will be thought not ladylike to have it performed in the natural manner.”
      – Bertrand Russell. The Scientific Outlook. 1972″

      “When feeble-minded persons marry normal persons a large proportion of their children, though not all, are normal; but if two feeble-minded people marry their children will, on the average, be still more feeble-minded.”
      – Bertrand Russell. Babies Nobody Wants”, The Sunday Chronicle, 8 May 1927, p.3.

      “By sterilizing the feeble-minded of two generations, feeble-mindedness and idiocy could be almost stamped out; but here religious scruples intervene, and even humanitarian feelings which lead to the opinion that one man must be made to suffer for the good of others except as a punishment for sin. Scientifically-minded people naturally grow impatient of these restrictions upon their activities.”
      – Bertrand Russell. “Should We Let the Scientists Govern?”,Jewish Daily Forward, 2 Jan.1927, pp. E1-E3.

      Bertie was wrong on everything, consistently.
      An in depth investigation of dirty Bertie’s views on the way to classify and deal with sub-humans is found here

      • Russell represents a standpoint of the times in which he lived albeit a very conservative one, and in many areas outside of his expertise (mathematical philosophy) he was obviously wrong.

        Even today, there are people whose views are radical and dangerous, and its difficult to know how to deal with them. My preference is to engage with them as much as I am able and to maintain some ongoing contact with them.

        I can only suggest that any dialogue that you attempt with them needs to be on the basis of your own convictions and a demonstrated commitment not to make any judgments on why they have these views and that you disagree with them.

      • Eugenic? The State deciding who lives and who dies?
        .On what grounds a serf enquires? The State don’t
        own individuals. Pichur them ‘progressivist’ platonists
        up there on the hill decidin’ how ter stabilize, read
        ‘sterilize’ the population, and ‘who?’ Heh, some social
        engineerin’ on the side, read ‘ limit the undesirables,’

        Serfs against platonists.

      • Remember this when people with the imagination of zombies speak about the Earth’s ‘carrying capacity’.

      • Peter, “Even today, there are people whose views are radical and dangerous, and its difficult to know how to deal with them.” I knew a lot of such people decades ago, and found no scope for engaging with them, they were hidebound and (IMHO) delusional. In my sheltered West End life (although this is the radical hot-bed of Queensland, it’s not to be compared to central London in the 60s and 70s), I no longer meet such people.

        I’m sometimes pegged as conservative on CE (hey, my “Radical” score the other day was only 72), but over my life I’ve rarely found myself in company with conservatives, most often lefties.

      • David Springer


        If the eugenics movement hadn’t died on the vine Willard wouldn’t be here today. Food for thought.

      • I see you are an authority on Russell, Doc.

        Your claims deserve due diligence.

        Thank you for playing.

      • > You think taking a quote from a famous philosopher makes you look like an intellectual do you Willard?

        1. I thought I linked to a tweet from Popova. I thought that tweet linked to **Education and the Good Life**:

        2. I thought there were seven quotes in Popova’s post. I thought that the quote referred in Popova’s title was this one:

        Construction and destruction alike satisfy the will to power, but construction is more difficult as a rule, and therefore gives more satisfaction to the person who can achieve it. … We construct when we increase the potential energy of the system in which we are interested, and we destroy when we diminish the potential energy. … Whatever may be thought of these definitions, we all know in practice whether an activity is to be regarded as constructive or destructive, except in a few cases where a man professes to be destroying with a view to rebuilding and are not sure whether he is sincere.


        The first beginnings of many virtues arise out of experiencing the joys of construction. […] Those whose intelligence is adequate should be encouraged in using their imaginations to think out more productive ways of utilizing existing social forces or creating new ones.

        3. I thought that if you’d like to contest this quote, you’d have to quote it, interpret it, analyze its argument, and offer a counter-argument.

        4. I thought that scientists knew better than relying on ad hominems, at least while stuffing squirrels with herring straw to burden me with defending all that Russell said.


        5. I now think your comment provides a good example for Russell’s point.

        6. I also think you should know better than to write such destructive comment.

        Thank you for asking,


      • I wonder if Doc were as equally offended by PG’s quoting Mencken (given Mencken’s praise of the slave-holding aristocracy in contrast to the “unwashed peasants”).

        Does Doc think that PG is quoting Mencken to seem like an intellectual?

        Will Doc call PG a “clown” and proceed to show how he differs from Jesus in that he isn’t inclined to forgive PG, who knows now what he does (perhaps the only way that Doc differentiates himself from Jesus)?

        Because, you know, Doc is a scientist.

      • Repeat, repeat,…

        the neo radical, updated version according to Allinsky?:o)

      • “Peter Davies | September 1, 2013 at 12:49 am |
        Russell represents a standpoint of the times in which he lived albeit a very conservative one, and in many areas outside of his expertise (mathematical philosophy) he was obviously wrong.”

        Your description of Bertie as a conservative,is all too typical of commentators on the left.

        Can you please not place you blood stained knife in my hand in future.

      • How do you connect Russell’s comment on construction and eugenism, Doc? All I can find is this:

        > Bertie was wrong on everything, consistently.

        Speaking of which, do you think that Russell’s paradox is wrong too?


        I’ll open a new thread to discuss Heathrow’s article.

        Thank you for the cite.

      • We construct when we increase the potential energy of the system in which we are interested, and we destroy when we diminish the potential energy. …

        “3. I thought that if you’d like to contest this quote, you’d have to quote it, interpret it, analyze its argument, and offer a counter-argument.”

        Well it is quite obviously bollocks.
        We are alive, and as such run up the thermodynamic down escalator.
        Life is all about creating complexity and storing/transmitting information, whilst creating chaos.
        Photosynthetic organisms take in short wavelengths of light and excrete longer ones.
        We eat complex organic food stuffs and excrete much simpler ones.
        Anything that we create physically is based on destruction, the amount of heat generated to form an energy gradient, from which we can make work.
        The more complex our society, the more entropy we generate, which is a byproduct of work.
        You cannot have work without entropy.

        Perhaps you should cite a philosopher who is neither intent on draining what he believes is the shallow end of the genetic pool or one who has taken the trouble to understand the thermodynamics of life.

      • Joshua, I am not the net-mom.
        I don’t care much for modern philosophy, withe the exception of P. J. O’Rooke.
        What I do care about are people who have the ‘just the right number of me, but too many of THEM’, philosophy. Dressing up bigotry as ‘science’ has a long, ignoble, history.
        Now go off and play in traffic.

      • > Well it is quite obviously bollocks.

        Let’s suppose that the “it” refers to

        We construct when we increase the potential energy of the system in which we are interested, and we destroy when we diminish the potential energy.

        and not to

        I thought that if you’d like to contest this quote, you’d have to quote it, interpret it, analyze its argument, and offer a counter-argument.

        since what we find is something like a counter-argument based on an analysis.


        Let’s look at this counter-argument:

        > We are alive, and as such run up the thermodynamic down escalator.

        This thermo argument is supposed to counter what is offered as a definition:

        Whatever may be thought of these definitions, we all know in practice whether an activity is to be regarded as constructive or destructive, except in a few cases where a man professes to be destroying with a view to rebuilding and are not sure whether he is sincere.

        These definitions are of little relevance to Russell’s point, which relates to an ethical conception of constructiveness. This topic is also present in the first sentence from the quote:

        Construction and destruction alike satisfy the will to power, but construction is more difficult as a rule, and therefore gives more satisfaction to the person who can achieve it.

        This should be read as a moral imperative more than an empirical observation.


        So far, we had:

        Doc took a tweet as an endorsement of everything Russell ever said.

        Doc injected Russell’s polemical writings on eugenism in a discussion about his views on how to lead a good life.

        We can now add:

        Doc interpreted definitions as facts.

        Doc took illustrative definitions as essential to Russell’s argument.

        Doc forgot to comment on the topical parts of the quote.

        Doc tried to use thermo to refute a moral or an ethical point.


        Doc’s white lab coat’s act will bring him no joy.

        You’re a patzer, Doc.

      • Now go off and play in traffic

        Indeed, very Jesus-like.

        And to for what do I deserve this invitation to serious injury or death? That I deigned to suggest selective reasoning on Doc’s part?

        But, you know, Doc is a scientist.

        With a drum to bang (clearly about Russell, and about willard, about me, perhaps).

        Never get in the way of a scientist who has a drum, eh? ‘Cause he’s prone to see scientific reasoning where none such exists.

      • Willard you are a clown.
        “We construct when we increase the potential energy of the system in which we are interested, and we destroy when we diminish the potential energy.”

        Is complete and utter bollocks. To construct, we must do work and to do work we must generate entropy. Locally, one can have an increase in potential energy, buy generally there is an increase entropy.

        Now you ignorant clown, go read some basic thermodynamics.

      • “Speaking of which, do you think that Russell’s paradox is wrong too?”

        Yes, but only when it’s correct.

      • Willard you are a clown.

        And once again, Doc displays his scientists chops.

        Man, I am impressed. What a scientist!!!

      • Doc

        You would have done better just to challenge Berties rather silly argument about “construction” and “destruction”

        There isnt any construction or destruction. there is just re arranging

        “Construction and destruction alike satisfy the will to power, but construction is more difficult as a rule, and therefore gives more satisfaction to the person who can achieve it.

        1. The will to power is never satisfied, as it is never absolute.
        2. The claim that construction is more difficult is merely asserted.
        3. What Bertie sneaks in at this point is that it is the amount of satisfaction given that valorizes construction over destruction.

        Next, he tries to define “construction” by a vague appeal to “potential energy”

        “… We construct when we increase the potential energy of the system in which we are interested, and we destroy when we diminish the potential energy. …”

        And we can ask ourselves. When Bertie is constructing his ethical system does he actually abide by his own rulz? Well, THAT is the point at which your examples become relevant. You see that his position on Eugenics and keeping the “colored” under control is directly tied to his notion of “construction” and increasing potential energy.

      • Steve, why should I play the stupid, “assume the moon is made of cheese, the population of France are mice and rockets are made in China”?
        Why on Earth should we play these stupid games where people use scientific jargon to make their proxy pretentious arguments seem powerful. It is just sympathetic magic and it doesn’t work if you just look behind the curtain. The idea that the profound thoughts of a mycologist, racist and eugenicist are going to be constructive in an argument that scientists should have more sway over social policy is stunning.
        That Willard and Josh worship this profoundly anti-human creature says a lot about the kinds of people attracted to apocalyptic movements. First they worry about ‘bad’ gene driving out ‘good’, next it’s telling people not to use energy.

      • Let’s try to rephrase Russell’s relevant sentence using Doc’s reading of the argument:

        [W]e all know in practice whether an activity is to be regarded as constructive or destructive, thermodynamically speaking, except in a few cases where a man professes to be destroying with a view to rebuilding and are not sure whether he is sincere.

        Chewbacca would be proud of such moral requisite, according to which men should ask themselves if what they do make sense in terms of thermodynamics.


        Perhaps by taking an example from Doc’s biography can help:

        Well, the pursuit of science in physics and biomedicals has produced a huge amount of technology. Humankind has been enriched by the spin-offs of research physics and in biomedicine.

        Would you rather settle for a bunch of refutations, Doc?


        Here would be a counterexample along the lines of Russell’s proviso:

        The intuition-based account of thought experimenting comes in a naturalistic version (Brendel, 2004; Gendler, 2007; Fehige 2009 and forthcoming), and in the form of Brown’s Platonism (Brown, 1986, 1987, 1991a, 1991b, 1993, 2004a,b, 2005, 2007a,b,c). Brown holds that in a few special cases we do go well beyond the old data to acquire a priori knowledge of nature (see also Koyré, 1968). Galileo showed that all bodies fall at the same speed with a brilliant thought experiment that started by destroying the then reigning Aristotelian account. The latter holds that heavy bodies fall faster than light ones (H > L). But consider (Figure 6), in which a heavy cannon ball (H) and light musket ball (L) are attached together to form a compound object (H+L); the latter must fall faster than the cannon ball alone. Yet the compound object must also fall slower, since the light part will act as a drag on the heavy part. Now we have a contradiction. (H+L > H and H > H+L) That’s the end of Aristotle’s theory. But there is a bonus, since the right account is now obvious: they all fall at the same speed (H = L = H+L).

        Destructing can be as satisfying as constructing, when you do both at the same time.


        There are lots of empirical results that would substantiate Russell’s intuition. For instance:

        [P]issing on people and telling them its raining isn’t a viable method for gaining trust or for ones chances of becoming an authority figure.



        You’re on my turf, now, Doc. If you think you can play the same move over and over again, even Mosh won’t help solve your patzer play. You can put down your lab coat: it only hinders your reading, which falters on three little sentences from the 1950 Nobel prize of lichurchur.

      • H.L. Mencken reporting the 1948 Progressive national convention shouldn’t be missed.

      • It’s litchurchur, willard. Please, get with

      • “You’re on my turf, now, Doc.”
        You are supposed to mow the lawn, not smoke the grass.

        Why do you make so much of the robes of my trade rather than the methodology? Sympathetic magic again.

      • It’s a sticky willard.

      • That Willard and Josh worship this profoundly anti-human creature …

        What’s this? More brilliant analysis from our resident “scientist?”

        Quite amazing. What some some scientists can come up with.

      • Willard Quote:

        “Galileo showed that all bodies fall at the same speed with a brilliant thought experiment that started by destroying the then reigning Aristotelian account.”……
        “But consider (Figure 6), in which a heavy cannon ball (H) and light musket ball (L) are attached together to form a compound object (H+L); the latter must fall faster than the cannon ball alone. Yet the compound object must also fall slower, since the light part will act as a drag on the heavy part. Now we have a contradiction. (H+L > H and H > H+L) That’s the end of Aristotle’s theory. But there is a bonus, since the right account is now obvious: they all fall at the same speed (H = L = H+L).”

        This is all wrong physically and historically. Galileo investigated ‘acceleration’ and not ‘speed’.

        Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences by Galileo Galilei.
        “My purpose is to set forth a very new science dealing with a very ancient subject. There is, in nature, perhaps nothing older than motion, concerning which the books written by philosophers are neither few nor small; nevertheless I have discovered by experiment some properties of it which are worth knowing and which have not hitherto been either observed or demonstrated. Some superficial observations have been made, as, for instance, that the free motion [naturalem motum] of a heavy falling body is continuously accelerated; but to just what extent this acceleration occurs has not yet been announced; for so far as I know, no one has yet pointed out that the distances traversed, during equal intervals of time, by a body falling from rest, stand to one another in the same ratio as the odd numbers beginning with unity.

        It has been observed that missiles and projectiles describe a curved path of some sort; however no one has pointed out the fact that this path is a parabola. But this and other facts, not few in number or less worth knowing, I have succeeded in proving; and what I consider more important, there have been opened up to this vast and most excellent science, of which my work is merely the beginning, ways and means by which other minds more acute than mine will explore its remote corners.

        This discussion is divided into three parts; the first part deals with motion which is steady or uniform; the second treats of motion as we find it accelerated in nature; the third deals with the so-called violent motions and with projectiles. ”

      • > Why do you make so much of the robes of my trade rather than the methodology?

        I pointed enough flaws in what may be called your methodology to afford to respond to your clown remark by pointing at your lab coat, Doc. Your question presumes something false. You can add this to your methodological tab.

        Speaking of methodology, you may recall that Education and the Good Life was first written in 1926. Do you know of any significant events that happened in the 20s?

        That might help you get a whiff of what destruction meant to Russell.


        On a more constructive note, perhaps you might be interested in that kind of philosopher:

        Just in case you get tired of reading the 17th book from a satirist that once was a left leaning hippie.

        Wait. If O’Rourke once was a left leaning hippie, does that mean you should discredit everything he wrote, Doc?


        Constructiveness is an acquired taste.

      • > This is all wrong physically and historically. Galileo investigated ‘acceleration’ and not ‘speed’.

        Very good, Doc!

        Now, please quote the relevant bit from Galileo, and show us what difference it makes to the presentation of the encyclopedia entry I cited. Then we’ll see what difference it makes as an example of a thought experiment Brown calls platonic, i.e. something that can both be destructive and constructive at the same time. To help you out in your constructive quest, and to try to be constructive myself, here are two papers you could use.

        The first one my help you get up to speed in Galileo’s relevant text (note the quote at the beginning):

        The second one is a recent paper that shows how one could improve on Brown’s typology of thought experiments:

        Best of luck!


        I should warn you, Doc, that citing these two papers does not amount to an endorsement. (The usual caveat about tweets, BTW.) It is not impossible to show appreciation and remain critical at the same time. In fact, this is a skill professional philosophers must learn to read harder.

        I hope this responds to your jab about worship.

      • “Speaking of methodology, you may recall that Education and the Good Life was first written in 1926. Do you know of any significant events that happened in the 20s?”

        Oh, I get it. Morality is not independent of events in the past, only independent of the future. Thus, Berties analysis of morality is a function of his time, place, class and society, and can hold no intrinsic value when transplanted to some future time, place, class and society.
        As we have no direct experience of WWI, on which Bertie built his moral judgement, none of his moralistic bullsh1t applies to us in he ‘now’.

        You and Josh are the Leopold and Loeb of scienific mortality in the 21st Century; so do be careful in the showers.

      • > [D]o be careful in the showers.

        Thank you for the unsollicited advice. Sounds like a threat, though. To the extent that this unsollicted advice contains a veiled threat, we could almost surmise that you’re not in a very constructive mood, Doc.


        > Morality is not independent of events in the past, only independent of the future.

        Almost, Doc. You’d need to replace “morality” with “meaning” first, as the point is about understand what Russell meant by constructiveness. Here’s someone who does seem to understand:

        Everyone likes power, likes to have an impact – though we are less concerned with precisely what we impact. We enjoy more those accomplishments that involve a higher degree of difficulty. “What we can do easily no longer gives us a sense of power; it is the newly-acquired skill, or the skill about which we are doubtful, that gives us the thrill of success [p. 137].” As it is easier to destroy than to build, constructive action is more satisfying. But the ease of destruction makes it the first type of activity a child pursues. Eventually the child will want to have his own constructions preserved, lending the possibility of bringing home the point that he should respect the constructions of others. (Making a child the cultivator and steward of a corner of a garden similarly teaches respect for the flowers that bloom out of the diligence of other gardeners; a child with a pet develops reverence for animal life.) The incentive to build greater things inculcates patience and persistence.


        For the interested readers, this conversation has been pursued in another thread:

    • David Springer

      I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than have a frontal lobotomy. ~Rertrand Bussel</i

  28. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”


    • But what about the unknown unknowns? There may be hobgoblins lurking in the shadows … we ignore such possibilities at our peril. I put my head beneath the blankets as a practical application of the precautionary principle.

      • I’ve lived my life hiding under my bed for the most part. Governments tend to infantilize us, but they couldn’t do it without our eager cooperation..

  29. Test ‘reveals Facebook, Twitter and Google snoop on emails’: Study of net giants spurs new privacy concerns

    Study set out to test confidentiality of 50 of the biggest Internet companies
    Researchers sent unique web address in private messages through firms
    They found six of the companies opened the link from the message

    Read more:
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    • David Springer

      I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Spam filters and email virus protection software analyzes links in your email. That said I encrypt what I don’t want them to see using 7-ZIP and a password. It’s a given that once the email leaves your computer anyone can potentially read it unless it’s encrypted.

      Hotmail virus scanning no longer allows me to encrypt anything. They initially were opening up zipped attachments and refusing to send emails with password protected zip attachments. So I started using 7-Zip instead because the virus scanner didn’t recognize it. That worked for about a year and now you can’t send an encrypted 7-zip file through hotmail either. So I started using gmail as they still let encrypted attachments go through.

  30. A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in
    observed climate

    Analyses of global climate from measurements dating
    back to the nineteenth century show an ‘Atlantic
    Multidecadal Oscillation’ (AMO) as a leading large-scale
    pattern of multidecadal variability in surface temperature.
    Yet it is not possible to determine whether these fluctuations
    are genuinely oscillatory from the relatively short
    observational record alone. Using a 1400 year climate
    model calculation, we are able to simulate the observed
    pattern and amplitude of the AMO. The results imply the
    AMO is a genuine quasi-periodic cycle of internal climate
    variability persisting for many centuries, and is related to
    variability in the oceanic thermohaline circulation (THC).
    This relationship suggests we can attempt to reconstruct
    past THC changes, and we infer an increase in THC
    strength over the last 25 years. Potential predictability
    associated with the mode implies natural THC and
    AMO decreases over the next few decades independent
    of anthropogenic climate change.

    No warming until about 2030!

    • The quasi-periodic nature of the model’s AMO
      suggests that in the absence of external forcings at least,
      there is some predictability of the THC, AMO and global
      and Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures for several
      decades into the future. We utilise this to forecast decreasing
      THC strength in the next few decades. This natural
      reduction would accelerate anticipated anthropogenic THC
      weakening, and the associated AMO change would partially
      offset expected Northern Hemisphere warming. This effect
      needs to be taken into account in producing more realistic
      predictions of future climate change.

  31. On the previous issue on an earlier thread regarding ethics in science, of whether western culture is self destructing by abandoning the Judeo-Christian ethic – I rest my case.

    “As protesters decry the leniency of Rambold’s sentence — he will spend 30 days in prison after pleading guilty to raping 14-year-old Cherice Morales, who committed suicide at age 16 — I find myself troubled for the opposite reason. I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized.

    The point is that there is a vast and extremely nuanced continuum of sexual interactions involving teachers and students, ranging from flirtation to mutual lust to harassment to predatory behavior. Painting all of these behaviors with the same brush sends a damaging message to students and sets the stage for hypocrisy and distortion of the truth.”

    The Washington Freakin’ Post publishes this as a respectable op-ed. I wish I subscribed so I could cancel my subscription.

    • Childhood’s Beginning, and the gutters of Hamlin overflow with pipers.

    • In Britain, and a few other states they have this

      “The age of consent in England and Wales is 16 regardless of sexual orientation or gender, as specified by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
      However, if person A is over the age of 18 and is in a position of trust to person B who is under the age of 18, it is illegal for A to engage in sexual activity with B. Section 47 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence to pay for or promise payment for sexual services of a person under 18 where the ‘client’ does not reasonably believe that person is over 18, or in any event for a person under 13.”

      Teachers and youth workers were the target of the clause.

  32. “Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons”

  33. Ah, the tender mercies of public indoctrination, I mean education, German style.

    “The children were taken to unknown locations,” HSLDA said. “Officials ominously promised the parents that they would not be seeing their children anytime soon.”

    The raid, which took place Thursday at 8 a.m. as the children were beginning their day’s classes, has been described by observers as “brutal and vicious.”

    A team of 20 social workers, police and special agents stormed the family’s home. HSLDA reported a Judge Koenig, who is assigned to the Darmstadt family court, signed an order authorizing the immediate seizure of the children by force.

    “Citing the parents’ failure to cooperate ‘with the authorities to send the children to school,’ the judge also authorized the use of force ‘against the children’ … reasoning that such force might be required because the children had ‘adopted the parents’ opinions’ regarding homeschooling and that ‘no cooperation could be expected’ from either the parents or the children,” HSLDA said.

    But don’t worry, the use of force against children, like everything else progressives do, is “for the children.”

    I wonder if after the release of the AR5, the Germans will start using storm trooper tactics against incandescent light bulb users too?

    Maybe they can send troops to Holland, Poland and France to help with the EU’s mandate on the subject.

  34. inc. bulbs have long been banned in Australia, but I have a secret stash for any Europeans desperately in need.

    I plugged in an approved new bulb once and it exploded in my face. At the time, I had no idea of the mercury absorption danger this posed. An unknown unknown

    • That exploding in the face trick is a test of faith for the alarmists. Similarly, pyrotechnic electric cars.

    • Light-bulb freedom will be an issue in future elections. NOT.
      Only cranks get worked up over light-bulbs.

    • How much more mercury do you think is going to enter the environment now everyone has ‘Green’ light bulbs?

  35. GaryM, Germany is a Democracy and home schooling is illegal in Germany, as it is in many other countries. If you don’t care for democracies and like breaking laws, you are not a good citizen, and I hope you will move out of the USA.

    • This sad sack musta hadda chant ‘Love it or Leave it’ as a child.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      “Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?”
      ― Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays

      ‘”Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” – that’s what makes Max’s ignorance scary.

    • You’d a made a fine Hitler youth, Max.

    • Max_OK,

      “GaryM, Germany is a Democracy and home schooling is illegal in Germany, as it is in many other countries. If you don’t care for democracies and like breaking laws, you are not a good citizen, and I hope you will move out of the USA.”

      Why do you hate Martin Luther King, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela?

      • Were Ghandi and Mandela living in a democracy?


        Please remind us how you feel about immigration laws, GaryM.

      • How many lives lost in Hollywood & no settlement yet, willard? Movies have been made of all the above, where is the neo love of warm dough in Bollywood? Another set for the czars. Seek well, my friend.

      • Willard,

        Yes, all three (including the US, though you didn’t ask) were democracies. But only for some, which was the point of the disobedience.

        In all three cases, however, despite brutality on the part of the elitists (Democrats in the US) who tried to keep them subjugated, they championed civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws.

        Do you favor submission to unjust or immoral laws? Or do you reserve your support for storm trooper tactics for families who do not follow your progessive dogma?

        And if you want to ask me about immigration laws, an easy answer is that our immigration laws and defense of our border should be no more restrictive than Mexico’s – on its southern border.

    • This is much much more than home schooling.

      “The little blond-haired boy is about four years old. He simpers as a middle aged woman drags him downstairs into a dimly-lit cellar and orders the child to bend over and touch the stone floor with his hands. Another little boy watches as the woman pulls down the first boy’s pants and then draws out a willow cane.

      “Say you are tired!” commands the woman in an emotionless voice. The swoosh of the willow cane is audible as it strikes the screaming child’s bottom three times. The little boy refuses to say he is tired so he is hit again and again – a total of ten times – until, in floods of tears, he finally says “I am tired.” “

  36. Happy Father’s and Grandfather’s Day, Peter ).

    kim, plus one. Hope yer don’t mind if’n I cite this on
    me next edishun of Serf Under_ground Journal
    concernin’ history’s checkered history.

  37. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    DocMartyn praises “Nice image of the Pantheon, one of the largest buildings in Paris.”

    Doh! My bad link! The intended link was the Pantheon of Rome, not the Panthéon of Paris. Two *GREAT* buildings!

    The elevation of the Pantheon of Rome is approximately 5 meters (thank you, Google Earth!); hence in the centuries to come the Pantheon of Rome is — according to “best available science” — already slated to be drowned by rising seas … and pretty quickly, compared to its present age. Yikes! Whereas the Panthéon of Paris is approximately 50 meters above sea level — the Pantheon of Paris won’t drown until centuries after the Pantheon of Rome drowns.

    Is it any wonder the Pantheon’s steward is concerned, and he has directed his scientists to study carefully the full scientific, social, and moral implications of a global carbon energy economy.

    The Program for
    Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature (2014)

    Are Humanity’s dealings with nature sustainable? What is the status of the Human Person in a world where science predominates? How should we perceive nature and what is a good relationship between Humanity and nature? Should one expect the global economic growth that has been experienced over the past six decades to continue for the foreseeable future? Should we be confident that knowledge and skills will increase in such ways as to lessen Humanity’s reliance on nature despite our increasing economic activity and growing numbers? Is the growing gap between the world’s rich and world’s poor in their reliance on natural resources a consequence of those growths?

    No doubt Pope Francis’ bold, imaginative, morally-centered “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature” 2014 team will do a *FAR* better job of considering these crucial questions than the IPCC5’s too-timid 2013 team of time-servers and bureaucrats, eh?

    Nice catch, DocMartyn! It is a pleasure to join you in criticizing the IPCC5’s too-restricted scope! Farther foresight is good, eh?

    Good on `yah, DocMartyn and Pope Francis!

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

  38. The fossil record and ocean sediment cores indicates that six thousand years ago Northern Africa rapidly devolved from a verdant South America Savannah into what is now the Sahara Desert. This event caused catastrophic upheavals to populations bordering the Mediterranean Sea. This begs the question, what anthropogenic vector caused this to happen? I’m quite sure that the heavy industry of the period didn’t play a role in this event. I’m with the Axial Precession hypothesis on this one. Anyone who believes that global climate supercomputer models are useful is, of course, living in a state of sin. Apologies to John von Neumann’s famous quote on mathematical algorithms that generate random numbers.

    • well that’s an own goal isn’t it. You’ve just admitted the climate can cause catastrophic upheavals.

      You’ve just underpinned the C in CAGW.

      In a few short centuries man will elevate global temperatures to highs not seen for millions of years.

      What level of certainty do you have that this will not trigger a series of catastrophic upheavals the like of which you say happened just 6000 years ago?

    • American Mastodons became extinct about 6,000 years ago, along with many other megafauna. Hunting, secondary carnivore suppression and disease have all been suggested, but there was almost certainly a climatic change at the same time.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        Actually Doc, you need to check your facts better before spewing. The last American Mastodon (of the species M. americanum) went extinct in N. America about 10,000 to 11,000 years ago.

  39. In Kuhn’s view, no evidence that is incompatible with the current paradigm [Man made global warming] will be entertained during long periods of normal science. However, as anomalous results build up, science eventually reaches a crisis which drives the necessary acceptance of a new paradigm, which subsumes both the old and new results into a new framework. Kuhn calls this transformative point, revolutionary science.

    • If, as in the standard picture, scientific revolutions are like normal science but better, then revolutionary science will at all times be regarded as something positive, to be sought, promoted, and welcomed. Revolutions are to be sought on Popper’s view also, but not because they add to positive knowledge of the truth of theories but because they add to the negative knowledge that the relevant theories are false. Kuhn rejected both the traditional and Popperian views in this regard. He claims that normal science can succeed in making progress only if there is a strong commitment by the relevant scientific community to their shared theoretical beliefs, values, instruments and techniques, and even metaphysics. This constellation of shared commitments Kuhn at one point calls a ‘disciplinary matrix’ (1970a, 182) although elsewhere he often uses the term ‘paradigm’. Because commitment to the disciplinary matrix is a pre-requisite for successful normal science, an inculcation of that commitment is a key element in scientific training and in the formation of the mind-set of a successful scientist. This tension between the desire for innovation and the necessary conservativeness of most scientists was the subject of one of Kuhn’s first essays in the theory of science, “The Essential Tension” (1959). The unusual emphasis on a conservative attitude distinguishes Kuhn not only from the heroic element of the standard picture but also from Popper and his depiction of the scientist forever attempting to refute her most important theories.

      • @Willard
        “. This constellation of shared commitments Kuhn at one point calls a ‘disciplinary matrix’ ”

        This sounds like a praxis to me. A shared understanding of what it is that needs doing and the standards that need to be adhered to.

        Not climate science.

      • Since it’s your happy day, Peter, you have every right to feel as heroic as Popper.

        See you tomorrow.

      • Kuhn is like a eunuch in a harem, his views are based on observing rather than on any first hand practical knowledge.
        You really think investigators at the coal-face give a damn about this bollocks? We have lives you know.

      • Go tell that to Barry Brill, Doc.

  40. On 1st January 1989, the nations of the world took action via the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to eliminate the production of certain atmospheric pollutants, the man-made chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, HCFC’s, because they caused ozone depletion in the stratosphere. This depletion allows excessive ultraviolet-B from the Sun to reach the Earth’s surface where it increases the risk of skin cancer, cataracts, and suppresses the immune system for humans and also damages other life forms. The action of ozone is to absorb the radiance from the Sun across a number of different frequency bands including the damaging UV-B band.

    An extensive database of the infrared absorption spectra for gases is maintained on the HITRAN Web site by the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, USA, in conjunction with the V.E. Zuev Institute of Atmospheric Optics, Tomsk, Russia. It includes the absorption spectra for water vapour, carbon dioxide, CO2, methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and the halocarbons which the IPCC has stated are, in order of importance, the main greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    While we have been told that greenhouse gases are a cause of dangerous surface global warming, climate scientists have failed to tell us that they also absorbs radiation from the Sun in the upper atmosphere thereby protecting the Earth in a similar fashion to the protection given by ozone.

    For the case of absorption by CO2, the most prominent spectral line is at a wavelength of 4.3 microns. Applying Planck’s Law, gives us a spectral radiance of no more than 0.73 Watts per (steradian metre squared) per micron for an Earth emitting at a temperature of 288 degrees Kelvin, dependant on the emissivity at the time. For the incoming Sun’s spectral radiance at the Earth’s orbit, the figure is 2.24 W/(sr m^2)/micron for a Sun temperature of 5780 degrees Kelvin. That means that at least 3 times as much heat is radiated back into space by CO2 in the upper atmosphere as is back-radiated to the Earth’s surface at this wavelength. Clearly, absorption and re-radiation of the sunshine in the upper atmosphere at this wavelength cools the Earth and is going to cause additional cooling as the concentration of CO2 increases.

    Recent alarm about the release of methane gas from areas of permafrost failed to recognise that the main absorption peak for methane is at a wavelength of about 3.3 microns. At this wavelength the radiant flux from the Sun is of the order of 85 times greater than that from an Earth at 15 degrees Celsius. This must result in about 85 times as much infrared radiation from the Sun, at 3.3 microns wavelength, being sent back into space by the absorption and re-radiation from methane molecules in the upper atmosphere as could be re-radiated into the lower atmosphere for infrared radiation sourced from the warmed Earth. Furthermore as the Sun’s radiation is re-emitted into space before reaching the Earth’s surface, that surface will be colder than the assumed 15 degrees Celsius and thus will release even less radiation at all wavelengths.

    Next in order of importance with regard to global warming potential is nitrous oxide. The absorption peak for this gas is at 4.5 microns at which point the incoming radiant flux from the Sun is about three times the emission from the Earth’s surface. Once again, an increase in the concentration of this gas may cause cooling of the Earth, not warming.

    While the IPCC claims confidence at levels of 95% or 98% in their attribution of global warming to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it appears as though they are only dealing with half of the story. There does not seem to be any recognition of the back-radiation of the incoming Sun’s radiant flux out into space by the so-called greenhouse gases. It is little wonder that the forecasts from the General Circulation Models have always been incorrect if they do not take account of this effect. Add to that a lack of consideration of the variation in the emission from the Sun and the claimed confidence levels become unsustainable.

    An attempt to use the HITRAN site to determine the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 for the IAO model for a tropical atmosphere from 333 ppm to 666 ppm, balancing the inward sunshine with the outgoing Earth radiation, gave a result that was insignificant relative to the possible errors in the assumptions involved. It certainly did not accord with the extravagant claims of warming made by the IPCC and their cohort. This approach may warrant a far more detailed investigation.

    The origin of a failure to comprehend the problem may go back to the mantra of the Green movement of “shortwave in, long wave out”. This completely misrepresents the actual situation whereby the Sun’s spectrum is a continuum covering a large range of wavelengths and includes within it the range of emissions from the Earth.

    To conclude, the correlation of increasing Earth temperature with increasing CO2 concentration was not a causal but a chance statistic. Physical science would seem to indicate that a negative correlation should exist. Either back-radiation of sunshine keeps the Earth cooler than it might otherwise be without greenhouse gases or there is no such back-radiation in which case there is no greenhouse effect.

    • is the author of this piece mentally ill?

      • That would have been you, lolwot.

      • Your comment might very well be an own goal, lol.

        Ask questions instead.

      • Piece. willard

      • “The origin of a failure to comprehend the problem may go back to the mantra of the Green movement of “shortwave in, long wave out”. “

        OK, Here is a question.
        Since when has that bit of science been considered “Green”?

      • Spectral rainbows, and gots of polled.

      • > Since when has that bit of science been considered “Green”?

        Good question, Web.

      • Here is another question posed merely for the sake of statistics and big data analytics.

        Is Bevan an Australian?

      • “Since when has that bit of science been considered “Green”?”

        Easy Peasy; the Click reaction;
        the azide/alkyne Huisgen cycloaddition using a copper or ruthenium catalyst at room temperature.
        Discovered concurrently and independently by the groups of Valery V. Fokin and K. Barry Sharpless at Scripps and by Morten Meldal in the Carlsberg Laboratory.

        There is a huge effort to make chemistry ‘Green’, cutting down nasty wastes and nasty precursors.

      • Are you suggesting that the Green “shortwave in, long wave out” is vintage 2001, Doc?

        Click chemistry was first fully described by K. Barry Sharpless of The Scripps Research Institute in 2001 and describes chemistry tailored to generate substances quickly and reliably by joining small units together. Click chemistry is not a single specific reaction, but was meant to mimic nature, which also generates substances by joining small modular units.

        I also had the impression it was older than that. Note that there does not seem to be any tree-hugging in that page. You have a cite?


        You should keep such displays of power for live shows, Doc.

      • DocMartyn confuses radiative physics with chemistry ?

      • Web, you stated

        “OK, Here is a question.
        Since when has that bit of science been considered “Green”?”

        I offered the ‘Click’ reaction, which is an example of the burgeoning field of Green Chemistry, then you came back with

        ‘DocMartyn confuses radiative physics with chemistry ?’

        Bertie would have castrated you.

    • Good try, Bevan, but when the CO2 absorbs solar radiation, that heats the atmosphere too, and it is not re-radiated to space before that happens. Apart from that, the CO2 absorption is much less than either ozone or water vapor that also have a heating effect.

      • That is right, Jim D, now you are getting the idea. Yes the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb part or all of the incoming Sunshine at selected wavelengths which results in heating of that atmosphere. The same applies to the outgoing Earth radiance.

        This exposes the lie promulgated by the IPCC in that their Greenhouse Effect is a calculation which was derived in order to estimate the temperature of a radiating star. That is, a hot sphere whose surface is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the same temperature everywhere, radiating into space. Applying it to the Earth which has an ever-changing surface temperature radiating into an atmosphere, gives the meaningless Greenhouse Effect which is erroneously proposed to show that the Earth’s surface is 33 degrees K hotter than it should be. All that it shows is that the model is inapplicable to the situation.

        In fact, the infrared radiation absorbed by the greenhouse gases heats the atmospheric molecules in the immediate vicinity of an energised greenhouse gas molecule via collision while in one of its vibrational modes. That heat ultimately radiates into space via convection, conduction and radiation or else the energised molecule may have sufficient kinetic energy to escape from the Earth’s gravitational field.

        As for CO2 absorption being less than either ozone or water vapour, the point is that all infrared active gaseous molecules will react to photons of the appropriate wavelength regardless of whether their origin is the Earth’s surface, the Sun or some other heavenly body. However it is the IPCC that is telling us that the effect of CO2 is “dangerous” if not “catastrophic”.

  41. As of 1 Sep, the two possible precursors to hurricanes in the North Atlantic have decreased in intensity rather than increased. Anyone want to bet me, just prestige, on this? I will guess that in 2013 any hurricane which forms will be after the date of Gustav in 2002, which was, I believe, 11 Sep.

  42. R Gates wrote above that there is more energy entering than leaving each year. Perhaps others could remind him that it is energy in equals energy out always.
    Whether the earth’s temperature is cooler or warmer from one year to the next depends on numerous factors. If AGW was occurring there would not be more heat in the system (the sun did not get hotter) , there would just be a hold up in the heat in the atmosphere . The energy that would gave gone straight back out from the earth’s surface (say no clouds or CO2) still goes straight back out. The temperature of the radiating layer in the way (the atmosphere) is higher but this does not imply any overall extra energy gain .

    • Webby thinks that seawater is as good a conductor of heat as copper.

      • The average vertical eddy diffusivity has been estimated at 1.3 × 10^-4 m^2/s, originally by Munk.

        This gives an indication of how rapidly a thermal impulse will propagate outward, subject to the laws of diffusion.

        For yucks, one can compare this value to the thermal diffusion of copper, which is 1.11 × 10^−4 m^2/s

        The point is that heat entering the ocean can diffuse and disperse rapidly. This may not be true conduction in the sense of molecules transferring thermal energy as near-neighbors, but it is turbulent mixing of water at different temperatures, which accomplishes the same kind of random walk.

        James Hansen and others have held to this position for years so I am puzzled by this statement of yours

        DocMartyn | September 1, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
        Webby thinks that seawater is as good a conductor of heat as copper.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘The results of these and other experiments show that mixing occurs mostly by breaking internal waves and by shear at oceanic boundaries: along continental slopes, above seamounts and mid-ocean ridges, at fronts, and in the mixed layer at the sea surface. To a large extent, the mixing is driven by deep-ocean tidal currents, which become turbulent when they flow past obstacles on the sea floor, including seamounts and mid-ocean ridges (Jayne et al, 2004). ‘

        Horizontal mixing is a balance of eddy mixing and buoyancy forces. The balance seems to change considerably over time leading to changes in ocean heat at different levels. More or less turbulent mixing. Total ocean heat content changes are a function of the radiant changes at TOA and – nominally – the reduction in heat losses to a greenhouse gas warmed atmosphere. In the satellite era the latter is overwhelmed by changes in cloud cover that are related to ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns.

        e.g. –

        The vertical mixing rate varies, the energy inputs to the ocean from the Sun varies and the losses vary with atmospheric temperature. The idea that there is a single mixing rate where everything else is held steady is profoundly uninteresting. The idea that there is a steady transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the oceans is profoundly wrong.

        ‘A decade went by. Dozens of teams tried and failed to build an airplane that could meet the requirements. It looked impossible. Another decade threatened to go by before our hero, MacCready, decided to get involved. He looked at the problem, how the existing solutions failed, and how people iterated their airplanes. He came to the startling realization that people were solving the wrong problem. “The problem is,” he said, “that we don’t understand the problem.”

        Solving the wrong problem leads to an answer – but the answer is wrong.

      • Web, you say these things, but you know that they cannot be true.

      • DocMartyn, “Web, you say these things, but you know that they cannot be true.”

        I would not assume that. Webster has a great deal of faith in his ability to average things. He doesn’t seem to have a very good concept of the time it takes for things to average out, but he is confident they will.

    • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

      angech said:

      “Perhaps others could remind him that it is energy in equals energy out always.”

      You completely misunderstand the most basic fact of an external forcing to the climate if this what you believe. For a system in equilibrium, energy in is equal to energy out, of course, but for a system being forced to a new state by an external forcing, energy in is either more or less than energy out, i.e., the system gains or loses energy, respectively. In the Earth climate system, this gain or loss of energy is most consistently reflected in the heat content of its largest energy reservoir– the oceans.

      • As I pointed out to Jim Cripwell, the rise of the ocean heat content has been measured and confirmed to be positive and easily distinguishable from zero within measurement error by ARGO. This is the most compelling evidence for those you need to see that there is an energy imbalance and it is ongoing. It is broadly consistent with an independent estimate from satellite data, but that data is much less precise.

      • There is no more energy than what comes in and must leave each day.
        How it is dispersed while in the system affects us but there is no storage of extra heat in the deep ocean.
        Ie if a body of hot water went down, a body of colder water comes up but the total amount of heat that came into the water that day has to leave that day .
        The water on the surface would (must) necessarily get colder than it otherwise would have.
        Hence the nail in the coffin of the missing heat of Trembath.
        If the sea surface temps are going up there can be no heat going down.
        Help Steve Mosher et al.

      • Whether ARGO can tell that is debatable. From pages on ARGO project we can read something different:

        The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.

        This is another issue where the data is not yet as good as we would like. ARGO data set is not long enough, while the other data sets are not of comparable quality. The best available data looks quite convincing, but it’s weaknesses should be acknowledged by everyone.

      • Pekka, I make my statement looking at graphs like this.
        If there is an alternative to saying that the OHC has been rising measurably, I would like to know what that is.

      • Jim,

        ARGO forms a very small part of that. You referred only to ARGO in your previous comment.

        When I wrote that “The best available data looks quite convincing” I had in mind the picture you link to. Also my related comments are relevant to that.

      • The reduction in the error bars later in the period is mostly from ARGO.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

        angech said:

        “How it is dispersed while in the system affects us but there is no storage of extra heat in the deep ocean.”

        Is this the words of a “skeptic” or someone convinced (a true believer) in their position? Such a position is a classic mindset of a denier, hence why the term has value by its ability to distinguish a skeptic from something based on belief.

      • R Gates The external forcing, the sun, has not changed. Perhaps you are talking of internal forcing like rising CO2. But if the energy coming in does not change there can be no gain of energy only a redistribution of the energy in the sites that receive the energy.
        If the atmosphere retains more heat the sea and land will lose more to be in balance.
        Move the sun away (winter it is called) and I do not care how much CO2 you put in the air the heat in the system will fall.

      • angech | September 1, 2013 at 5:33 pm |

        If the sea surface temps are going up there can be no heat going down.
        Help Steve Mosher et al.

        Funny how someone’s misunderstanding of physics gets translated into fierce denial. Have you considered that you may not have a deep intuitive feel for heat propagation concepts?

      • angech, CO2 restricts the energy leaving the atmosphere towards space. It has a forcing effect through that.

      • Jim,

        Do you really think that the ARGO people write what they write without a good reason?

        Their comment is fully justified. ARGO by itself does not contribute much to the evidence (and what it contributes deviates significantly from the longer trends, not as much as to contradict, but significantly anyway).

        That graph is totally dependent on trust in understanding the issues that make comparing measurements from various periods difficult and in the ability of scientists to make the proper adjustments. It’s likely that they have done that well enough, but the reliability of that is not what we would like to have.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist


        Volcanoes, rising greenhouse gases, increasing or decreasing solar output, Milankovitch cycles, would all be seen as external forcing to the climate system.

        And sun does not “move further away” in winter, as there are two winters a year on this planet. Don’t know how old you are or what kind of education you are receiving, but I would proceed to ask for a full refund of your tuition with possible additional financial damages to your overall well being.

      • Pekka, I looked at that statement and it seems to be a blanket disclaimer on all their data including sea level and salinity, etc. I think the OHC is stronger than that statement suggests. Perhaps they had some legal reason to make it.

      • And sun does not “move further away” in winter

        The forcing change in SH summer is a magnitude or so greater then the so called centennial agw signal.

        The change in the Schwabe solar cycle irridiance in SH summer is not trivial either

      • Jim,

        I do think that the statement is fully correct and justified. ARGO has not collected data for long enough to tell about global change.

        There’s nothing in that statement that would say that OHC would not be increasing. What they show otherwise indicates that they expect that’s it is increasing. ARGO cannot, however, confirm that.

        I do my best to look at the evidence objectively avoiding both overstatements and belittling its value. That’s not always easy. Only few blogs help in that, and many of them are quite technical science blogs. None of the skeptic blogs is of much help but neither are sites like SkS. Both sides contain good material, but separating that from the misleading may is difficult. What looks most convincing may sometimes be most misleading.

      • Pekka, my own suspicion is that they were either being legal or political with that statement. This often happens in scientific papers too where they have to say that their work doesn’t prove global warming, etc. Making a positive statement in science brings more trouble than it is worth, hence the disclaimer where readers can take the work for what it is, not what it suggests.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The 1st order differential planetary energy equation is:

        d(W&H)/dt = power in – power out

        W&H is work and heat – it is approximately by ocean and atmosphere heat content but there are other terms. Power is expressed in W/m^2 usually and over a period is energy in and energy out. If power in is less than power out over a period the planet cools – and vice versa.

        The system is as well driven by the kinetic energy of planetary rotation – extremely important in certain climate and weather dynamics such as cyclones, polar vortices, ocean circulation, ice berg and polar storm tracks etc. Solar UV seems important in modulating processes such as the polar annular modes without adding much energy to the system directly – but as a secondary effect modulating power out.

        Power in includes solar TSI – divided by 4 because the planet is round – plus such things as the heat of combustion and radioactive decay in the Earth’s mantle. TSI is several orders of magnitude greater than the latter but changes are several orders of magnitude smaller. It is only the changes that are important in changes in planetary heat content.

        Power out changes considerably in both infrared and shortwave. Mostly as the result of cloud changes in the short to mid term.


        Palle and Laken (2013) combine a couple of instruments – and validate with sea surface temperatures. We have a decline in cloud cover to the late 1990’s, an abrupt jump in the 1998/2001 climate shift and little change since.

        It is consistent with ERBS and with ocean heat content from Willis 2004. Josh Willis used a number different sources to build a consistent picture of ocean heat content an annual intervals. One of the problems with XBT data is the sparsity of data and the need to use 5 year means. Detail is lost.

        Comparing net ERBS with Willis ocean heat content we get a peak in 1998 in both. Net ERBS consists of strong cooling in the IR and strong warming in SW related to cloud cover – and is consistent with the ISCCP-FD data used by Palle and Laken.

        ARGO certainly did show an increase in ocean heat content in the period. It was rather modest at an increase in ocean heat content of 0.55 W/m^2 for a six year period and a steric sea level rise of 0.69mm/yr. Interestingly – there seems little change in freshwater inputs. It seems that the increase in ARGO is not sufficient to turn around the decrease in energy input at the 1998/201 climate shift.

        This is consistent with CERES – which shows most of the trend is in SW.

        It seems like ocean heat content peaked around 1998 along with surface temperature. I am expecting cloud to increase as the cool Pacific mode intensifies over the next decade or so.

  43. Here’s the abstract of an article Doc cited a ut supra, entitled EXPLAINING RUSSELL’S EUGENIC DISCOURSE IN THE 1920S:

    In his biography, RayMonk expresses surprise and disgust that Bertrand Russell should have included a discussion of eugenics in his famous book on marriage and sexual morality, Marriage and Morals). Monk is especially horrified that Russell advocated the sterilization of the “mentally defective”. He draws the conclusion that such views must have been due to a combination of Russell’s negative feelings about his second wife, Dora, and his life-long fear of insanity. In fact Russell came to his views in dialogue with the dominant scientific and political communities of his day. Russell’s position was the logical consequence of his fear of the rise of State intervention in society and the erosion of individual rights. When put into proper historical context, it is clear that it was Russell’s engagement with early twentieth-century politics and science, not personal or psychological demons, that was the motive force behind his views on marriage and eugenics.

  44. Science makes you virtuous

    American psychologists have discovered that just thinking about science helps people to act more ethically. Researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara have described the results of their social priming experiments in PLoS as the first study “to systematically and empirically test the relationship between science and morality”. (See BioEdge article below.) They conclude that “Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms and exhibit more morally normative behavior.” Better, in fact, than science’s main competitor, religion.
    This is an issue of great interest, of course, in bioethics

    Is Bioethics Ethical?

    Brave new bioethics”.

    The Bioethics Mess

    As bioethics supplants traditional ethics before our very eyes, few seem to question its underlying premises. But we should know it for what it is: a form of extreme utilitarianism in both its theoretical and practical forms.
    It bears no relation to the patient–centered Hippocratic ethics that for nearly 2,500 years required physicians to treat every human being in their care as worthy of respect, no matter how sick or small or weak or disabled. It certainly bears no relation to Catholic medical ethics, which continue the Hippocratic tradition in light of church teachings on moral law. And bioethics offers little concrete guidance to physicians and scientists even on its own terms.
    Perhaps one of these days, society will come to grips with the moral and practical mess that bioethics has created and come up with something to replace it. This time society will perhaps not rely so heavily on the self–proclaimed scientific and moral experts.

    Evolutionary Psychology
    and Our Mythical Dark Nature
    Philip Yancey

    Morality, Too, Abhors a Vacuum

    “The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent… It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture.”

    The New Divinity
    By Julian Huxley

    I believe that an equally drastic reorganization of our pattern of religious thought is now becoming necessary, from a god-centered to an evolutionary-centered pattern
    Today the god hypothesis has ceased to be scientifically tenable, has lost its explanatory value and is becoming an intellectual and moral burden to our thought. It no longer convinces or comforts, and its abandonment often brings a deep sence of relief. Many people assert that this abandonment of the god hypothesis means the abandonment of all religion and all moral sanctions. This is simply not true. But it does mean, once our relief at jettisoning an outdated piece of ideological furniture is over, that we must construct some thing to take its place.
    Though gods and God in any meaningful sence seem destined to disappear, the stuff of divinity out of which they have grown and developed remains. This religious raw material consists of those aspects of nature and those experiences which are usually described as divine. Let me remind my readers that the term divine did not originally imply the existence of gods: on the contrary, gods were constructed to interprete man’s experiences of this quality.
    Some events and some phenomena of outer nature transcend ordinary explanation and ordinary experience. They inspire awe and seem mysterious, explicable only in terms of something beyond or above ordinary nature.

    Sir Julian Huxley (1887-1975)

    He saw Humanism as a replacement ‘religion’, and as such represented an important strand in post-war humanist thought. In a speech given to a conference in 1965 he spoke of the need for “a religiously and socially effective system of humanism.” And in his book Religion Without Revelation, he wrote:

    “What the sciences discover about the natural world and about the origins, nature and destiny of man is the truth for religion. There is no other kind of valid knowledge. This natural knowledge, organized and applied to human fulfilment, is the basis of the new and permanent religion.” The book ends with the concept of “transhumanism”– “man remaining man, but transcending himself by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature”.

    “Eugenics and Society” (The Galton Lecture given to the Eugenics Society), by Julian S. Huxley, Eugenics Review (vol 28:1)
    Eugenics and Society* By Julian S. Huxley, M.A., D.Sc. The Future of Eugenics

    Eugenics, Dean Inge writes in one of his essays, is capable of becoming the most sacred ideal of the human race, as a race; one of the supreme religious duties. In this I entirely agree with him. Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future, or of whatever complex of sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion. It is not merely a sane outlet for human altruism, but is of all outlets for altruism that which is most comprehensive and of longest range

    Hardtalk – James Lovelock – Population reduction (max 1 billion)

  45. God… it is sure, hard to put your thumb on it. Man, we like to mimic god though it is not UN knew. Same old nimrod. Different colors.

  46. The myth of the lack of technical workers. This article puts the lie to the tech worker shortage.
    “The takeaway? At least in the United States, you don’t need a STEM degree to get a STEM job, and if you do get a degree, you won’t necessarily work in that field after you graduate. If there is in fact a STEM worker shortage, wouldn’t you expect more people with STEM degrees to be filling those jobs? And if many STEM jobs can be filled by people who don’t have STEM degrees, then why the big push to get more students to pursue STEM?”

    “Even in the computer and IT industry, the sector that employs the most STEM workers and is expected to grow the most over the next 5 to 10 years, not everyone who wants a job can find one. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C., found that more than a third of recent computer science graduates aren’t working in their chosen major; of that group, almost a third say the reason is that there are no jobs available.”

    “What’s perhaps most perplexing about the claim of a STEM worker shortage is that many studies have directly contradicted it, including reports from Duke University, the Rochester Institute of Technology, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the Rand Corp. A 2004 Rand study, for example, stated that there was no evidence “that such shortages have existed at least since 1990, nor that they are on the horizon.””

    That report argued that the best indicator of a shortfall would be a widespread rise in salaries throughout the STEM community. But the price of labor has not risen, as you would expect it to do if STEM workers were scarce. In computing and IT, wages have generally been stagnant for the past decade, according to the EPI and other analyses.”

    “Many children born today are likely to live to be 100 and to have not just one distinct career but two or three by the time they retire at 80. Rather than spending our scarce resources on ending a mythical STEM shortage, we should figure out how to make all children literate in the sciences, technology, and the arts to give them the best foundation to pursue a career and then transition to new ones. And instead of continuing our current global obsession with STEM shortages, industry and government should focus on creating more STEM jobs that are enduring and satisfying as well.”

  47. Globalclimatewarmingchange strikes again.

    “The Peruvian government has extended to nine more regions a state of emergency called to cope with unusually cold weather and heavy snowfall.

    At least two people have died and 33,000 others have been affected by the cold spell, local officials say.

    Tens of thousands of animals have frozen to death over the past week.

    President Ollanta Humala has travelled to Apurimac, one of the worst-hit areas, to oversee the distribution of emergency aid.

    The state of emergency would be in place for 20 days, an official statement said.

    The heaviest snow fall to hit Peru in a decade has killed tens of thousands of llamas, alpacas, cattle and sheep, and left farmers destitute.”

  48. R Gates “Volcanoes, rising greenhouse gases, increasing or decreasing solar output, Milankovitch cycles, would all be seen as external forcing to the climate system.”
    ? rising greenhouse gases do not produce energy. they cannot be an external forcing.
    Volcanoes, yes. increasing and decreasing solar input, yes. Milankovitch
    cycles , yes and your point?
    we are talking about the energy in the system energy in + energy out .Greenhouse gases you know this.
    There can be no extra retained heat .What comes in has to go out.
    the distribution of the heat available varies in the different layer [temp] but the overall heat remains constant according to the energy put in.
    You know this.

    • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

      Again angech, I would suggest you go forthwith to the business office of whatever the last school you went to and demand a refund for your education. Yes, of course increasing greenhouse gases is an external forcing. If you have read that it is not, please site your references, if you spend most of your time watching Faux News, then that would explain a great deal.

  49. Jim D “angech, CO2 restricts the energy leaving the atmosphere towards space. It has a forcing effect through that”
    R Gates and I are debating external forcing ie Turn the solar input up and we all get hotter.
    CO2 merely transfers the heat that is waiting to go back into space, having radiated down, from the land and sea and ice surfaces to the atmosphere to radiate out. The atmosphere is warmer because of that.
    But there is no more energy in the system.
    There is no extra stored energy in the system.
    What comes in has to go out
    You can see that.

    • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist


      Anything that alters the total energy of the system is an external forcing. More energy is stored in the system as greenhouse gases increase, just as less energy is stored when a large volcano erupts. If you can accept that a volcano can be an external forcing but not greenhouse gases, then I would suggest that you have some extreme bias.

      • R. Gates, “Anything that alters the total energy of the system is an external forcing.”

        So when Roy Spencer mentioned that clouds were altering the total energy of the system he was right or are clouds a negative feedback to some forcing to be named later? Since natural internal variability has a tendency to shift the ITCZ which impacts the total energy of the system, then natural internal variability is an external forcing? SSW events, Brewer-Dobson, ENSO etc. etc. etc. have an impact on total energy over some time frame that is not well understood. You are arguing from a shaky position.

      • I think the term “internal variability” is a misnomer. There is no such thing. The climate is a system driven by the Sun. Ocean cycles are driven by the Sun. They are a response to the Solar input. What climate scientists call “internal variability” wouldn’t exist without the Sun. “Climate response” would be more accurate. I’m tired of the misleading names climate scientists use.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist


        As you know, clouds are a very interesting case because they are not some single event like a volcanic eruption. Clouds can both warm and cool, depending on their height, latitude, season, and other factors. Also of course, clouds are forced by other dynamics — mainly involving ocean cycles, and don’t just spontaneously appear. An exception to this would be jet contrails, but of course those are forced by human activity.

      • R. Gates, CO2 can also warm and cool. Depends on your frame of reference. What is a forcing or feedback depends on the boundaries of the system “model”. So climate model forcings and feedbacks are unique to the model being discussed. When you switch from “surface” temperature to OHC you have shifted the model boundaries. Adding energy to the oceans at the expense of cooling the troposphere is not an indication of increased “forcing” in the atmosphere but of improved mixing in the oceans. Cooling of the oceans at the expense of warming the atmosphere is not an indication of atmospheric forcing, but of a change in mixing efficient. Both atmosphere and ocean warming or cooling in unison would be due to a change in “Global” forcing.

        That is the reason that scientists looking at hemisphere imbalances tend to find more “internal” variability and lower “sensitivity” to CO2 equivalent forcing. That is also why models that include the stratosphere tend to find lower “sensitivity” to CO2 equivalent forcing. Different system boundaries.

      • Capt’nDallas

        ” Both atmosphere and ocean warming or cooling in unison would be due to a change in “Global” forcing.”

        Epiphany moment for me.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist


        I always think in terms of the full Earth system, from the abyssal depths of the ocean to the highest parts of the atmosphere, and across both hemispheres. An external forcing is about altering the full planet’s energy balance. Hence, why looking at just the relatively puny energy in the troposphere by measuring only sensible heat to determine climate sensitivity or “global” warming is absurd.

      • R. Gates, ” Hence, why looking at just the relatively puny energy in the troposphere by measuring only sensible heat to determine climate sensitivity or “global” warming is absurd.”

        I agree, but neither of us is in charge of the show. In fact, what the show needs is someone in charge that has a clue.

        Now since Ocean Heat Capacity is the main indication of climate change on climate time scales, warming at a rate of ~1C per 400 years would be the best indication that there is “global” forcing causing a “global” warming.

        There also may have been a “global” forcing that caused a “global” cooling prior to this stretch of warming

    • The analogy is the basin, faucet, drain one. The water level (temperature) rises whether you turn the tap higher (solar input), or block the drain (CO2).

  50. New post by a person named KONRAD over at Dr. Roy Spenser’s blog talking about 5 different experiments and what they all mean. He says as a conclusion to two rather lengthy posts that CO2 actually cools the planet. This is WAY over my head but it was interesting and I recommend reading it. Its a comment to the very first article you see, part II first results, and almost at the end of the comments. Please share your opinions.

  51. The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is known to diminish as concentrations increase. This diminution effect is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.

    Both sceptics and Global Warming advocates agree on this.

    An earlier IPCC report, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. It was well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) .

    Up to ~200 ppmv, the equivalent to about 82% of the temperature increasing effectiveness of CO2, is absolutely essential to maintain plant life and thus life on earth. The current level of ~400 ppmv is already committed and immutable. At that level it amounts to 93% of the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere .

    Thus only ~7% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a warming greenhouse gas now remains even up to 1000 ppmv.

    So there can only ever be a minor temperature reduction impact of any de-carbonization policy, controlling CO2 emissions. Whatever political efforts are made to de-carbonize free world economies or to reduce man-made CO2 emissions, (and to be effective at temperature control those efforts would have to be universal and worldwide), those efforts can only now affect at most ~7% of the residual future warming effect of CO2.

    The rapid diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates, apparently nonetheless, it is well understood within the climate science community but it is certainly not much discussed.

    So more CO2 in the atmosphere cannot inevitably lead directly to much more warming. And increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere cannot give rise to any dangerous temperature increase.

    Thus de-carbonization policies could never have useful impact to realistically control any rising world temperatures and the future world climate. As the future temperature effect of increasing CO2 emissions is now so minor, therefore there is no possibility of ever reaching the political target of less than +2.0°C.

    If the effect is again acknowledged by the IPCC it certainly would destroy any implication of impending catastrophe for global warming.

    I would be grateful to have some one with more climate science capability than I to affirm that the IPCC have again made this important admission that is so damaging to their case.