Open thread

Posted on February 1, 2014 by | 500 Comments

by Judith Curry

It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.

This entry was posted in Open thread. Bookmark the permalink.

500 responses to “Open thread”

  1. Jim Cripwell | February 1, 2014 at 9:18 am |

    This comment is for the attention of R. Gates. Could we dispense with the myth that we can derive scientific information about the numerical value of climate sensitivity from observed paleo and modern data of global temperatures. The reason for this is straightforward. At some point in the estimation, it is necessary to take a guess, and I use the word “guess” advisedly, we must take a guess at what proportion of the observed rise in temperature is caused by increased levels of CO2. This is a fundamental problem for which there is no solution. In addition, for the paleo data, we cannot measure time with sufficient accuracy. The indication is that first temperature rises and then CO2 levels rise; not the other way around.

    The science behind this is the same old, same old. We cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere, and we do not know sufficient detail as to what causes natural variations.

    None of what I have written shows that CAGW is wrong. CAGW remains a very viable hypothesis. But it would be nice to lay to rest the myth that observed data can be used to estimate, scientifically, valid numeric values for climate sensitivity.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 10:15 am |

      Hi Jim C. Paleoclimate data is only one of the tools we can use to “guess” at what ECS might be. And a a true and honest skeptic such as I am, I have no problem at all at your using the term “guess”. All science is, in a the final analysis a “guess” as to what is causing the shadows on the wall of the cave. You are no doubt familiar with Plato very nice analogy to our human attempts to understand what reality is all about. So when we gather paleoclimate data, try to understand the forcings, feedbacks, interactions, etc, that produced various climate states in the past, of course this is perhaps even a bigger guess than other research we might do. The value in paleo climate data is that is does represent the full set of feedbacks and interactions, by default. It is all still a guess and a proxy for what happened, but it becomes a matter of “what is most likely”. This is the way honest and true skeptics approach science. We use skepticism as a tool in our approach to gathering “what is most likely” from the full set of data (or shadows on the cave wall). When we “believe” something is most likely, it is not an absolute belief. We are always looking for data that might cause us to alter that belief, and thus, we always remain skeptical about even those things that we hold as “most likely true”

      Regarding what the paleoclimate data tells us about ECS and CO2, there has been an explosion of data recently related to the last time CO2 was at these levels on a consistent basis. The data is quite excellent, and the probably is quite high that we have increasingly good data coming in from the mid-Pliocene. Yes, it is not a prefect analogue for our current period (no two periods can ever possibly be perfect analogues) as each period is unique. The period around 3.2 million years ago was a warmer period, with CO2 around 400 ppm, though it appears that methane and N2O were much lower, and these may add an extra 10% to the CO2 forcing. The period also appears to have had lower sea ice (perhaps even seasonally ice free Arctic periods), and global tropospheric surface temperatures around 3C higher.
      Now of course, the paleoclimate data needs to be combined with what our basic physics and climate models are telling us. When doing this (and only taking the models that seem to have the most accurate cloud dynamics matching the real world), we begin to triangulate around the 3C ESC + or – about 0.5 C.

      Finally, regarding the very old objection that warming always preceeded CO2 rising, for the most part, in relationship to Milankovitch induced climate changes this is correct. In relationship to massive volcanic eruptions, this is definitley not true, espcially when those eruptions released lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. But Milankovitch astronomical forcing is probaby what you are referring to. In that case, small changes in solar insolation seems to have initiated a chain of positive feedback processes that added to initial rather small increase in insolation. One of those positive feedback proceses was to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which added to the initial astronomically induced warming of the climate.

    • Beth Cooper | February 1, 2014 at 10:19 am |

      Paleo proxies fer temperature are uncertain. Dendrochronology
      is a notably poor proxy for temperature? Age and species of tree
      influence tree ring growth as well as rainfall, sunlight and nutriments available to a particular tree ring’s growth. How can you isolate temperature influence with any confidence?

    • Pekka Pirilä | February 1, 2014 at 10:30 am |

      This comment is for the attention of Jim Cripwell. Could we dispense with the myth that we cannot derive scientific information about the numerical value of climate sensitivity from observed paleo and modern data of global temperatures.

      The reason for this is that numerical information has already been derived from such information very many times.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 10:32 am |

      Of course Beth, as I fully explained, paleoclimate data does involve a great amount of guesswork, but that does not mean we cannot make those guesses at “what is most likely”. Be an honest skeptic, such as I am, doesn’t mean that I don’t hold many provisional truths in taking a stance for “what is most likely”. In regards specifically to anthropogenic climate changes, in looking at the full range of data, I think it is most likely, but I’m always more than willing to modify this if and when new data indicates differently.

      Regarding paleoclimate data, once more, of course the proxies are uncertain, and hence, as I’ve said repeatedly, the best approaches are those that use multiple proxies over multiple sampling sites and multiple time periods. In doing this, and combining it with solid scientific principles, we can begin to see patterns and the past climate does indeed begin to reveal itself to us in ever increasing detail. This is an amazing time to work on paleoclimate research.

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 10:36 am |

      Note that in the paleo, temperatures always fall after CO2 rises.
      =================

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 10:42 am |

      “kim | February 1, 2014 at 10:36 am |
      Note that in the paleo, temperatures always fall after CO2 rises.
      =================”
      Please do cite your research papers on this amazing revelation. Now, over longer time periods, in terms of the rock-carbon cycle, higher CO2 levels do enhance the hydrological cycle which increases rock-weathering, drawing down atmospheric CO2 levels, which eventually cools the climate.

      But if you have research that indicates that temperatures always fall after CO2 rises, then you need to share it with the group here, and perhaps the Nobel prize committee.

    • Jim Cripwell | February 1, 2014 at 10:44 am |

      Thanks, R. Gates. Lots of words, but no agreement that there are no valid numbers.

    • Jim Cripwell | February 1, 2014 at 10:47 am |

      Pekka, you write “The reason for this is that numerical information has already been derived from such information very many times.”

      I don’t believe you.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 10:49 am |

      “Jim Cripwell | February 1, 2014 at 10:44 am |
      Thanks, R. Gates. Lots of words, but no agreement that there are no valid numbers.”
      _____
      The point is that “valid” is a relative term. In science, we can only have “most likely”.

    • Edim | February 1, 2014 at 10:57 am |

      Paleo take-home:
      Climate shifts from warming to cooling at CO2 peaks, and from cooling to warming at CO2 troughs.

    • ceresco kid | February 1, 2014 at 11:03 am |

      This is for both Jim and Gates.

      I dont usually put much thought into the articles from HP but this one regarding a cosmologist’s thinking that everything in the universe is part of a mathematical structure was interesting.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/universe-math-cosmologist-max-tegmark_n_4701754.html

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 11:29 am |

      Pulling your bow string, RG, but watch the flight of this arrow of time. Temp rises, CO2 rises, temp falls, CO2 falls. Where it lands, nobody knows.
      ==============================

    • Herman Alexander Pope | February 1, 2014 at 11:29 am |

      The Water on Earth is a Huge Carbonated Drink.

      When the water is warmed, the vapor pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere does go up.

      When the water is cooled, the vapor pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere does go down.

      This is a simple and well know law of nature.
      Open a cold and a warm carbonated drink and see the difference.

      Their sensitivity is totally backwards. They say the temperature changes because CO2 changes and they totally ignore the fact that temperature causes the CO2 changes.

      Consensus Climate Science is not really science if it can ignore simple laws of nature.

      Of course the CO2 changes lagged the temperature changes, the temperature changes caused the CO2 changes.

    • k scott denison | February 1, 2014 at 11:37 am |

      R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 10:42 am |

      Now, over longer time periods, in terms of the rock-carbon cycle, higher CO2 levels do enhance the hydrological cycle which increases rock-weathering, drawing down atmospheric CO2 levels, which eventually cools the climate.
      __________________________

      Evidence please.

      The ice core data I’ve seen shows that CO2 follows temperature, not vice versa.

      http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

    • ordvic | February 1, 2014 at 11:37 am |

      “kim | February 1, 2014 at 10:36 am |
      Note that in the paleo, temperatures always fall after CO2 rises.
      =================”

      R Gates
      “Please do cite your research papers on this amazing revelation.”

      I had to laugh when I saw that as well and attributed it to a brain fart.

      There is, however, one example of such a phenomenon cited:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94JD02521/abstract

      The Ordovician paradox is part of why I ended up on this blog using the handle I use. I have a lot of that lit and can provide more. The paradox ended up to be ‘not so much’, There are new proxies that show there was a CO2 drop in the late Ordovician. I don’t necessarily go along with the two prevailing views of plants and Appalachian rise and Thomas Crowley also struggled with explanation, but I do think it may have something to do with rocks and plant types and disappearance.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/appalachians-triggered-an/

      https://www.google.com/search?q=ordovician+ice+age+trigger&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.floodgap:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 11:47 am |

      The answer my ordvic friend, is blowing in the orcic wind.
      =======================

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 11:48 am |

      “The ice core data I’ve seen shows that CO2 follows temperature, not vice versa.”
      ____
      Did you read all the comments on the thread, or do you understand the nature of positive feedbacks as a system changes?

      Indeed, the very initial changes a the beginning of an interglacial period have to do with changing solar insolation. A bit more sunlight is reaching the ground, causing the “warming” to start (in the case of Milankovitch astronomical forcing). The oceans begin to warm, CO2 is both outgassed from the ocean, but there is also a decrease in dust falling on the ocean, and this decrease in dust also affects biota of the ocean, which take up less CO2, and thus CO2 increases from this as well. So, here is one more example of how a little initial warming can lead to more warming from associated positive feedbacks, not unlike the positive feedbacks that are leading to the Arctic amplification of AGW right now.

    • ordvic | February 1, 2014 at 11:48 am |

      R Gates & Kim,
      Almost forgot: Royer has a good paper on the subject but I think it got outdated (with the new proxies) and I don’t believe his conclusion. BobTisdale had a great blog showing temp lagging CO2 but I’d have to dig that up.
      Royer:
      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Royer+et+al+CO2+GSA+Today&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=YBbtUu6zFpHvoATD5YCYCA&ved=0CCoQgQMwAA

      charts:
      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

    • ordvic | February 1, 2014 at 11:53 am |

      Gates,
      I don’t believe either and I think it goes both ways (cross dresser).
      Kim is right it’s blowin’ in the wind.

      http://s90.photobucket.com/user/dhm1353/media/Phan_CO2.png.html

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temperature-change.jpg

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 11:58 am |

      I would guess that at least half the “skeptics” don’t believe that the CO2 has risen mostly because of ocean outgassing, but they tend to stay quiet when people suggest it. With the previous “back-radiation” deniers, these “outgassers” form distinct sub-groups that are given free rein on blogs such as this, and Judith could do a lot more to inform them of where the CO2 is really coming from.

    • phatboy | February 1, 2014 at 12:01 pm |

      Really? Where would you suggest they think it came from?

    • k scott denison | February 1, 2014 at 12:11 pm |

      JimD wants to have it both ways: if those darn deniers don’t think it comes from outgassing they are clearly idiots. If they think it comes from man, but then also don’t believe it causes runaway warming, they are idiots.

      Sorta like when the AGW crowd says AGW cause more cold, more heat, more rain, more droughts, …

    • ordvic | February 1, 2014 at 12:12 pm |

      COWS! One just blew up an whole slaughter house.

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 12:17 pm |

      phatboy, I can understand that you might be ignoring people like Salby, but if you read them, you find that they believe that the ocean warming causes the current CO2 rise. The skeptics need to keep an eye on each other, because they all get tarred by the same brush when they don’t pay attention and they should become a little more discriminating to attain any credibility.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 12:33 pm |

      “I would guess that at least half the “skeptics” don’t believe that the CO2 has risen mostly because of ocean outgassing,”
      ____
      The confusion for some comes from the current rate of change in CO2 (unparalleled in the climate record). Gradually warming temps can release a bit more CO2 from the ocean and alter the biotic uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. But the human carbon volcano is dumping CO2 so relatively rapidly into the atmosphere that all natural feedbacks and processes are being overwhelmed, so the oceans and atmosphere both are receiving massive amounts of carbon from the lithosphere.

    • Edim | February 1, 2014 at 12:37 pm |

      Jim D, warmth, not warming.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 12:39 pm |

      Regarding Salby and his ideas, papers such as this pretty well schred his theories:

      http://www.whoi.edu/pclift/Ruddiman.pdf

    • Jim Cripwell | February 1, 2014 at 12:52 pm |

      R.Gates, you write ” In science, we can only have “most likely””

      I confess I have no understanding of what “most likely” for a numeric value means in physics. Do such numbers ever come with a +/- value?.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 1:01 pm |

      “R.Gates, you write ” In science, we can only have “most likely””

      I confess I have no understanding of what “most likely” for a numeric value means in physics. Do such numbers ever come with a +/- value?.”
      —–
      Physics is all about “most likely” and most best guesses always include a range with decreasing probability outside that range. I assume you are just feigning ignorance of these facts.

    • Bob Tisdale | February 1, 2014 at 1:37 pm |

      ordvic says: “BobTisdale had a great blog showing temp lagging CO2…”

      I did? Please leave a comment on that thread at my blog when you find it. I don’t recall ever preparing any graph similar to what you’re describing.

    • Jim Cripwell | February 1, 2014 at 1:53 pm |

      R. Gates, you write “I assume you are just feigning ignorance of these facts”

      Absolutely not. I understand that mathematicians have devised a formula to calculate the number pi. One can write a computer program, and the computer will print the digits of the number pi for ever, unless you tell it to stop. Each digit is valid, in the sense that, if you start the program again, it will print out exactly the same digits all over again.

      We say there is an inverse square law of attraction between opposite electric charges. We can do an experiment that shows the index two, is, in fact, 2. followed by 16 zeros. The accuracy of the experiment is such that all these zeros are valid digits. We can guess the 17th digit is also a zero, but the measurement in not exact enough to establish this, so to claim the 17th digit is zero is not valid.

      And the same logic applies to all calculated and measured numbers. But what a most likely number means, I have no idea.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 2:12 pm |

      The same old tired debate on CO2. Ocean outgassing always seems a bit of an odd idea. Certainly solubility of CO2 in water is less than in warmer water – however the oceans remain a CO2 sink and cannot be said to be contributing CO2 to the atmosphere.

      There are natural fluxes of CO2 to the atmosphere that are orders of magnitude greater than anthropogenic emissions. These include tropical vegetation – e.g. http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Tropical-ecosystems-regulate-variations-in-Earths-carbon-dioxide-levels.aspx – and mostly extra-tropical soils – e.g. http://environmentportal.in/files/Temperature%20associated%20increases%20in%20the%20global%20soil.pdf – both of which have seemed to have increased substantially with temperature. Another large source of CO2 results from conversion of land to grazing and cropping – e.g. http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fig-1_page_1.jpg -on large areas of land globally.

      There are large stores of soil carbon especially in high northern latitudes. These are laid down in cooler periods when primary productivity exceeds respiration and released as consumer organisms proliferate in warmer times.

      e.g. http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fig-1_page_3.jpg

      This was important in the last glacial transition where NH CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were from stomatal records as high as present levels.

      e.g http://www.academia.edu/2949675/Stomatal_proxy_record_of_CO2_concentrations_from_the_last_termination_suggests_an_important_role_for_CO2_at_climate_change_transitions

      To the extent that temperature increases have been natural and are reversing from a 1000 year high – the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are natural and reversible. Increasing soil carbon stores in agricultural soils – and stopping further losses – is not merely possible but critical to improving agricultural productivity to the extent required this century.

    • Chris Quayle | February 1, 2014 at 2:39 pm |

      Jim D

      >>> ocean warming causes the current CO2 rise

      But that assumes that the oceans have actually been warming.

      Argo is the only sensing system accurate enough to measure the very small changes involved and they only been running for a few years. Imo, they should junk the xbt and other older data because it’s just not anything like accurate enough.

      Correct me if I’m wrong…

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 2:45 pm |

      Chris Quayle, you need to ask Salby about his argument. He has gone quiet since the ocean-surface pause during a CO2 rise doesn’t support his idea at all.

    • David Springer | February 1, 2014 at 2:56 pm |

      Pekka Pirilä | February 1, 2014 at 10:30 am |

      “The reason for this is that numerical information has already been derived from such information very many times.”

      Too many times actually and no satisfactory agreement between methods except in a range of beneficial ECS to catastrophic which is really not much good for planning purposes.

    • Edim | February 1, 2014 at 4:24 pm |

      Jim D,

      “He has gone quiet since the ocean-surface pause during a CO2 rise doesn’t support his idea at all.”

      Jim, why is that? That’s clearly wrong. The ocean-surface pause during a rise, which was linear during the pause, does support his idea very well. The annual growth is ~flat since ~1998, just like the temperature indices.
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 4:35 pm |

      Edim, OK, so you are saying that with the global temperature staying flat, Salby would claim continuous outgassing until CO2 doubles or triples or reaches 100% (?). I think this theory is already wrong because we also see acidification at the same time as CO2 rises. The source is clearly elsewhere, and most other people know where that is.

    • Edim | February 2, 2014 at 4:44 am |

      Jim D, global temperature never stays flat for long. Let’s what happens when they decline, and anthropogenic emissions continue increasing. Nature is conducting a nice experiment.

    • Herman Alexander Pope | February 2, 2014 at 9:33 am |

      In this link:
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/appalachians-triggered-an/
      This was written about the start of the so-called Ordovician ice age,:
      This period has always posed a problem for climate modelers
      I was not aware that there was any period that was not a problem for climate modelers.
      They do not even have today right.

    • Herman Alexander Pope | February 2, 2014 at 9:47 am |

      Too many are writing about FLAT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

      There are no FLAT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES IN ACTUAL DATA.

      The temperature has gone up and then down and then up and then down in a very narrow, well bounded range for ten thousand years.

      The hockey stick, flat temperatures, only exists in climate model output and not in real data.

    • ordvic | February 3, 2014 at 2:51 pm |

      “ordvic says: “BobTisdale had a great blog showing temp lagging CO2…”

      “I did? Please leave a comment on that thread at my blog when you find it. I don’t recall ever preparing any graph similar to what you’re describing.”

      I made a mistake here and apologized to Mr Tisdale. The chart I was referring to was on a guest post on Roger Pielke Sr by Donald Rapp:

      http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/review-of-humlum-et-al-2012-the-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature-by-donald-rapp/

      Graph:

      http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/humlum-rapp-1.jpg

      Paper:

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

      Again, my apologies to Bob Tisdale.

  2. Edim | February 1, 2014 at 9:30 am |

    What’s happening with the solar polar fields? The north polar field (smoothed) seems to be shifting again.
    http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png

    It seems polar fields will be weak for the next few decades.
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
    http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png

  3. Repeal the Act! (@faykellytuncay) | February 1, 2014 at 9:42 am |

    My topic: America in deeds, not words.
    Has America been fighting a war against Britain using soft power climate politics, by funding UN COPs, and Green NGOs, whilst following the – “do nothing about the climate” – advice of Prof. Lindzen at home?

    • John | February 1, 2014 at 10:03 am |

      We have been doing quite a bit here at home. US CO2 emissions are about 10% down from their peak year, something that the EU and Japan cannot come close to saying. See:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/after-years-of-decline-u-s-carbon-emissions-rose-2-percent-in-2013/

      Most of this reduction has an element of luck, but going forward, most of future reductions will be due to policy. Luck in the sense that when gasoline went from about $1.50 to about $4 per gallon and stayed there, people aren’t driving as much, and since 2008 have been purchasing much more efficient cars. Luck also in the sense that the shale natural gas boom produced so much natural gas at such low prices that electricity grids are dispatching natural gas fired power plants ahead of some coal fired power plants, with resulting lower CO2 emissions.

      Going forward, there are much more stringent mileage standards coming down the road which will guarantee less fuel use on highways, and there are stringent emission standards on existing coal fired power plants kicking in soon which will results in a wave of retirements of such plants, to be replaced mostly by natural gas plants (again, lower CO2 emissions, because on a BTU for BTU basis, natural gas emits less CO2, and can also be burned more efficiently.

      Japan and the EU couldn’t get the big reductions in vehicular CO2 because their vehicles are already very efficient, due to much higher gasoline and diesel taxes, and less driving per capita than in the wide open spaces of the US. And they can’t get the natural gas shale CO2 reduction benefit, at least not yet, because drilling on land is still sort of anathema in much of Europe.

      If Prof. Lindzen thinks the US is doing nothing, he needs to look at some figures, and also some prospective regulations!

    • Ian H | February 1, 2014 at 10:54 am |

      Saying one thing and doing another is business as usual for the US. The US is not a single headed organism. Hence it is quite common for one part of the US government to be hectoring the rest of the world about something while other parts are doing precisely the opposite. American negotiators also frequently negotiate deals which the rest of the US government then promply ignores or unilaterally tries to change. This behavior means that internationally America is viewed as hypocritical, untrustworthy, and dangerously unreliable.

    • David Springer | February 2, 2014 at 6:37 am |

      John | February 1, 2014 at 10:03 am |

      “US CO2 emissions are about 10% down from their peak year, something that the EU and Japan cannot come close to saying.”

      “Most of this reduction has an element of luck”

      Not luck at all. Market forces.

  4. Bad Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 9:45 am |

    Who understands Climate more better? Pres. Beetle Barry or Prince Chaming Charlie?

    Discuss at your leisure.

    Andrew

    • Jim Cripwell | February 1, 2014 at 10:31 am |

      On March 7th 2009. Prince Charles stated that we had 100 months to save the planet from CAGW. This becomes due in July 2017. Is anyone going to be rude enough, when this date comes around, and the Prince may be King Charles III, to challenge him as to why his prediction was so ludicrously false?

    • Bad Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 10:36 am |

      “challenge him as to why his prediction was so ludicrously false”

      Jim, I think we may be able to get someone from the Prince’s own Tribe with a lot of Scientific Credibility, like Joshie or MAX_is_OK, to break it to him gently, because by 2017 these will also have honed their own Climate Change Acumen to razor sharpness.

      Andrew

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 10:41 am |

      The beauty of the ‘Headless’ meme is that the alarmists are the ones who got everyone flying around like chickens in a tornado.
      ============

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 10:43 am |

      I will put the quotes from Prince Charles and President Obama up.
      Prince Charles:
      “It is baffling, I must say, that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything – until, that is, it comes to climate science,” the prince said in a speech on Thursday evening.

      “All of a sudden, and with a barrage of sheer intimidation, we are told by powerful groups of deniers that the scientists are wrong and we must abandon all our faith in so much overwhelming scientific evidence.

      “So, thank goodness for our young entrepreneurs here this evening, who have the far-sightedness and confidence in what they know is happening to ignore the headless chicken brigade and do something practical to help.”

      In the State of the Union we have this from President Obama:
      “But we have to act with more urgency – because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods. That’s why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities, and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air. The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way. But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”

    • Repeal the Act! (@faykellytuncay) | February 1, 2014 at 10:45 am |

      “Headless chickens”
      HRH’s PR machine appears to have failed, Silly statements in the press might go down well amongst the UberGreenist rump, but they are dead on arrival for those struggling to put petrol in the tank and food on the table.

    • Bad Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 10:46 am |

      Does a fox guarding the henhouse of headless chickens make any noise when a tree falls in the woods?

      (My sincerest apologies)

      Andrew

    • Bad Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 10:53 am |

      Jim D,

      If your point is that they are both spout Headless Chicken Little-type pronouncements, I agree.

      Andrew

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 11:07 am |

      And don’t forget the “flat-earth society” used by Obama in a previous climate speech. All very descriptive.

    • Bad Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 11:11 am |

      Really Jim D, if you want to claim those two fancy bedwetters as your Tribe’s Champions, go ahead.

      Andrew

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 11:36 am |

      Headless chickens and flat-earthers are the impression your lot give, and if you can’t come up with some real science, rather than just denial of it, that will continue to be a big problem for your collective image.

    • Bad Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 11:46 am |

      “Headless chickens and flat-earthers are the impression your lot give”

      Oh yeah, well your lot cackle of imaginary disasters, draw meaningless squiggly line pasta monsters, and shed enviro-weenie crocodile tears.

      Andrew

    • brent | February 1, 2014 at 2:06 pm |

      Prince Charles to be known as Defender of Faith

      “The Prince has said that he wants to be seen as a defender of all religious faiths and not just the Anglican church but the Coronation is an Anglican ceremony. Any change would require legislation.”
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3454271/Prince-Charles-to-be-known-as-Defender-of-Faith.html

      This is not just a symbolic change. Instead of defender of “the” faith, Jolly Prince Chuckles desire to be defender “of faith” reflects the multi-culti relativist perspective of “situational” ethics that there’s no right or wrong, all views are equally valid, otherwise we’ed be intolerant, the most serious sin in the eyes of those of leftist persuasion.

      Prince Charles: Defender of the (Islamic) Faith
      Daily Mail – Prince Charles, already well known for his bizarre schemes to fight climate change, has now linked Islam as being the key to save the world. Prince Charles has never been one to embrace Christianity, and pushed for a change of his title to Defender of Faith back in 2008. But now, it appears the title he coveted was Defender of the Islamic Faith.
      In a speaking engagement at the Oxford University, Princes Charles urged the world to follow Islamic ‘spiritual principles’ in order to save the environment.
      http://generalbrock.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/prince-charles-defender-of-the-islamic-faith/

      The New Divinity
      Julian Huxley

      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.
      http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/31/open-thread-weekend-30/#comment-373005

      To implement the New Scientism/Gaian religion, first the traditional faiths must be neutered and destroyed

      Julian Huxley First director general of UNESCO

      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
      http://ronpaulquotes.com/Texas_Straight_Talk/tst093002.html

    • Jeffn | February 1, 2014 at 2:09 pm |

      The prince’s statement is misleading because it’s incomplete. The accurate version.
      “It is baffling, I must say, that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything – until, that is, it comes to genetic modification of food, vaccination, nuclear safety, the environmental impact of pipelines, the safety of fracking, the effectiveness of renewable power, the study of extreme weather, and, yes, the ability of a handful of activist scientists to predict he weather 100 years from now.”

      Of course, if the man said the accurate version, folks in the UK might ask questions about their country’s energy policy. Can’t have that, no no no.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 2:21 pm |

      Prince Charles? Obama? Let’s see what someone with expertise says.

      ‘As for your question: at the end of the century we were sitting on the highest global temperature value of the modern record. Since then we have leveled off and we may in fact be cooling. “We have reached the top of the mountain”, therefore it’s not surprising that the last decade is one of the warmest on record. Think about it! The important aspect is that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and the models missed it completely! The important issue is that we have entered a new regime in global temperature tendency. In fact, I find it very misleading that scientists will present “the warmest decade” argument to justify their beliefs (or failures).’ Anastasios Tsonis

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 2:40 pm |

      It is a good litmus test to see what leaders in society like the Prince, the President, and the Pope, have to say about climate change. So far no one at these levels has come out against climate action in public statements, although you sense that high-level people in Australia and Canada are quietly fuming for purely economical reasons, but don’t want to make a statement that may make them look ignorant of the science.

    • manacker | February 1, 2014 at 4:35 pm |

      Jim D

      “When our children…”

      Fuggidaboudit, Jim.

      The biggest threat “our children” face is the monumental debt we are building up for them to pay off – NOT the degree or so of warming that might be caused by human GHG emissions.

      Implementing a direct or indirect carbon tax (as the CAGW crowd would like to do) will only exacerbate this problem, while doing NOTHING to change our planet’s future climate.

      So let’s get our priorities right, Jim.

      Max

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 4:36 pm |

      manacker –

      The biggest threat “our children” face is the monumental debt we are building up for them to pay off

      Yet another alarmist at Climate Etc.

    • manacker | February 1, 2014 at 4:45 pm |

      Jim D

      Chas never was too bright.

      And the POTUS is surrounded by “advisers” (like his science czar) that are also a bit goofy.

      So you can’t really blame either one.

      Max

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 4:46 pm |

      manacker, the only debt to be concerned with is an energy imbalance that is paid off by rising temperatures and sea levels.

    • ROM | February 1, 2014 at 4:48 pm |

      The most popular summation of Prince Charles on Jo Nova’s blog is comment No5 from Reed Coray.

      “Australia has Tim Flannery. The US had Al Gore.
      It’s nice to hear from England’s entry in the my-idiot-can-beat-your-idiot race.
      I wonder what the odds are on each contestant?”

    • jim2 | February 1, 2014 at 5:15 pm |

      It might be fun for denizens from each represented country to compile a list of famous (infamous?) idiots along with links to illustrate their idiocy. Then we could all vote on the biggest idiot.

    • manacker | February 1, 2014 at 5:23 pm |

      Jim D

      the only debt to be concerned with is an energy imbalance that is paid off by rising temperatures and sea levels

      Amen.

      It’s nice to see a statement of faith from a true believer.

      “Blessed are those…”

      Max

    • manacker | February 1, 2014 at 5:31 pm |

      ROM

      Tim Flannery made a few Aussie bucks and got some fame from his books, etc. – and he is sort of the media darling of environmentalists in Oz

      Al Gore has received a Nobel and an Oscar plus made a fortune in the hundreds of millions as savior of the planet. .

      These are obviously not dumb folks.

      Now Charles, on the other hand, has inherited his title and any wealth that goes with it.

      Do your own math.

      Max

    • Peter Yates | February 1, 2014 at 6:37 pm |

      Quote: “..we are told by powerful groups of ‘deniers’ that the scientists are wrong and we must abandon all our faith in so much overwhelming scientific evidence.”
      Four things:
      ~ Many of the skeptics/deniers are also scientists.
      ~ They don’t deny that climate changes. The global climate has long periods when it is either warming or cooling, or changing between warming and cooling. Most skeptics question if humans have any more than a negligible effect on ‘local’ climate.
      ~ Science isn’t based on faith or belief.
      ~ The overwhelming scientific evidence for several years is that overall global average temperatures are *not increasing (not warming), despite steadily rising levels of atmospheric CO2.

    • Beth Cooper | February 1, 2014 at 6:53 pm |

      There’s chooks w/out heads ‘n
      little chickens, black swans and
      thanksgiving turkeys,
      a silly goose or two, (or gander)
      even thieving magpies involved.
      All that avian variability describin’
      human fallibility agendas relatin’
      to whether complexity in the
      climate science CO2 debate.

      jest a serf.

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 6:57 pm |

      manacker, where is this policy that leads to “monumental debt”? This is just a strawman based on no particular economicalanalysis, like the idea that a carbon tax doesn’t go back into the economy which drives the Moncktonomics 50:1 propaganda aimed at Australia, or Lindzen’s fear-mongering speculation about Britain’s economy in the recent IPCC-related hearing. We hear the “skeptics” say that we can’t effectively afford to mitigate or provide resilience to climate change, so we should just go into it full speed without doing anything at all to reduce the impact.

    • Beth Cooper | February 1, 2014 at 7:50 pm |

      Lists abound …there’s even a ‘mad kings of history’ list.
      http://listverse.com/2010/10/14/top-10-truly-insane-rulers/

    • David Springer | February 2, 2014 at 6:53 am |

      Jeffn | February 1, 2014 at 2:09 pm |

      “The prince’s statement is misleading because it’s incomplete. The accurate version.”

      My sentiments exactly. Don’t forget mud-to-man evolution by random mutation and natural selection.

      The thing is climate science is a narrative science just like macro-evolution. Lots of data but nothing can be demonstrated. Just-so stories are then concocted to explain the data. Climate scientists are self-annointed experts at those stories and everyone else is just supposed to believe them due to a phone claim to authority. Some things just don’t have hard answers. Economics is similar science. Scads of data and conflicting narratives about it. At least they don’t try to say it’s settled and argue openly about it.

    • stevepostrel | February 3, 2014 at 9:13 pm |

      For Jim D: The Hansen of debt alarmism is probably Lawrence Kotlikoff. He believes the U.S. (also the EU) is already bankrupt if you consider future spending promises as being as firm as debt obligations. Here are a couple of interviews where he explains his views–he’s also a published a number of academic studies making the same case.

      http://www.npr.org/2011/08/06/139027615/a-national-debt-of-14-trillion-try-211-trillion

      http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/01/laurence_kotlik.html

      Most mainstream economists think that there is a problem but not as immediate and severe as Kotlikoff does. The government has had many recent official commissions that looked into the long-term fiscal prospects of the United States, all of which have pointed out the explosive problem of growing future spending on retirees not matching the expected future revenue stream. The radical run-up in actual, traditional debt that has occurred in the last five years is probably not going to sink the ship by itself if its growth is contained as a fraction of GDP.

    • Jim D | February 3, 2014 at 9:45 pm |

      stevepostrel, most advanced countries are running into debts related to the proportion of retired to working increasing due to increased longevity. It is a difficult one to solve. Increasing the retirement age to maintain a fixed ratio of retired to working seems to be a solution, until you realize that therefore you have more people of working age, so you also need more jobs or you have increased unemployment, and those people need support too. There is something to be said for debt alarmism, but not from unspecified climate policies, more from social structure and the problems of wealth concentration and employment exportation.

  5. Howard | February 1, 2014 at 9:46 am |

    FYI, Science of Doom has an interesting series deconstructing the Milankovitch theory.

  6. kim | February 1, 2014 at 9:55 am |

    Question: How many Chicken Little Brigades does it take to scare a Prince?
    ===================

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 10:05 am |

      The Hockey Team, tired of all the ice, has changed its name to the Chicken Little Brigadiers.
      =========

    • manacker | February 1, 2014 at 5:19 pm |

      kim

      Question: How many Chicken Little Brigades does it take to scare a Prince?

      Answer: Depends on whether the Prince is also “headless”.

      – If so, a small handful will do (and certainly “2,500 scientists” would be enough).

      – If not, it might take some real scientific evidence.

      Max

  7. Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 9:59 am |

    Edim

    Vukcevic has a similar chart http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-latest.gif

  8. Rob Bradley | February 1, 2014 at 9:59 am |

    Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger make a strong case that the balance of evidence is against CO2 emissions having a net social cost: http://www.masterresource.org/2014/01/social-cost-carbon-vs-climate-science/

  9. Dagfinn | February 1, 2014 at 10:08 am |

    I came across this when working on the Big Question essay: “The final issue is whether the internal variability of the system on multi-decadal timescales has been properly characterised. For instance, it is possible that all the models grossly underestimate the internal variability, in which case any expected trend due to GHGs would be drowned out in the noise. But there is no positive evidence for this at all – as Hegerl et al point out, the estimates of multi-decadal variability in the models and observational records all overlap within their (substantial) uncertainties (arising from the shortness of the record, and the difficulty in estimating internal variability in the presence of multiple forcings).

    So while it is conceivable be that there is a bias, it is currently undetectable, which implies it can’t be that large.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-ar4-attribution-statement/#sthash.VQ8qhWiN.dpuf

    How is the last sentence different from this: “I turned my back on the grizzly bear. Since I can’t see it, it’s currently undetectable, which implies it can’t be that large.”

    • Dagfinn | February 1, 2014 at 10:36 am |

      And of course, the deep philosophical question, how large is “that large”? I would advise against using too many decimals in the answer.

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 10:38 am |

      The Headless Decimal Brigade.
      =======================

    • Faustino aka Genghis Cunn | February 1, 2014 at 3:46 pm |

      Dagfinn, the difference is that the grizzly can cause you real damage.

    • ianl8888 | February 1, 2014 at 6:02 pm |

      The grizzly is REALLY there, back turned or not

      The circularity of the “Precautionary Principle” insists and insists that the grizzly really, really MIGHT be there, so we must assume that it is; doubt is not permitted

    • Dagfinn | February 2, 2014 at 7:34 am |

      ianl8888, Faustino, you are of course correct. A Grizzly bear is a real physical thing. The “bias” in the quote is an abstraction at least twice removed from anything physical. But I was thinking more in terms of how does the logic differ between the tow.

    • Dagfinn | February 2, 2014 at 7:36 am |

      If there is a difference. Does the whole paragraph make any sense?

  10. kakatoa | February 1, 2014 at 10:20 am |

    I think I know the answer to Dr Pielke Jr.’s question:

    “I do wonder, however, after 7 years have gone by, does Mr. Waxman still like the scientific views of Judy Curry? Does he still think that hurricane impacts are a sound example of the consequences of human-caused global warming?”

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/01/science-and-politics-with-henry-waxman.html

    And why aren’t residential customers in CA going for the free money (well someone ponied up the $ so it’s not really free) to improve energy efficiency-

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/californias-efficiency-program-struggles-to-gain-traction

    Donn over a “Power for USA” has a few thoughts on the subject.

    http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/energy-efficiency-commonsense/

  11. jim2 | February 1, 2014 at 10:25 am |

    I previously posted an article that shale oil boosters were being disingenuous. Someone wrote a rebuttal.
    From the article:

    Robert Wagner
    Research analyst
    Send Message| Follow (706)
    Shale Oil Boosters Aren’t Charlatans
    Jan. 28, 2014 4:36 PM ET | 36 comments |

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…)

    I recently read a SA article titled “Why Shale Oil Boosters Are Charlatans in Disguise,” and while I found some of the concepts interesting, I simply have to disagree with its conclusions.

    Without even getting into in depth analysis, and simply applying a “keen sense of the obvious,” it is relatively easy to refute the “Charlatan” claims.

    1) Shale oil is the product of the free market. People that know the industry best are risking their own money and succeeding. More importantly they are succeeding in spite of extreme opposition from governments and green “pressure” groups.

    2) Shale gas is making all the right enemies. The people that stand the most to lose are getting nervous. Saudi Prince Alwaleed claims that “fracking is a threat to all oil producing nations in the World.” Clearly what the Prince intended to say was that fracking was a threat to OPEC and most importantly Saudi Arabia. Fracking in no threat to America.

    3) Shale oil has the potential to make Israel a major energy player. No, that was not a typo, Israel. Israel is also making huge natural gas discoveries. Fracking and shale oil have the potential to tip some very delicate geopolitical balances, and thus have developed some very powerful and well funded enemies.

    4) The oil dependent nation of Abu Dhabi bankrolled what I consider a modern masterpiece of propaganda, the anti-fracking movie Promised Land. The deceitful, dishonest and misleading tactics are done so subtly and convincingly that they are certain to confuse the issue for anyone that attends a showing. Those efforts aren’t likely to be highly effective, but the very fact that Abu Dhabi is making an anti-fracking movie for the US market shows their anxiety. “Charlatans” are unlikely to cause such unease in the oil rich Middle-East.

    5) Shale oil and gas production is increasing rapidly without major government subsidies and assistance, in fact they face just the opposite, government regulations and obstructions. Unprofitable and unpromising industries do not expand rapidly. Here in the Midwest, evidence of the success of fracking is everywhere. Unless my eyes are lying to me, there is a serious problem with this anti-shale oil and gas argument.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1974351-shale-oil-boosters-arent-charlatans

    • Beth Cooper | February 1, 2014 at 10:44 am |

      Succinct summary of the state of play, jim2

    • manacker | February 1, 2014 at 5:13 pm |

      jim 2

      Looks like it’s “follow the money trail” regarding opposition to fracking in the USA.

      When the biggest opponents are the same guys that set up a price fixing cartel to squeeze more profits from their customers, I have little sympathy for their message.

      Let them eat oil.

      Max

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 5:25 pm |

      manacker –

      When the biggest opponents are the same guys that set up a price fixing cartel to squeeze more profits from their customers, I have little sympathy for their message.

      How much sympathy do you have with the biggest proponents who stand to reap huge profits from the industry, and their political allies, who receive millions in campaign contributions?

      Consider the governor of my former state of PA, who has received @ 1.5 million in campaign contributions – and worked with the industry to take away the rights of residents of local municipalities to determine how to regulate related zoning. So much for the anti-centralization ideology of Republicans, eh?

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 5:28 pm |

      Really quite amazing how some “skeptics” are so….er…..selective in how important they think it is to “follow the money.”

      Almost enough to make one think they’re seeking to confirm biases.

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 5:33 pm |

      Of course, I’m sure that Corbett’s opposition to an excise task had nothing to do with the millions in contributions.

      No money trail there. Nosiree.

      Just a coincidence.

      I’m sure.

    • jim2 | February 1, 2014 at 7:22 pm |

      Josh – The Constitution does not stipulate the division of powers between the States and lesser governmental units. It only does that regarding the Fed and the States. We need to get back to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution ASAP.

    • jim2 | February 1, 2014 at 11:07 pm |

      Many of the states appreciate the employment the O&G industry brings to their towns. The rest of us appreciate the cheaper energy. Treating these companies well isn’t a bad thing, it’s a good thing.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | February 1, 2014 at 11:22 pm |

      jim2, you are beginning to sound as fanatical about fracking as Peter Lang is about nuclear power. Fanaticism creates public mistrust.

    • jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 9:04 am |

      I’m just reporting what I find about fossil fuels, Max. For a while there, the peal oilers seemed to be on a campaign intended to make people believe the price of oil would go through the roof soon. I believe they were doing this to scare the public into acceptance of solar and wind as an alternative, kind of like environmental groups have scared the public and turned them against nuclear power. I’m for finding the truth, whatever that might turn out to be.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | February 2, 2014 at 11:07 am |

      jim2, while new ways to get previously un-extractable oil and gas out of the ground increases the supply of these fuels, it doesn’t mean the supply is infinite.Obviously what you take from the ground is no longer in the ground for future use. Flooding the market with oil and gas encourages users to waste these precious resources.

    • jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 11:43 am |

      Max – I have never claimed oil and gas are of infinite supply In fact, I have pointed out they are a limited resource many times. The market will determine how much we pull out of the ground. There is more there than we realize right now, history has shown that to be true. And having a cheaper energy source to bridge us to another cheap energy source is a blessing, not a problem. The alarmist seem to see a goblin under every rock. Relax, it will turn out OK in the end. Just look at the actual climate data and take a deep breath a few times.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |

      ”
      There is more there than we realize right now, history has shown that to be true.
      ”

      Jim2,
      Does Korea have more oil than they realize?
      Does Belgium have more oil than they realize?
      Does South Africa have more oil than they realize?
      Does New Zealand have more oil than they realize?
      Does Uganda have more oil than they realize?
      Does Romania have more oil than they realize?
      Does Greece have more oil than they realize?
      Does India have more oil than they realize?
      Does New Guinea have more oil than they realize?
      Does Finland have more oil than they realize?
      Does Uruguay have more oil than they realize?
      Does Panama have more oil than they realize?
      Does France have more oil than they realize?
      Does Germany have more oil than they realize?
      Does Japan have more oil than they realize?
      Does Vietnam have more oil than they realize?
      Does Nepal have more oil than they realize?
      Does Lebanon have more oil than they realize?
      Does Bangladesh have more oil than they realize?
      Does Peru have more oil than they realize?

      I suppose a few countries do have oil.
      The “haves” versus the “have-nots”.
      Deal with it.
      For awhile.
      As every country that has been a “have” has turned into a “have not” when it comes to conventional crude oil.

      All deniers have in common the inability to see the writing on the wall, no matter how obvious.

    • jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 2:15 pm |

      WHT – when you make a big to-do over conventional vs other types of oil, you just make yourself look bad. A gas-fired generator or automobile engine couldn’t care less what rock a hydrocarbon came from. And it is profitable to extract oil and gas from shale – this is obvious to even the most casual observer.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 2, 2014 at 4:03 pm |

      jim2,
      Last time I checked this is an Earth Sciences blog. If you are interested in the sciences of the earth, join in, otherwise you look very foolish pontificating about your rationalization for adopting a certain policy.

    • jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 5:10 pm |

      WHT – PETROleum is extracted from rock, the rock is part of the Earth.

    • jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 5:11 pm |

      And I’m advocating NOT adopting a particular policy other than have the Fed butt out of energy. The NON-policy option.

    • jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 7:00 pm |

      WHT – As you know full well, CO2 is The Talisman waved about by the High Priests of the Church of Global Warming. And the CO2 in question is a result of burning fossil fuels. Much current and inceptive energy/environmental policy is directed at The Talisman. Therefore it is imperative that all stake holders understand what a boon shale oil and gas has been to jobs and the economy. Besides the direct boost to jobs, cheap natural gas attracts chemical and other manufacturing business. Cheap energy is good for all of us, but especially the poor. It takes money from terrorist countries and people who believe women who aren’t wrapped from head to toe cause earthquakes, not to mention the fact that they are happy to separate you from your head if you don’t believe their religion. It is much better to be independent of these people and take as many dollars from their control as possible.

      Cheap energy is a real blessing to the US. Therefore, information about the advances and success in the oil field belongs on the blog just as much as climate science.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 2, 2014 at 8:28 pm |

      I create models that predict how much conventional crude oil is remaining.
      And I create models for how much secondary sources of crude oil remains.
      That is a far cry from the mumbo-jumbo policy advice that you constantly spew.

    • k scott denison | February 2, 2014 at 8:29 pm |

      Webby, and you claim to create a model,that predicted (past) temperatures, but won’t predict anything that has happened yet! Come one, show us what’s to come with temperature!!!

    • jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 8:49 pm |

      And I’ve asked WHT many times to point me to a prediction of oil production in the US made years ago that came to pass. La Nada.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 3, 2014 at 12:35 am |

      ”
      jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 8:49 pm |

      And I’ve asked WHT many times to point me to a prediction of oil production in the US made years ago that came to pass. La Nada.
      ”

      Squeezing the barely damp sponge which is the Bakken is a far cry from having huge salt-dome crude oil reservoirs to draw from. And the latter are declining just as we predicted. It’s applying geospatial statistics to the empirical data, and one can predict how much is left. You might want to try some math out one of these days.

      Say, you’re not one of those people that think oil is being replenished by abiotic process from deep within the earth, are you???

      That would explain a lot.

  12. Schrodinger's Cat | February 1, 2014 at 10:26 am |

    If nearly 25% of TSI is IR then atmospheric GHG must lead to some absorbance of that energy in the atmosphere and lead to radiation of at least half of it back into space.

    This “upwelling” will increase with increasing GHG concentration. The GHG effect works both ways.

    • Bob Droege | February 1, 2014 at 10:42 am |

      According to Trnberth’s energy diagram you are correct, but there are diminishing returns. Looks like 25% is about right, but then half of that is only 1/6 of the outgoing IR.

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 10:51 am |

      CO2 has very little effect in the IR part of the TSI. Its effect is mostly in the parts of the IR that are radiated by the earth and atmosphere.

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris) | February 1, 2014 at 8:44 pm |

      “Not as important – I am still biased. But I think our descendants in distant future generations will look back at our animal killing in revulsion. Like how we look back on slavery now.”

      I tend to agree with this, which given that it’s lollywot has me questioning myself. The one proviso I’d add it that this will be the case as long we we continue to advance such that hunger becomes increasingly rare, Such moral niceties quickly disappear when raw survival becomes an issue. Note that generally speaking questions of survival becomes more prominent in times of harsh cold.

      There’s no question that in well fed western countries, animals are increasingly thought of as feeling, sentient beings with certain rights. It wasn’t long ago when PETA was considered to be part of the lunatic fringe. Of course some still feel that way, but less and less as the years roll by. I strongly support PETA and will continue to do so as long as I’m able.

  13. lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 10:28 am |

    Climate change, the moral issue of our time.

    To leave our grandchildren with a ruined earth or not to leave our grandchildren with a ruined earth.

    It’s a wicked problem.

    • Bad Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 10:29 am |

      “It’s a wicked problem.”

      These things happen when you let your imagination get the best of you.

      Andrew

    • Edim | February 1, 2014 at 10:40 am |

      AGW scare and profiteering is ruining human society. It also causes more pollution. Earth will be fine though.

    • Scott | February 1, 2014 at 11:40 am |

      Earth abides.
      When a commet struck the earth the explosion and tidal wave killed everything within but the disaster was the ejection of hot rock and plasma into the upper atmosphere. It raised the temperature of the air to 500*C for a week and killed almost everything not hiding in water or underground. Gave mammals a chance but hurt trees and grasses.

      USA since the clean water act and air pollution controls is much improved since 1970s. Maybe the clearer air is helping the slight warming. The rivers and sewage secondary and tertiary treatment plants are so much better. Next is the coal slag ponds, mountain top removals and restoration of the streams. Cut NOx, SOx and mercury not benign CO2.

      We can survive a few degrees until technology surplants the carbon process.
      Earth abides.

    • Don Monfort | February 1, 2014 at 11:42 am |

      Climate change is not an issue. Everybody knows the climate changes.

      Now that we have got that straight: CAGW is the issue. And it is only a moral issue for those who believe that it is a wicked problem. For the rest of us it’s not a major worry, it’s a scientific question that needs a lot more work. The unconvinced are legion, in the multi-billions, the vast majority of the planet’s inhabitants. We are not immoral for not believing your unconvincing story. And we do care about our grandchildren.

      You people are not succeeding with the phony declarations of 97% consensus certainty, the scare tactics and the denigration. Try something else. If CAGW is really a wicked problem and we let it happen, you CAGW boys and girls will not be blameless. The only ONE of you that is doing anything effective on this blog to advance the understanding of the alleged problem is Pekka. The rest of you are counter-productive annoying noise-makers.

    • k scott denison | February 1, 2014 at 11:48 am |

      lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 10:28 am | Reply
      Climate change, the moral issue of our time.
      _________

      Consider:

      1. Hundreds of millions starving, without cheap power and clean water.
      2. Tens of million of fetuses aborted in the US.
      3. Control of reproductive rights in China limiting families to one child each.
      4. Women treated as second class citizens in many Muslim countries.
      …

      Climate change isn’t even close to being the moral issue of our time.

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 11:51 am |

      I second the nomination of Pekka as least headless of the chicken littles. He’s growing eyes, and peering up at the sky.
      ==============

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 11:52 am |

      The formal title is Head Pekka. The chicken with one head is king in the land of headless chickens.
      ================

    • Don Monfort | February 1, 2014 at 12:03 pm |

      Uncharacteristically mean and silly of you, kim. Pekka is not a chicken.

    • Al Bedo | February 1, 2014 at 12:41 pm |

      “Climate change, the moral issue of our time.”

      Right.

      Because fossil fuels have shortened lives and led to high infant mortality and suffering.

      Oh, wait!

      Fossil fuels have led to increased longevity, reduced infant mortality and reduced suffering:

      https://www.arm.gov/science/highlights/images/R00180_1.gif

    • Al Bedo | February 1, 2014 at 12:50 pm |

      “To leave our grandchildren with a ruined earth…”

      Oh, puh-leaze.

      A little more CO2 and a little warmer temperature is not ruining the earth.
      Nature, in her own wisdom of the past, has decided that earth should have so much oxygen that the atmosphere could ignite. Fortunately, the EPA did not cite her for human endangerment. At other times she pelted the surface with meteors to the death of earth occupants. At other times she piled miles thick ice upon the continents. A degree or two of warming, which is indistinguishable from normal variation is insignificant by comparison.

      In the wink of a geological eye, human CO2 will be gone and immaterial to the normal destructive course of nature. The biosphere can and will gobble up all the CO2 and move on.

    • Al Bedo | February 1, 2014 at 12:53 pm |

      Sorry,

      here’s your co2 based improvement of human life:

      http://www.businessinsider.com/life-expectancy-and-child-mortality-over-history-2014-1

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 1:08 pm |

      Agreed, Don, certainly silly and royally mean. I’ve long told Pekka he has an unnecessary fear of catastrophe.
      ==============

    • Jeffn | February 1, 2014 at 1:54 pm |

      Science has determined who it is who wants to leave the grand kids (and the kids and their friends and cousins etc.etc) ruined. The moral issue of our time is the need to stop the warm.

      “The graph at the top of this post illustrates the trade-offs here. they are stark and consequential. The CGD analysis shows that a $10 billion OPIC portfolio focused on 100% off-grid renewables would provide energy access to 70 million less people than if that portfolio was 100% natural gas. The graph shows how a mix of renewables and gas translates into energy access.”
      http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/01/reduce-ghgs-or-increase-energy-access.html

    • Don Monfort | February 1, 2014 at 2:52 pm |

      The lefties commonly use the tactic of pretending to occupy the moral high ground to attack those who differ with them on various issues of our time (they call them wedge issues):

      On gun control, they use the school massacre (extreme weather event) du jour to agitate for stricter gun control (confiscation/drastic mitigation). And if you are not for that, you are indifferent to kids getting gunned down in schools. Is it working for them:

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/167135/americans-dissatisfaction-gun-laws-highest-2001.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines

      Not really. Their frantic agitation for stricter gun controls (leading to confiscation) just results in people getting more concerned about their rights to hunt, to plink and to protect themselves. They go out and stock up on more guns and ammo. Most folks know that the people killing other people are by definition lawbreakers, who will very likely not pay any attention to more gun laws. I bought a gun on the street, when I was 14, and it is no different today, a few years and many gun control laws later.

      Here is another one:

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

      This one is about freedom of choice. If you do not support a woman’s alleged unlimited Constitutional right to choose to abort (kill) a fetus (which at some point is a viable human being) you are engaging in an immoral war on women. That extreme BS doesn’t seem to be playing well either. What is interesting here is that they don’t agitate for a woman’s right to choose to engage in prostitution, or to marry an attractive guy who already has six wives. I thought they were all in favor of letting consenting adults sort that stuff out in private. My guess is it’s because those issues are not very popular with women voters and thus they are not suitable for pandering purposes.

      You are for school vouchers? You want to eliminate the public school system (unions) and universal education (unions). And you are a Tea Party racist. Against Obamacare? You don’t care if people die from lack of healthcare. You are also a Tea Party racist. And the list goes on. Just ask lollie what the other moral issues of our time are.

    • Don Monfort | February 1, 2014 at 2:57 pm |

      Kim, Pekka appears to be intelligent, well-informed and rational. He may have an unnecessary fear of catastrophe, or maybe it ain’t that unreasonable. I don’t know for sure. I will continue to pay attention to Pekka and other intelligent rational people like him, until I am sure.

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 3:23 pm |

      1. Hundreds of millions starving, without cheap power and clean water.
      2. Tens of million of fetuses aborted in the US.
      3. Control of reproductive rights in China limiting families to one child each.
      4. Women treated as second class citizens in many Muslim countries.

      Don’t forget also:

      5. Tens of millions of cows killed in the US each year
      6. Over one hundred million pigs killed in the US each year

      In all cases it comes down to a form of violence: Man (or men) harming their environment and each other for their own self-interest.

      Climate change is the moral issue of our time as it abstracts the mindset behind all the above problems.

    • Don Monfort | February 1, 2014 at 3:52 pm |

      Don’t you care about chickens and sheep, lollie? How many gazillions of those poor creatures have been massacred for man’s self-interest? And don’t get me started on the unfortunate multitude of mosquitoes, cockroaches and viruses that have been wiped out for mankind’s comfort. I guess the planet would be a much more kind and peaceful place without the scourge of humanity.

    • Faustino aka Genghis Cunn | February 1, 2014 at 3:58 pm |

      Don, I very much appreciate Pekka’s contributions, he has a very good background from which to comment on the science and issues here and has given them great attention. I might be wrong, but I took kim’s initial remark to suggest that over some years Pekka has moved somewhat towards the position held by kim, me, et al. This appears to me to be the case, but Pekka has denied that he has shifted.

      (Hard to think that kim might be making a comment which is not good-hearted …)

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 4:07 pm |

      Faustino –

      I might be wrong, but I took kim’s initial remark to suggest that over some years Pekka has moved somewhat towards the position held by kim, me, et al. This appears to me to be the case,

      Surely you must have evidence to support this opinion of yours. Because if there’s one think we know to be true about “skeptics,” it’s that they don’t formulate opinions w/o carefully quantified and validated data.

      In what way have Pekka’s opinions moved closer to yours? What did he used to believe that he no longer believes? What does he now believe that he didn’t believe previously. Do tell.

    • Don Monfort | February 1, 2014 at 4:19 pm |

      Fauastino, kim has graciously admitted to a momentary lapse in kim’s goodheartedness. Let’s get back to the overriding moral issue of our time, according to lollie: Mankind is eating up all the animals on the planet. And let’s not forget the sardines and eggplants.

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 5:04 pm |

      Pekka is the one alarmist to whom I pay the most attention. He has certainly proved his intellectual integrity, and depth, repeatedly. But he is skeert.
      ======

    • manacker | February 1, 2014 at 5:06 pm |

      To leave our grandchildren with a ruined earth or not to leave our grandchildren with a ruined earth

      Oooh. lolwot the alarmist has written…

      Max

    • Pekka Pirilä | February 1, 2014 at 5:15 pm |

      I have known so many people proven wrong when they claim that they have not changed their mind on some issue that I try to find old documents to confirm my recollections when I make such statements on my own thinking. Surprisingly I cannot find much in such documents related to what I have considered essential for the climate issue that would differ essentially from my present thinking. The older documents starting from late 1990s are on policy and economic aspects of the climate question, not on climate science itself.

      On the details of the climate science I have learned most of what I know now over the last couple of years, but even that learning has not led to any major rethinking of my views on policies or economics of proposed policies.

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 5:18 pm |

      Pekka –

      Just wait. kim and Faustino will be along any minute to provide the evidence.

      After all, they’re “skeptics” and don’t formulate opinions without cold, hard evidence in support. Only “realists” are affected by confirmation bias.

    • Michael | February 1, 2014 at 5:27 pm |

      “Climate change is not an issue. Everybody knows the climate changes. ” – Don.

      God help us.

      And how do you know this Don??

      See it in your tea leaves……or does science tell you that?

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 5:30 pm |

      Joshua pecks at the picayune. It’s my impression that Pekka is a great deal less afraid of catastrophe now than he used to be. That’s not sky falling, just ice.
      ===========

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 5:34 pm |

      Well Don you claimed “Tens of million of fetuses aborted in the US” was a moral issue.

      I wonder how you justify the lives of adult cows being expendable.

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 5:36 pm |

      Joshua pecks at the picayune. It’s my impression that Pekka is a great deal less afraid of catastrophe now than he used to be. That’s not sky falling, just ice.

      A “skeptics” concept skepticism.

      Asking that conclusions be based on evidence rather than “impressions” = picayune.

      Couldn’t have said it better myself. kim does have a way with words.

    • manacker | February 1, 2014 at 5:46 pm |

      kim

      “Where you stand on an issue depends a lot on where you sit”

      Sitting in scenic Switz, I am really not that alarmed by the thought of a few cm rise in sea level.

      Pekka sitting in Finland is probably also not that hysterical about the thought of a degree or two of warming.

      Max

    • manacker | February 1, 2014 at 5:50 pm |

      lolwot

      What about the moral issue surrounding the millions of tulips that are cut off from their roots in Holland to be sold?

      Or that corn that’s being grown in Iowa only to be brutally harvested?

      Think about it.

      Max

    • Pekka Pirilä | February 1, 2014 at 5:52 pm |

      Kim,

      I really cannot see how you have measured the extent of my fear of catastrophe now and before.

      I have a fair amount of evidence on my views, but unfortunately most of that is in Finnish, and texts from before 2009 (start of my blog posts) are not easily obtainable even in Finnish.

      I don’t think that I have ever discussed real catastrophes as something to fear, but I have stated, and I continue to believe that the most severe outcomes considered plausible have the largest weight in comparing alternative policies. The precautionary principle is a correct principle when applied within reason. Applying it within reason means that extremely unlikely alternatives need not be considered, and that no potentially costly action should be taken, when it’s usefulness cannot be justified.

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 5:53 pm |

      plants don’t have brains. They are a long way removed from animals like cows or humans.

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 5:56 pm |

      Pickapeppa Sauce over Cream Cheese makes a great aperitif; Pekka’s invited back, Joshua’s laid the table.
      ==========================

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 5:57 pm |

      My impression is that kim’s recollection has worsened from what it once was.

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 5:57 pm |

      (that was a joke btw not a serious observation)

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 6:07 pm |

      Oh, you’ve already sat down and dived in. Lovely and thanks for returning.

      I would say, on present evidence, that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is unlikely enough that its consideration should be lessened when no certainly costly action can be found whose usefulness is justified.
      =======

    • Don Monfort | February 1, 2014 at 7:10 pm |

      mikey: Sorry, I should have said everybody who is more sentient than my new granite countertops knows that the climate changes. Go pick your nit elsewhere, mikey.

      Pekka: I have only observed you being consistent. I don’t believe that you are right on the magnitude of the danger, but I am open to persuasion. I wouldn’t want to shut up, just in case you are right. I do care about future generations. That’s why it is disturbing to see so many smarmy, hateful alarmists making counter-productive fools of themselves. Gives alarmism a bad name.

      lollie: I justify the eating of cows the same way that lions, cheetahs and crocodiles justify their meaty bloody juicy fatty protein rich meals. With a happy stomach. If we didn’t eat the cows, something else would. Now explain why cows’ lives are as important to you as the lives of babies? Or are babies not alive, until they have their footprints recorded and they are issued a birth certificate? Get yourself some celery to munch on and go somewhere quiet and far away to meditate on that. Maybe a cow pasture. But be vigilant, the cows will mug you and take your celery.

      I wonder how these weeping moralistic characters who are worried about future generations feel about the twenty trillion dollars in debt and hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities that will be on the books in a few years. Or is the debt load that will burden future generations just a racist Tea Party myth?

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 7:56 pm |

      “I justify the eating of cows the same way that lions, cheetahs and crocodiles justify their meaty bloody juicy fatty protein rich meals. With a happy stomach.”

      Unlike a cheetah, lion or crocodile we are capable of moral thought.

      “If we didn’t eat the cows, something else would.”

      Plenty of countries don’t eat horses and they remain uneaten. Why would it be different for cows? Besides if killing cows is morally wrong then it’s wrong for us to kill them, irregardless of what would happen to them if we didn’t. We don’t steal under the justification that if we didn’t someone else would.

      “Now explain why cows’ lives are as important to you as the lives of babies?”

      Not as important – I am still biased. But I think our descendants in distant future generations will look back at our animal killing in revulsion. Like how we look back on slavery now.

      In both cases we have a group (race, or species) declaring themselves a special case with rights that are not even remotely afforded to some other race or species. It’s a case of might-makes-right. If you logically sit down and look at how different adult cows are to human children in terms of sentience and intelligence, it’s disturbing how we treat them.

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris) | February 1, 2014 at 8:47 pm |

      “To leave our grandchildren with a ruined earth or not to leave our grandchildren with a ruined earth.”

      No sense arguing with a fanatic, but reasonable people instantly recognize such an assertions for what it is.

    • Don Monfort | February 2, 2014 at 2:11 am |

      OK, lollie. I will wait to be revulsed along with my enlightened descendants, sometime far off in the future. They will still be spending my money and likely will be living on another planet, as you are today. In the meantime, I know where the beef is. Big obscenely expensive hunks of it dry aging in my meat fridge. Don’t worry, I have a very powerful backup generator.

      You know, you can give a nice inch-and-a-half Costco choice ribeye a quick aging by hitting it with a very liberal salting (kosher) and leaving it uncovered on a rack in a pan to catch the red stuff (it’s not blood but myoglogin colored water) at the bottom of your little fridge. It eats like prime. The drying concentrates the flavor and the salt acts on the muscle fibers to loosen them and enhance the putrification process:) The meat gets softer and holds onto more of it’s delicious juices, when it is barely cooked to a nice state of caveman pleasing red rareness. But don’t marinate the meat in wet stuff before you grill it, lollie. It will just sit there and steam. You want a nice dark brown crust and that red rare juiciness on the inside. Marinate the meat AFTER you grill it, lollie. Slice it against the grain and put your sauce on it. Enjoy. And take good care of your canines (not your dogs, those fangs next to your eye teeth).

      PS: I thought you would like that very liberal salting thing, if for only ideological reasons. To assuage my guilt, I will send a check to PETA. They still have that Adopt-a-Cow fund raising scam going, don’t they lollie?

    • Chris Quayle | February 2, 2014 at 11:04 am |

      Do you think if I get my old Whole Earth Catalog out of the loft, it would be of any help ?

      I used to thnk there was some good stuff in there…

    • kim | February 3, 2014 at 11:52 am |

      Don, I seated the hobgoblin of foolish consistency across the table from him.

      Chris, the regional hitch-hiker’s guide.
      ===========================

  14. jim2 | February 1, 2014 at 10:30 am |

    From the article:
    Keystone Report Said Likely to Disappoint Foes on Climate
    By Jim Snyder, Mark Drajem and Jonathan Allen Jan 30, 2014 9:23 PM CT
    69 Comments Email Print
    Save
    Photographer: Brett Gundlock/Bloomberg

    The Hardisty tank farm, which includes the TransCanada Corp. Hardisty Terminal 1,… Read More

    The U.S. State Department is preparing a report that will probably disappoint environmental groups and opponents of the Keystone pipeline, according to people who have been briefed on the draft of the document.

    While the report will deviate from a March draft in some ways to the liking of environmentalists, the changes won’t be as sweeping as they had sought, several people familiar with the government’s deliberations over the review told Bloomberg News. Changes could still be made to the report before its release, which may come tomorrow.

    The March report concluded that the Canada-U.S. oil pipeline would have only a minimal impact on carbon emissions, because the oil sands in Alberta will be developed anyway. Several people briefed on the findings, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, said they expect the final report will track that conclusion.

    The State Department findings will influence whether President Barack Obama approves TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s $5.4 billion project, which supporters say will create thousands of construction jobs. Obama has said he will consider the report’s conclusions on climate change in making a final decision.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-31/keystone-report-said-likely-to-disappoint-foes-on-climate.html

  15. jim2 | February 1, 2014 at 10:44 am |

    This article is disturbing mainly because of similar moves by the US government. The Obama administration has harrassed people who speak out against him through multiple agencies:

    * Obama has unleashed on each American Legion post new rules that may levy upon them a $1,000 per-day fine for not giving the government a detailed roster filled with the personal information of each member.

    *On July 13 FBI agents Conrad Rodriguez and William Sivley paid a visit to my son-in-law, Andy Moore, at his home.

    Andy is a pro-life activist who prays and protests outside the Southwest Women’s Surgery Center abortion mill in Dallas, where late-term abortionist Curtis Boyd freely acknowledges he “kill[s]” children.

    * That was then. This Tuesday, the administration decided that instead of making sure the 2014 midterm elections will not be tainted by similar restrictions on the activities of 501(c)4 organizations, it was going to legalize and institutionalize the IRS’ practices. I guess that’s one way to do it. British comedian Harry Enfield first suggested this strategy in a skit about police officers in Amsterdam, a city well known for its lax attitude toward the consumption, possession and sale of soft drugs. In the skit, one of the Dutch policy officers explains that burglary used to be a major problem in Amsterdam, but then it was legalized, and the problem was solved.

    * President Obama and his Justice Department need to get straight on the difference between espionage and news reporting. The administration appears to be on a campaign to harass journalists who are doing the job that the Constitution reserves for them.

    Twice in recent weeks the administration has acknowledged spying on reporters. In the most recent case, Fox News reporter James Rosen was accused of being a co-conspirator in an effort to disclose confidential government information.

    * Dinesh D’Souza, director of the 2012 documentary “2016: Obama’s America,” was arrested and indicted for campaign finance fraud on Thursday, Reuters reports.

    The conservative filmmaker and best-selling author allegedly contributed $20,000 in 2012 in the name of others to Republican Wendy Long’s U.S. Senate campaign. Long ran for Hillary Clinton’s vacated Senate seat, but lost to Kirsten Gillibrand.

    The above are the kind of things that China, a Communist country, does.

    From the article:

    China has succeeded in neutering the country’s most free-flowing and important source of news and opinion according to new research which shows a dramatic drop in activity on the online phenomenon Sina Weibo.

    Research commissioned by the Telegraph shows that the number of posts on the hugely successful Twitter-like microblog may have fallen by as much as 70 per cent in the wake of an aggressive campaign by the Communist party to intimidate influential users.

    Once an incalculably important public space for news and opinion – a fast-flowing river of information that censors struggled to contain – it has arguably now been reduced to a wasteland of celebrity endorsements, government propaganda and corporate jingles.

    At its peak, Weibo was indispensable to the life of almost every young Chinese, generating huge fan bases for actresses like Yao Chen (58m followers) and business gurus like Kaifu Lee (51m).

    In a bid to reach out to the Chinese market, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and Emma Watson all joined Weibo, as did a host of politicians including British Prime Minister David Cameron and London mayor Boris Johnson.
    Related Articles

    Weibo users will soon find another home following crackdown
    30 Jan 2014

    China’s Sina Weibo is in danger of becoming boring – just how the authorities want it
    30 Jan 2014

    Case study: How Weibo has changed
    30 Jan 2014

    Teenager arrested in China ‘for gossiping’
    20 Sep 2013

    China renews push for control of internet
    10 Sep 2013

    China tightens the screw on the internet
    25 Aug 2013

    But the findings from the research will be a huge blow to those who hoped that Sina Weibo would weaken the Communist party’s monopoly on information.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10608245/China-kills-off-discussion-on-Weibo-after-internet-crackdown.html

  16. lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 10:47 am |

    Less Snow Threatens Antarctica’s Fragile Ice Shelves

    Takehome point: “If we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, almost all ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula will be under threat of collapse in the next 200 years. Only the two largest ones [the Ross and Filchner-Ronne] seem to be safe,” Kuipers Munneke said.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/less-snow-threatens-antarctica-39-fragile-ice-shelves-010232571.html

    • k scott denison | February 1, 2014 at 11:52 am |

      OMG! We must act now!!! I’m sure their ability to predict out 200 years is spot on!!! There can’t be any chance their wrong, could their????

      Suggest you Google “global cooling alarmism”.

  17. Wagathon | February 1, 2014 at 10:52 am |

     
    How the global warming alarmists long for the good old days of Michael Mann. The IPCC showcased Mann’s apocryphal hockey stick to prove its theory that here was no climate before America — no MWP (Medieval Warm Period) and no LIA (Little Ice Age) — just runaway global warming during the last 50 years of the 20th century because Americans drove SUVs.

    But now the message has gotten a lot more complex–e.g., climate always changes, all global warming can be explained by natural causes, and many scientists foresee years and perhaps decades of global cooling ahead. Pushing fears of America being responsible for heating the globe is making school teachers look like they’re taking us for fools to achieve ideologically-motivated objectives or worse: they’re simple superstitious idiots, busily sacrificing the futures of our youth, essentially throwing their bodies into the ocean to appease the Left’s new Gods of Warming.
     

  19. WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 1, 2014 at 11:01 am |

    It’s time to get some high-quality climate projections in place that rely on straightforward tropospheric thermodynamics:
    http://contextearth.com/2014/01/22/projection-training-intervals-for-csalt-model/

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 11:15 am |

      holy crap that’s a pretty good post-1950 prediction using training data up to that point!

      do you have a graph of what CSALT shows for no CO2 rise in the 20th century? Id be interested to see it’s estimate of how global temperature would have varied if man hadn’t driven temperature upwards.

    • Don Monfort | February 1, 2014 at 11:56 am |

      Dennis Coyne will be proud of you some day, webby. Is he still there?

    • k scott denison | February 1, 2014 at 11:58 am |

      I agree lolwot, it’s VERY impressive that Web can predict something that’s already happened!!! Wow!!!! Abs-a-frickin-lutely amazing!!!!

      Now, if only he had the guts to develop some scenarios for future emissions and predict what will happen over the next 100 years we could see if his model has any real skill.

      Up to you Web.

    • k scott denison | February 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm |

      This is where Web says “but I don’t know what emissions will look,like so I can’t predict the future.”

      Well, Web, then you’ve spent a lot of time developing a model that’s about as useful as a buggy whip these days.

    • Don Monfort | February 1, 2014 at 12:43 pm |

      You flit from blog to blog posting links to your curve fitting, but nobody bites. Since you posted your latest foolishness on January 22:

      2 thoughts on “Projection Training Intervals for CSALT Model”

      You and Dennis Coyne are having quite an interesting discussion. Will you share the Nobel Prize with your lone disciple?

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 1, 2014 at 1:05 pm |

      “‘do you have a graph of what CSALT shows for no CO2 rise in the 20th century? Id be interested to see it’s estimate of how global temperature would have varied if man hadn’t driven temperature upwards.”

      LW, I am not sure I have that exactly, but this is the graph of the natural fluctuation component, or what is left after the CO2 secular rise is subtracted:
      http://imageshack.com/a/img37/5748/v69.gif

      What is interesting about it is that the residual between the data and the model shows that the biggest excursions occur during regional weather extremes:
      http://imageshack.com/a/img845/1371/rjpn.gif

      Note that the heatwave that occurred back in 1977 was the largest residual hot spike while the Cold Sunday period of 1982 was the biggest cold spike.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 1, 2014 at 1:13 pm |

      Don,
      Yea, given your great intellect, maybe you can tell me how to respond to fallacious arguments? Ooops, that was one right there :)

    • Don Monfort | February 1, 2014 at 1:59 pm |

      I am not arguing, webby. Just made the accurate observation that you are mightily trying to peddle your curve fitting scheme on various climate blogs, but no one seems to be interested, except your lonely pal Dennis. But you could be the intellectual beacon in the climate science wilderness. Didn’t Jesus start out with one disciple? Keep at it webby. Almost universally, the climate blogosphere find your peddling to be silly, tedious and rudely intrusive. But you always got Dennis.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 1, 2014 at 2:11 pm |

      Don, Care to teach us all how to write fallacious arguments better?
      I found this site, but how do you make it look so casual?
      http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 3:02 pm |

      Thanks that was the graph I was after.

      It’s amusing seeing how skeptics get so irked by what you are doing. They really don’t like their “barycentres”, “waves” and “natural cycles” being quantified as to their influence on global temperature.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 1, 2014 at 4:06 pm |

      ”
      It’s amusing seeing how skeptics get so irked by what you are doing. They really don’t like their “barycentres”, “waves” and “natural cycles” being quantified as to their influence on global temperature.
      ”

      lolwot, You nailed it exactly. Skeptics of that ilk don’t like to eat their own dog food.

      They would much rather keep their theories rather nebulous — that way they can maintain FUD while being somewhat immune from direct attack. Consider that if they never put an equation down on paper, or never actually tried to validate their results, they can maintain a lofty perspective and keep on pontificating from on high.

      It’s also entirely possible that some agenda-driven skeptics have already discovered what I have found, but won’t show it because they don’t like the answer. It’s not anything complicated, after all, it just doesn’t serve their agenda.

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 5:05 pm |

      WHT –

      Don does make a point. The way to judge the value of science related to climate change is by assessing the prevalence of opinion in suppo….

      Oh.

      Wait.

      Nevermind.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 5:17 pm |

      He uses a multiple linear regression to scale parameters to the global temperature series. The maths is very simple.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/MLR1_zps4a53618c.png.html?sort=3&o=15

      Essentially p unknowns in a single equations. But most of the variability is ENSO and volcanoes – so a simulacrum using these parameters is not difficult – and a factor for the trend is not difficult.

      The problem emerges from ignoring natural decadal variability.

      ‘A simple mechanism is offered that accounts for a change in the long-term (decadal scale) mean of ocean temperatures as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) amplitude changes. It is intended as an illustration of a kinematic effect of oscillating a nonlinear temperature profile with finite-amplitude excursions that will cause the Eulerian time mean temperature to rise (fall) where the curvature of the temperature is positive (negative) as the amplitude of the oscillations increases. This mechanism is found to be able to mimic observed changes in the mean sea surface temperatures in the Pacific between the 1920s, 1960s, and 1990s due to the changing ENSO amplitude. The effects alter both the calculated mean surface temperatures and the time mean temperatures at depth. It also results in a skewness of the temperature distribution that shares many properties with the observed SST.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3765.1

      This one suggests changes in wind and cloud associated with Pacific decadal variability.

      http://circulaciongeneral.at.fcen.uba.ar/material/seminarios09/Burgman_etal_2008.pdf

      There are thousand of studies on this phenomenon.

      It is not so much irked by webby incompetent blog math – but the repetition at every opportunity is a little annoying. And we expect little in the way of scientific sophistication from lollywot. More Cheech and Chong than Crick and Watson.

      http://circulaciongeneral.at.fcen.uba.ar/material/seminarios09/Burgman_etal_2008.pdf

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 1, 2014 at 6:13 pm |

      ”
      The maths is very simple.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/MLR1_zps4a53618c.png.html?sort=3&o=15
      ”

      Good. That means that you have no excuses to claim that it is too complicated, such as with the case of the garbage-in/garbage-out GCMs.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 1, 2014 at 6:21 pm |

      ”
      It is not so much irked by webby incompetent blog math – but the repetition at every opportunity is a little annoying.
      ”

      We have learned well from the Republican strategist Frank Luntz

      ”
      When asked why consistency is critical, Luntz replies, “Finding a good message and then sticking with it takes extraordinary discipline, but it pays off tenfold in the end. Remember, you may be making yourself sick by saying the same exact thing for the umpteenth time, but many in your audience will be hearing it for the first time. The overwhelming majority of your customers aren’t paying as much attention as you are.”
      ”

      http://www.actonfs.com/newsletters/issue18/newsletter18.html

      Better read all my blog posts on the CSALT model.
      Start here and then work back to the first post:
      http://contextearth.com/2014/01/22/projection-training-intervals-for-csalt-model/

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 10:27 pm |

      The incompetence comes from missing a critical parameter – science denial through groupthink seems likely.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 2, 2014 at 4:17 pm |

      ”
      Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
      The incompetence comes from missing a critical parameter – science denial through groupthink seems likely.
      “

      And you don’t know what that is. Call your bluff.

      MNFTIU
      http://imageshack.com/a/img812/74/abh.gif
      http://contextearth.com/2014/01/22/projection-training-intervals-for-csalt-model/

    • k scott denison | February 2, 2014 at 6:40 pm |

      Web, I’m calling your bluff. Let’s see the predictions from this wonderful model of yours. Make whatever assumptions you need, set up a few scenarios if you like, then show us the great predictive power you have!!!

  20. andywest2012 | February 1, 2014 at 11:03 am |

    Here is a cry against memetic tyranny from the Editress of The Isis, in her eighth [long] discourse on the bible from Number 19 Volume 1 of the publication, Saturday 16th June 1832:
    “God, Lord, Christ, knowledge, reason and liberty are the principles of good. Serpent, Satan, devil, sin, ignorance, kings, priests and tyranny, and necessity, are the principles of evil. ”
    It’s a cry made from the inner borders of immersion in the social narrative of Christianity, bundling God with knowledge and reason, sin with necessity. Yet nevertheless the Editress is striving to break out of a grasp that is partially recognized, striving to attain ‘reason and liberty’, and identifies kings and priests as the enemy. She has the wrong ultimate enemy for it is the narrative, the Christian memeplex, which she fights and that still grips her thoughts (Satan is just a storyline within that narrative). She has identified only its aligned interests in the material world. In regarding kings (who represent a controlling and enlightened elite, she later adds judges too) and also priests as the enemy, she is railing against those who benefit most from the narrative, but not the memetic process that is root cause.

    I think the quote below from Judith Curry qualifies as another cry against memetic tyranny. This is from a blog post where Curry compares her stance to that of Consensus scientists (using Kevin Trenberth as a model) and concludes that their science is not so different, therefore that the differentiators must be social:
    “So . . . what is the differentiator? Why is there such hostility between the two ‘sides’, even though there is little at this point to discriminate the two sides in terms of science? Why have I been thrown off the ‘consensus’ island? Here are my ideas on the differentiators, and they are social (not scientific). I use myself as an example here, since I don’t want to get into talking about or labeling other climate scientists in this regard.
    1. Fear and loathing of skeptics, particularly Steve McIntyre (read the Climategate emails for evidence of this). McIntyre is symbolic of attacks against consensus science, and a number of scientists have taken this very personally. My engagement with Steve McIntyre was probably the impetus for my getting tossed off the island, which was very visible with the publication of my post-Climategate essay ‘On the credibility of climate research‘ on McIntyre’s blog.
    2. Allegiance to the ‘consensus’ and the social contract between the scientists, institutions and policy makers that has been very beneficial to the field of climate scientists. I have raised concerns about the consensus approach in my uncertainty monster paper and my paper no consensus on consensus. I have also raised concerns about the social contract aspect.
    3. The selling of the merchant of doubt and war on science memes, which made uncertainty and doubt dirty words. My uncertainty monster flew directly in the face of this.
    4. Expectation of climate scientists to support CO2 mitigation policies. My position is that scientists should stay away from such advocacy unless they understand the policy process and advocate in a responsible way (as per the AAAS workshop guidelines.)
    5. Others? All of this is amplified by the consensus police and denial warriors surrounding the scientific community, including bloggers, the media, NGOs, politicians.    ”
    Full comment here.

    Curry cites personal identification of the Consensus with ‘the problem’, allegiance to orthodoxy, story-framing assisted by the use of memes like the merchants of doubt, strong connection to advocacy, plus the enforcement of orthodoxy and the backing of a controlling and enlightened elite: politicians, NGOs, etc. All characteristics of a major memeplex. With terms like memes, allegiance, police, warriors, loathing, Curry has practically surrounded the CAGW memeplex, yet has still I think not quite managed to apprehend it. In that sense Curry’s quote is akin to that of the Editress of The Isis, railing against the ‘priests’ and the elite (consensus police and denial warriors, the media, NGOs, politicians), yet not against the (unrecognized) underlying process.

    1) The fight against major social narratives that have gone off course, sometimes relies on ‘the enlightened elite’, i.e. those who are still immersed in the narrative to a large extent, yet can see at least some of its downsides, and fight these. This is because those outside a dominant narrative (be it nineteenth century Christianity with its tyrannical approach to feminism, or current CAGW with its tyrannical approach to environmentalism) typically have no power-base from which to fight. How much does the fight against CAGW rely on the enlightened elite, and now that Curry has been ‘thrown off Consensus island’, is this better or worse in taming the rampant CAGW narrative?

    2) Given cries against the memetic tyranny of dominant social narratives over the ages, which have benefited completely different priests and elites, how many would agree that the process is really the problem, not the priests or the elite? (the mechanisms of the process are the same in all cases).

  21. michel | February 1, 2014 at 11:12 am |

    Is there any evidence that lowering CO2 has in the past produced and will produce cooling if future if we do it, and if so what is it?

  22. mkantor | February 1, 2014 at 11:14 am |

    For those of you with an interest in the legal aspects of climate change regulation in the U.S., the widely read blog Scotusblog.com will be holding an on-line symposium this coming week on the cases to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on February 24 (with decisions, of course, some months thereafter).

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/symposium-announcement-greenhouse-gas-cases/

    On February 24, the Justices will hear oral arguments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to determine that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

    Next week, we are pleased to host an online symposium about these cases. Our guest contributors are:

    Jody Freeman – Harvard Law School
    Peter Glaser – Troutman Sanders
    Amanda Leiter – American University Washington College of Law
    Jonathan Massey – Massey Gail, LLP
    Howard Neilson – Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
    Robert Percival – University of Maryland Carey School of Law

    I hope this is useful.

    MK

  23. Wagathon | February 1, 2014 at 11:18 am |

    Where we’re at in the West with global warming is like the Jews only according to Lindzen we’ve got 50 years of wandering before we stop not 40. There is no impending calamity so we must stop trashing the economy. There are too many climate liars — all the rewards are tossed up — positive societal change in the present political climate is very uncertain: we’re paying people to do the wrong things–i.e., things will get worse before they get better. The truth will show itself, in time. When it comes to worrying about CO2, there’s nothing we can do that is better than doing nothing.

  24. R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 11:24 am |

    We’ve already seen Australia having the warmest past year on record, with many records not just beat but smashed, and now we see Brazil with the warmest January:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/31/us-brazil-heat-idUSBREA0U1PM20140131?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

    Seems at least the SH is not reacting well to the “globe is cooling” meme. With ENSO now stuck in a “La Nada” neutral mode, only average amounts of latent and sensible heat are in flux from the Pacific, so the warming we are seeing in the SH, and even globally, is now somewhat more reflective of the underlying forcing from GH gases. As 2013 was the warmest non-El Nino year, it will be curious to see how the SH warmth translates in to global records later on in 2014. Of course, as usual, the fluctuations of ENSO will be a key factor in these short-term tropospheric temperatures records, but an ENSO neutral year such 2013 was, and 2014 is starting out as, provides an excellent opportunity to estimate underlying anthropogenic forcing.

    • jim2 | February 1, 2014 at 11:32 am |

      Those are regional effects. The satellite record shows fairly steady temperatures.

    • ceresco kid | February 1, 2014 at 1:29 pm |

      Gates
      Gates-

      In 1787 King George sent a fleet to Australia to that vast new land to colonize it. I presume records would have been started shortly after that. Considering the billions of years before that date were not recorded, being the hottest during the last 226 years is not a very impressive statement. I doubt there has ever been a year when some kind of record in some location on earth has not been broken. Just like in baseball, records are made to be broken.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 2:37 pm |

      The climate reference network in Australia extends reasonably high quality records to 1900. The problem with surface records on land is the change in lapse rate associated with lack of water. So Australian surface temps are impacted by rainfall deficits in the past couple of years.

      The marginally higher surface temps don’t appear in the UAH tropospheric data.

      http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/australia/2013-hot-summer/australia-uah-summers.jpg

      This argument remains an irrelevancy. As far as recent temperature increases – 1977 to 1998 – are concerned most of this was natural and quite reversible from a 1000 year high.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 5:17 pm |

      “As far as recent temperature increases – 1977 to 1998 – are concerned most of this was natural and quite reversible from a 1000 year high.”
      ____
      Your assumption seems to be that the 40% rise in CO2 and similar rises in methane and N2O have had no impact on natural variabililty of the climate system, and that somehow we can cleanly disentangle the “natural” from the “anthropogenic” in sum of all forcings which create the climate. Specifically of interest would be how anthropogenic forcing impacts the otherwise natural variabililty of:
      1) ENSO
      2) MJO
      3) PDO
      4) AMO
      5) IPWP
      6) BDC
      etc. etc. etc.
      Fortunately scientists are studying these very things every day, and the answers, though “wicked” problems to be sure, are slowly revealing themselves.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 5:29 pm |

      “I doubt there has ever been a year when some kind of record in some location on earth has not been broken. Just like in baseball, records are made to be broken.”
      _____
      You make a very valid statistical point, and indeed, statistics are a great tool for those who study climate. We can spot trends of warming and cooling periods by tracking how many new highs versus new lows have been set over some given period for example, as well as all sorts of other interesting data. In general, during warming periods in the climate, you’re going to get more new highs than new low records, though to be sure, new low records certainly can be set during any period. Statisical analysis reveals how unusally warm overall the current period is when compared to the past several thousand years. There were other periods that were similarly warm with the most recent period being the MWP (MCA, depending on who you’re talking to).

    • Tonyb | February 1, 2014 at 5:41 pm |

      Rgates

      Brazil in general has not had the hottest January ever. SOME parts have reached a record whilst others have been the warmest in 30 years. Records also only started in 1910 and was sporadic until recent years.
      http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/01/31/brazilian-cities-mark-hottest-january-in-decades/
      Tonyb

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 5:54 pm |

      No the reality is that there has been natural warming in 1977/1998 period that is totally reversible – as well as much longer term natural warming.

      But these indices operate quite independently of minor changes in the temperature field ascribable to AGG – and with variability for important indices than can be captures in proxies far greater than anything seen last century. Yes – thankfully there are scientists studying this.

      ‘In this model, the time-local gradients of temperature never change if referenced to a single isotherm (i.e., the Lagrangian description is one of DT/Dt = 0). This implies that changes in the amplitude of ENSO will have no influence on the stability of the underlying system, and that the simple Eulerian decadal mean temperature structure has no predictive value. This is in direct contrast to recent work that ascribes a change in ENSO statistics as due to a change in the background state.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3765.1

      The null hypothesis – that Schopf and Burgman confirm for ENSO – is that there is no effect from the minor warming from AGG seen thus far.

      By all means list indices – here’s where you can follow those and more.

      http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/

      Although you are better off with the British Antarctic Survey for SAM and here – http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html – for the AO. Oh – an perhaps JAMSTEC for the DMI.

      Happy to edumacate you.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 5:59 pm |

      Thanks for that Tony. It seems some disagreement about how hot it is in Brazil and the causes:

      “This is the hottest, driest January we’ve ever had … and there isn’t much hope for this heat to stop in the next two weeks,” said Celso Oliveira, meteorologist for Somar weather service.

      The weather has been so suffocating that many Brazilians have envied the so-called polar vortex causing snow and record cold in much of the United States. Some local meteorologists have speculated that the hot, dry weather in Brazil may be related to the same unusual atmospheric patterns.
      ____
      Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/31/us-brazil-heat-idUSBREA0U1PM20140131?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 6:06 pm |

      Well – perhaps not thousands of years. 1400 years I remember from somewhere on this study.

      http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html

      http://www.pages-igbp.org/workinggroups/2k-network/faq#8-1-what-are-the-primary-conclusions-of-the-study

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

      There is a Nature Journal Club’ video I hadn’t noticed before – and don’t have time for right now. Certainly seems worth a look though.

      We could perhaps discuss this in detail although perhaps not with any balance with Randy.

    • Tonyb | February 1, 2014 at 6:14 pm |

      Rgates

      I think the weather guy was talking about Sao paulo. A look at the population growth there since records began in 1910, and the hottest record previously in 1984, probably gives us clues as to the reasons for the current warmth

      http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sao+paulo+population+growth&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#biv=i%7C2%3Bd%7CRI5rssGmR-qocM%3A
      Tonyb

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 6:25 pm |

      Perhaps you are right Tony, and perhaps not. I do note with much interest how high the world ocean heat content is, both at 0 to 700m:

      http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat

      And 0 to 2000m:

      http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-2000m.dat

      Given the extreme dependency of the tropospheric land surface temperatures on warmth coming from the ocean, I would say the record high levels of heat in the ocean is probably having some impact on surface temperatures. Short of a big volcano, or a the appearance of a currently not expected La Nina, I would say the odds of 2014 and/2015 setting new global tropospheric surface records is increasing.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 6:32 pm |

      I note that the South Atlantic in particular has been running pretty high in ocean heat content:

      http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/h22-a0-700m1-3.dat

      (go to the column marked SA, for “South Atlantic”)

      Highest heat content on record for the South Atlantic. Just might have something to do with Brazil’s very hot January? But of course, according to some “skeptics”, warmer oceans can’t affect we land dwellers. Interesting anti-physics that would be, considering the strong influence and net flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere.

    • maksimovich | February 1, 2014 at 6:47 pm |

      the SST of the south Atlantic (>40 s) are negative.At present the cold tongue excursions are in all 3 basins. in the pacific the bifurcation of the great southern conveyor rejoins after its sojourn through the Tasman sea and is now entering french Polynesia.

      http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur

      PS look at the cold sst in the region of the sunda strait.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 6:55 pm |

      Sorry Max, but that Unisys chart is a joke and no scientist uses it for serious SST analysis (were you honestly not aware of this?) NOAA’s weekly SST anomaly chart is really among the best:

      http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/anomwse.gif

      Very warm water off the coast of Brazil in general.

    • maksimovich | February 1, 2014 at 7:12 pm |

      the unsisys sst southern ocean is consistent with independent data sets from both real time buoys,and high quality fishing fleet real time data.

      Brazil has a big river called the amazon,it produces large volumes of fresh water which sit on top of halo water,do you not understand that?

    • Kneel | February 1, 2014 at 9:56 pm |

      I thought your view was that surface temps are a poor metric, and we should use OHC? Or are you just cherry picking to make a point?

    • Santo | February 2, 2014 at 5:33 am |

      And here in the central U.S. We’re setting records on the other extreme. So what? Daily/monthly/yearly records happen frequently at some locale or another. Should I take my Midwestern records as evidence of a coming Ice Age? No. So why should anyone assign weight to yours?

      Cherry picking weather to suit your narrative isn’t a convincing way to argue the science of your beliefs, and it certainly isn’t a skeptical way to approach a subject.

  25. R Gresty | February 1, 2014 at 11:25 am |

    I find a lot of the debate on climate change confusing, and at times pointless.
    I do not know, and have not seen anywhere, as to what the “Normal” state of the Earth is, whose climate seems to have oscillated from the “Snowball” state, (those in some parts of the USA may think they are back there), through a tropical climate, and to some sort of semi-desert.

    I keep being told, by some at our University, that doing nothing is not an option, but have no clear view as to what should, or could be done as no one is quite clear what the problem is/are.

    And I’m not sure that there is a problem(s).

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 11:40 am |

      “I do not know, and have not seen anywhere, as to what the “Normal” state of the Earth is,”
      _____
      “Normal” is a loaded word, and has very little meaning in terms of the climate. The climate is always the sum of all forcings and their associated feedbacks. The Earth goes through periods of colder and warmer climates, and sometimes we can see patterns develop when then periods occur in somewhat regular cycles. These cycles are a great clue that the the climate is not a random walk, but follows precise laws of physics in which the external forcings on the system fluctuate in some kind of pattern. This was the genius of Milankovitch’s astronomical theory of climate, and when the first fingerprints of the pulse of the climate (at least over the past 800,000 years) was revealed, It was indeed a huge triumph.

    • k scott denison | February 1, 2014 at 12:04 pm |

      But R Gates, it’s been the hottest ever in Australia and the hottest January in Brazil so all is lost, right?!?!?!

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 12:09 pm |

      Not sure how your conclusion “all is lost” follows from new instrument records being set, but whatever…

    • ceresco kid | February 1, 2014 at 1:12 pm |

      Here is some sage advice. Foremost just use some common sense. I have been following this debate for only 5 years but at times I wonder where the esteemed so called scientists went. There is a paucity of common sense and loads of home made theories. Some think of the climate as they would the latest Rachel Ray cookbook. Just a little of this and a little of that and voila, you have climate. Jim Cripwell has it about right regarding proof of climate sensitivity and a lot of other very fundamental elements of the scientific method, much to the consternation of many on this blog.

      Do your own research and be sure it is from multiple sources. Try to understand not only the findings but also be aware of confirmation bias. Everybody has his hustle.

      I am a skeptic. Not because of a vast knowledge of physics or any climate related science, but rather due to having honed to a fine point a BS meter over the last 50 years. Those with deep backgrounds in the sciences will try to bullly you into thinking they have the more valid viewpoint than you since they have all the answers and who are you to question them. Don’t believe it for a second. Their doubts are a lot more than they will ever let on. There is an inverse correlation between the level of certainty and the quality of the science they practice.

      I am not saying the warmists are wrong. Only that the
      unknowns are a lot greater than they want to admit.

      Watch the ad homs flow.

    • Bob Ludwick | February 1, 2014 at 3:12 pm |

      @ R Gresty

      “I keep being told, by some at our University, that doing nothing is not an option, but have no clear view as to what should, or could be done as no one is quite clear what the problem is/are.”

      The common solutions being proclaimed as ‘absolutely necessary, ASAP, with rigorous enforcement’ ALWAYS include a stiff tax on ‘carbon’ and government control over every activity that either produces or consumes energy.

      What you will never get are answers to the questions:

      ‘If we make no energy related decisions based on CO2 emissions and simply procure our energy supplies from whatever sources are most convenient and economical, what will the Temperature of the Earth (TOE) be in 10, 50, and 100 years?

      ‘If we enact every CO2 control tax and regulation recommended by the climate experts, collect the taxes religiously, and enforce the regulations ruthlessly, what will the TOE be in 10, 50, and 100 years?

      ‘Why is the TOE resulting from strict control of CO2 ‘better’ than the TOE resulting from ignoring CO2 completely?

      What you WILL get is a lambasting as an anti-science ignoramus and a reiteration of the CRITICAL need to Control ACO2.

    • GaryM | February 1, 2014 at 10:30 pm |

      kneel,

      “I thought your view was that surface temps are a poor metric, and we should use OHC?”

      As soon as we get a good el Nino. and the ‘global averages” can be used to make scary graphs again, surface temperatures will once more become trumpeted as the gold standard of proxies proving that AGW is C.

    • GaryM | February 1, 2014 at 10:32 pm |

      Oops, wrong sub-thread.

  26. Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 11:59 am |

    Joanne Nova tackles argument-from-authority:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-is-not-done-by-peer-or-pal-review-but-by-evidence-and-reason/

    • “My real problem is with scientists who make out that Peer Review is gospel […]”

    • “Peer review should not be raised on a pedestal […]”

    • ▬ “[…] the more we force science to fit a bureaucratic regimen, the less science we’ll get.” ▬

    • “The Peer Review Game works as a gatekeeper to silence critics, so pandering and bowing to it is exactly what the unscientists want.”

    • ▬ “It’s death by committee.” ▬

    • “Bureaucratized Peer review is highly flawed, doesn’t prove a thing scientifically and works to the advantage of those who are already in the game.”

    • “Some people seem to have lost sight of this, and think that skeptics ought to be trying to play the Peer Review Game according to the fine print of arbitrary rules dictated by unscientists who hate skeptics and who don’t even play by the rules themselves. The game belongs to them – they set, change and break the rules, and they decide who gets an invite to the clubhouse. But in the end, the review game is a sideshow, and it is usually used to lock out those who question a consensus.”

    • ▬ “Anyone who claims that science only exists on official approved pages of anointed publications is a Gatekeeper of Dogma. (How many trolls respond to a valid point by saying “why don’t you publish it in the peer review?”) Real scientists know that the truth is not dependent on where it was printed, nor who reviewed it. It’s time to rise above the Gatekeeper’s Rules, not fight over them.” ▬

    • “In the peer-pal debate there is no win worth achieving. Peer review is a weak system anyway”

    • “It’s not a bun-fight we need to waste time on.”

    • ▬ “[…] the real high ground is another level entirely […]”▬

    • “Anything that shows that there is nothing rigorous about peer review is a good thing for independent thinkers.”

    • “Let’s help independent scientists continue to push the bounds of knowledge.”

    • “Current journal reviewers are not crucial to science […] If their pal-review system blocks the truth emerging in their journals, it will emerge somewhere else. So be it.”

    • “Let’s not get lost fighting in the bureaucratic maze, when what matters is the rest of the universe.”

    • ▬ “[…] the hallowed “Peer Review”. Fans of establishment science want us to believe it’s a gospel part of the scientific method, but it is neither intrinsic nor essential, and skeptics should not be fooled into thinking it is.” ▬

    Also: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/pattern-recognition-journal-to-be-relaunched/

    • “[…] utterly unscientific mindset of the gatekeepers of Peer Review.”

    • ▬ “[…] Peer Review is a bureaucratic process so corrupted with this poisonous attitude, that the most important aim of any skeptic is not to try too hard to play an inherently crooked game, or to pander to its dictats, but to tell the world how crooked it is.” ▬

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 12:07 pm |

      “My real problem is with scientists who make out that Peer Review is gospel […]”

      My real problem is with “skeptics” who build straw men only to knock them down.

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 12:08 pm |

      Bad optics is an insurmountable problem for the activists constantly begging for code.

      They loudly advertise their independent lack of raw quantitative intuition & natural competence.

      The louder they scream, the more they drown themselves in bad optics.

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 12:08 pm |

      The good thing about the internet, books and newspapers is that people can publish their own evidence and reason without peer review these days. Not seen much there yet countering the published science, but maybe one day.

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 12:09 pm |

      • “Peer review should not be raised on a pedestal […]”

      Peer review should not be viewed selectively, so as to be exploited by “skeptics” to score points in the climate ward.

    • k scott denison | February 1, 2014 at 12:14 pm |

      Peer review is an idea whose time has come and gone. Due to the inevitable (and always present) gatekeeping that leads to corruption and the internet age.

      Open access, on-line review should replace it.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 12:17 pm |

      “The good thing about the internet, books and newspapers is that people can publish their own evidence and reason without peer review these days. Not seen much there yet countering the published science, but maybe one day.”
      _____
      As we discussed in a recent thread, the internet does cut both ways, as there is more garbage to weed through to find some credible research. In general though, the internet is a great boost to honest skeptics such as myself who are constantly looking for actual data that might cause me to alter what I feel is “most likely true”. See:

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/01/open-thread-7/#comment-446168

      I just have to careful of the “mind fields” out there (this has a double meaning). and spend my time on the most credible and well reviewed research (web published or traditional). Sites like Climate of the Past and Atmospheric Physics with lots of web-commented credible research are a great boost.

    • Bad Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 12:18 pm |

      Uh oh…

      Joshua: We don’t claim peer review is gospel

      Jim D: Published science is gospel

      Time for a tribal council!

      Andrew

    • Edim | February 1, 2014 at 12:18 pm |

      Bureaucracy killed the science.

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 12:32 pm |

      BA, no, I am saying that if there is a good idea, there are ways to get it out there without peer review. Blaming peer review for the lack of skeptical good ideas is just putting the blame in the wrong place.

    • Bad Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 12:39 pm |

      “without peer review”

      Are you sure you Warmers want to operate without this safety net? It’s going to force people to use their own judgment. I’m not sure that’s what your side wants. I’d get with Council Elders before you go down this problematic road.

      Andrew

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 12:46 pm |

      Joshua,

      You don’t have to read between the lines to see that Joanne Nova is coming down on both conventional mainstreamers and skeptics with her towering intellect.

      No use feigning naivety or trying to deceive.

      She’s razing (not to be misinterpreted as raising) left, right, & center. You might be well-advised to sensibly show some due respect.

      I have one major criticism where Joanne allowed bias to seep into an otherwise classic piece of writing:

      I would have skipped the private sector fawning — because all systems – whether volunteer, public, private, or whatever – are corruptible and being adaptable enough to weather the corruptions of any system is the higher mark of integrity …but I otherwise aggressively align with Joanne Nova’s conclusively compelling wholesale rejection of maliciously invective argument-from-authority (…and yes I’m wording it like that to deliberately provoke sober reflection — I’m not actually an extremist — quite(!) the contrary…)

      Regards

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 12:55 pm |

      “Joanne Nova is coming down on both conventional mainstreamers and skeptics with her towering intellect.”
      —-
      Towering intellect? Now that’s funny….

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 1:13 pm |

      Are there any others here who hate Joanne for being right about this?

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 1:15 pm |

      Is this the same Jo Nova who fell for the salby nonsense about CO2?

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 1:30 pm |

      lolwot strategy = deflect attention from a rock solid, untouchable argument by changing the channel to yesterday’s controversy — it will probably work here…

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 2:02 pm |

      BA, your logic is failing you. It is not peer review or no peer review, it is all of the above. The public doesn’t get their information from peer review and neither do politicians read the actual journals. However, on the route from peer review to these consumers of science there are many other sources of input, some more political than scientific and some just anti-science or personal opinion, but no less capable of reaching them.

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 2:05 pm |

      Paul –

      You don’t have to read between the lines to see that Joanne Nova is coming down on both conventional mainstreamers and skeptics with her towering intellect.

      I did see this:

      • “Some people seem to have lost sight of this, and think that skeptics ought to be trying to play the Peer Review Game according to the fine print of arbitrary rules dictated by unscientists who hate skeptics and who don’t even play by the rules themselves.

      So +1 for that. Yes, it speaks to the hypocrisy often found among “skeptics” who denounce peer review until there’s a peer reviewed article that they think is consistent with their perspective.

      It reduces the overall score from -15 to -14, by virtue of straw men and other fallacies.

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 2:08 pm |

      And Paul –

      I would have skipped the private sector fawning — because all systems – whether volunteer, public, private, or whatever – are corruptible and being adaptable enough to weather the corruptions of any system is the higher mark of integrity …

      <

      + 1 for that.

      Legitimate criticisms of the public sector are diminished by binary thinking/private sector fetishism.

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 2:18 pm |

      Joshua, please see my comments below. A good knife cuts both ways. (Onlookers watching only when the knife cuts one way or the other may not realize this — plenty of opportunity for profound misunderstanding &/or misinterpretation in these often counterproductively overheated & distorted discussions…) Regards

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 2:39 pm |

      specifically: here
      My (carefully considered) commentary at No Tricks Zone cuts the other way. Neither Pierre nor Joanne are decisively anyone’s puppet or fool in this. It’s clear they’re unable to sensibly & independently judge the content of the papers firsthand, but they’re laudably standing up for some higher principles that transcend the climate discussion. I suggest we restore civility and fairness …or should I say install (instead of restore)? (…since arguably these core elements have always been absent) The instability of war is not the way to protect nature… Regards

    • Bad Andrew | February 1, 2014 at 7:21 pm |

      “It is not peer review or no peer review”

      It is. You either point to peer review for authority or you don’t. A Warmer who does not play all speaking from authority cards is a Warmer who has essentially given up the game.

      Is that where we are?

      Andrew

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 7:31 pm |

      BA, the skeptics belie your point. They have made an impact without support from peer review. They get on committees and have newspaper op-eds and try to verbally cast doubt on peer reviewed research. Do you think their view isn’t counting? Agreed it is weak not to have peer review, but it is happening, and you have to be realistic that it is there.

    • Paul Vaughan | February 2, 2014 at 4:03 am |

      Another convincing argument Joanne Nova makes from time to time:

      The playing field isn’t level.

      (I would add: particularly in terms of available time & resources (but I think she’s usually focused on abuses of process).)

      This is yet another compelling reason to deliberately boycott logically unnecessary formality on principle.

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm |

      lol implosion

      gosseilin to eschanbach: “I seriously urge you to think about changing your approach when dealing with other teammates who have different views.”

      teammates?

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 1:05 pm |

      “How is Roger Tattersall remotely considered an expert? Yet he was both an editor and a reviewer in the PRP special edition.” – Poptech

      “This works both ways, it is odd Lord Monckton would attempt to publish a physical science journal given his scant scientific credentials.” – Poptech

      “And unfortunately it seems a few skeptics played into the hands of the campaign or, for selfish reasons, even played along with the shenanigans, so some have claimed.” – Gosselin

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 1:17 pm |

      lolwot it isn’t about PRP

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 1:34 pm |

      PRP was just a lightning-rod trigger of a much deeper, far more substantive issue — PRP is a distraction from the more substantive issue

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 1:55 pm |

      Like Pierre Gosselin, I see the need to direct criticism both ways.

      Train Wreck

      That’s exactly what I anticipated 4 months ago when I learned of a green-lighted “special edition” of “Pattern Recognition in Physics”.

      It was somehow decided in some stroke of genius & wisdom (deliberately provocative sarcasm intended to encourage sober reflection) to gather scattered material of uneven quality (serious understatement) into a single target, by putting it neatly on railway cars, linking the railway cars together, and then aggressively running the train deep into the heart of hostile enemy territory on enemy tracks to ever-so-considerately facilitate a single, efficient, spectacular, mass derailment.

      If only terrorists would volunteer to concentrate so conveniently for their enemies.

      The “special edition” diverted months’ worth of focus **only to reformat reruns** of yesterday’s Talkshop news. It took only 15 minutes to determine this, so it has been entertaining to see how this news cycle is being stretched …and stretched …and stretched.

      Clearly a train wreck was wanted for the attention it attracts.

      I’m in a position to sensibly judge the pattern recognition work because I have the hybrid background needed to independently do the calculations and interpretations. But this is yesterday’s news. It was discussed yesterday. (The discussions happened casually at the Talkshop over recent years.) It’s not interesting discussing yesterday’s news today. That’s why there was deafening silence for days when the “special edition” first broke at the Talkshop (before Christmas). And it still won’t be interesting if someone again proposes discussion of yesterday’s news tomorrow. Like always, people are looking for **new** stuff.

      Unduly formal, over-bureaucratized systems move so slow that they develop negative velocity and take us backwards. A free seat on this misdirected train? No thanks…

      Conflicting Climate Discussion Priorities

      A. Sensible Priorities: Superior strategy streamlines efficient exploration & discovery.

      B. Shady Priorities: Tabloid strategy engineers protracted, overdramatized, & even abusively thought-policed controversy.

      My strong visceral instinct is to boycott and resist the darkness of tabloid formality. In the context of fundamentally corrupted solar-climate “science”, careful diagnostics & sober reflection harden my natural instinct to choose freedom & enlightenment over the limiting darkness of both collegially green-lighted & authoritatively-prescribed ignorance & deception.

      1+1=2 and black ≠ white no matter how framed. There’s need to neither submissively publish nor be baited into the darkness of malevolently engineered controversy.

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 2:32 pm |

      Paul –

      One of the amusing aspects of that thread is RC Saumarez complaining about intemperate abuse and patronizing comments.

      Same ol’ same ol’ in the climate ward.

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 2:55 pm |

      Joshua, I’m leaning back towards academia. There are problems there, but the problems do not appear to be anywhere near as fatal as the problems in the online climate discussion. At least there’s civility in academia, even if fairness isn’t always feasible. Regards

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 1, 2014 at 3:06 pm |

      What a train wreck that was — WUWT versus Talkshop. You get skeptics battling one another over what amounts to table scraps.

      I call them table scraps because because certainly second-order solar, lunar, and planetary effects have some cyclical influence on the climate. The first-order effects give us night-and-day and the seasons after all !

      What has them in a pickle is that these second-order effects are just that. They aren’t going to make a dent in the face of a secularly rising CO2 GHG forcing function. I know this because I put all these effects in the CSALT model and they are indeed there but they come up short.
      http://contextearth.com/context_salt_model/

      Skeptics should rejoice that I am testing out their theories.

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 3:22 pm |

      Paul –

      Joshua, I’m leaning back towards academia. There are problems there, but the problems do not appear to be anywhere near as fatal as the problems in the online climate discussion. At least there’s civility in academia, even if fairness isn’t always feasible.

      Having seen academia form the inside, and having worked with students who don’t match the academic “norm,” I have don’t have many illusions about it’s merits or demerits. For example, one of my favorite texts to use with students was Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind

      But all of that said, I do appreciate that there is at least some general sense in academia that validating a thesis requires a grounding in the context of antecedents and in addressing counterarguments in good faith. I find that such an approach is rare in Internet-based science. Even if it sometimes the requirement of “objectivity” in academia takes on an flavor of lip service, I feel that the expectation of paying due diligence to objectivity has residual benefit. By no means do I think that less formal ways of exchanging views and interrogating analyses should be easily dismissed. The Internet has its place. The problem is that partisanship creates an either/or paradigm that pits the one against the other when what would be better is to view the potential for academia and less formal approaches to be complimentary to one another.

      That is the basic reason why I reject Jo Nova’s basic thesis – it seems to me rooted in a partisan agenda that creates a false either/or paradigm.

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 3:42 pm |

      Joshua, I sometimes find Joanne Nova’s very-often-politically-partisan approach unpalatable …but with the single exception I highlighted above, she came down with a resoundingly-fair gavel that razed left, right, & center. I’m not here to entertain the fallacy of argumentation from the general to to the specific. Thanks for taking a few minutes to be civil (what academia has that the online climate discussion almost always decisively lacks…) Regards

    • Joshua | February 1, 2014 at 3:48 pm |

      Paul –

      I’m not here to entertain the fallacy of argumentation from the general to to the specific.

      Fair enough. Cheers.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 5:37 pm |

      “I seriously urge you to think about changing your approach when dealing with other teammates who have different views.”
      _____
      The word “teammate” is extremely revealing. Honest skeptics have no team and have no dog in the fight. The most accurate map of reality is all that an honest skeptic wants– certainly not to be part of a “team”.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 1, 2014 at 6:29 pm |

      My “team” is anyone that contributes high-quality research to the body of scientific literature. If you contribute junk you’re wasting everyone’s time and you for sure ain’t on my team.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 6:44 pm |

      “My “team” is anyone that contributes high-quality research to the body of scientific literature. If you contribute junk you’re wasting everyone’s time and you for sure ain’t on my team.”
      _____
      From that perspective, then we are on the same “team” I suppose, but the judgement of whether something represents “high-quality” research seems a bit subjective, and perhaps we only know who else is on our “team” after many years have passed, even decades. The web has certainly aided in the proliferation of junk, so the problem gets even worse. I guess the bottom line is: I am always skeptical even about who my other “teammates” really are. Probably the same reason I am “radically Independent” in my politics.

    • Paul Vaughan | February 1, 2014 at 11:17 pm |

      Train Wreck = f(Team)

  28. Danley Wolfe | February 1, 2014 at 12:29 pm |

    In the UK Parliament review recently Nic Lewis criticized the current approaches of climate change research in several respects, among others:
    1) inadequate use of Bayesian methods
    2) use of deterministic models, which have extensive parameterization vs. empirical measurements

    Deterministic means models specified and assumed to be complete and true descriptions of nature.

    One of the problems in studying the climate is that, as with economics, there is little opportunity for conducting controlled experiments. If we could examine responses over wide variations of key climate forcings in controlled experiments we might gain deeper insights.

    If only it were possible. The RCA domed stadium in Indianapolis (football) was demolished in 2008. The Minnesota Vikings domed stadium, a.k.a. the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, is schedule for demolition in 2014.

    Varying GHGs with other factors in the environment, e.g., clouds, aerosols and particulates, especially interaction effects. Measuring temperature in this case is not meaningful due to would scale effects. But you could learn about energy wave absorption / transmission … which now is embodied by theoretical constructs but not empirical measurement.

    This is not easy and has costs requiring high level research support. Also, what is the cost of “not demolishing” this thing … I imagine the Indianapolis dome is going to be replaced by a shopping mall or some such ?

  29. Schrodinger's Cat | February 1, 2014 at 12:55 pm |

    If, for sake of argument, there is no missing heat hiding in the deep oceans and the global temperature remains reasonably stable, then at some stage it will be obvious that the models are wrong.

    Either some aspect of GHG theory will be wrong or assumptions about the energy budget or perhaps there are more negative feedbacks than we assumed, etc.

    I would be interested to see a debate about where it might have gone wrong, whether it be poor assumptions, or whatever. I’m sure the modellers are asking themselves the same question.

  30. lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 1:18 pm |

    Climate change: Rainforest absorption of CO2 becoming erratic

    Tropical rainforests are becoming less able to cope with rising global temperatures according to a study that has looked back over the way they have responded to variations in temperature in the past half a century.

    For each 1C rise in temperature, tropical regions now release about 2 billion extra tonnes of carbon-containing gases – such as carbon dioxide and methane – into the atmosphere, compared to the same amount of tropical warming in the 1960s and 1970s, the study found.

    Rising levels of man-made carbon dioxide could stimulate the growth of tropical vegetation by providing them with extra “carbon fertiliser” but scientists believe this beneficial effect is probably being outweighed by the detrimental impact on forest growth caused by the extra heat and drought resulting from higher CO2 concentrations.

    “What we are seeing is that the tropical forests in particular are becoming more vulnerable to warming and we expect this to continue because we expect to see more warming in the future,” said Professor Peter Cox of Exeter University, a co-author of the study published in the journal Nature.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-rainforest-absorption-of-co2-becoming-erratic-9086304.html

    • David Springer | February 1, 2014 at 3:28 pm |

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/

      The Global Garden Gets Greener

      Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

      Numerous small-scale studies over the past twenty years suggested that patches of the garden were getting greener, but that trying to paint a global picture would be a monumental project. A team of eight scientists from across the country worked for almost a year and half to pull together satellite data on vegetation and ground- and satellite-based climate observations. Their results show us not only how vegetation productivity has changed during two of the warmest decades in the record books, but they also reveal which of the many factors that influence plant productivity have been most important in those changes.

      More at link

  31. Betula | February 1, 2014 at 2:00 pm |

    Just wondering….why don’t we ever hear about NASA GISS being a unit of The Earth institute at Columbia University?
    James Hansen was the Director of The GISS and is now an adjunct Professor at the Earth Institute…
    The “mission” of the E.I., according to it’s web site, is the achievement of the MDG’S…
    Jeffrey Sachs, the Director of the Earth Institute, is an advisor to the U.N Secretary on the MDG’S…and started the Millennium Village Project.
    Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of The IPCC is on the Board of Advisors for The E.I…
    The IPCC was created by two U.N. Organizations..
    George Soros is on the Board of Advisors for the E.I…
    It is estimated that more than 100 Billion a year is needed to achieve the MDG’S…
    The money to achieve the MDG’S needs to come from Developed nations…
    All these players are calling for a CO2 tax…

    Is there not a big picture here?

  32. Barry Woods | February 1, 2014 at 2:27 pm |

    Is Michael Mann turning into the new James Hansen, his public policy advocacy damaging science?
    and so much for a reluctant public figure.. (#Keystone pipeline)

    “If the president won’t protect us, who is he protecting? – Michael Mann, Guardian 31 Jan 2014

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/keystone-xl-pipeline-obama-state-department-impact

  33. Speed | February 1, 2014 at 2:41 pm |

    Walter Olson at Overlawyered has links to commentary on the Michael Mann vs. National Review and Michael Mann vs. Mark Steyn battle.

    http://overlawyered.com/2014/02/michael-mann-vs-national-review-contd/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=michael-mann-vs-national-review-contd

  34. David Springer | February 1, 2014 at 3:12 pm |

    CO2 lags temperature

    This is a given in ice core analysis. The latest work (2013) attempts to push it back from a 1,400 year lag to 200 years.

    In the article below the “mystery” is why do ice cores show CO2 rise lagging temperature rise. To even call it a mystery reeks of the dogmatic belief that CO2 is the knob that controls temperature not the other way around.

    Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

  35. David Springer | February 1, 2014 at 3:23 pm |

    Barry Woods | February 1, 2014 at 2:27 pm | Reply

    “If the president won’t protect us, who is he protecting? – Michael Mann, Guardian 31 Jan 2014

    If he isn’t protecting ‘us’ then he’s obviously protecting ‘them’.

    Can someone tweet that to Michael for me?

  36. Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 3:25 pm |

    Well this is all very tedious – perhaps for something a little different. I came across this yesterday and added it to thread there – but this is almost real time wind modeling and this change every three hours with an update.

    Just to set this up – http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/17/5219130/earth-wind-map-shows-our-planets-weather

    These are a lot of fun – almost real time weather modeling.

    There are two stratospheric vortices at fairly high northern latitudes.

    http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/01/30/0000Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-108.16,-282.95,356

    These somehow translate – in ways I don’t quite understand – into a few cyclones at the surface – one near Iceland and one over Siberia and a coupe over the ocean to the west of the US. .

    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-90.37,91.16,332

    And what seems a weakening anti-cyclone over Greenland that seems to be causing all the problems with cold in the US currently.

    Let me Google that for you – http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cyclones+and+anticyclones

    • David Springer | February 1, 2014 at 3:38 pm |

      That global wind map is bloody awesome!

      Thank you!

    • David Springer | February 1, 2014 at 3:46 pm |

      It’s the weakening of that polar cyclone which is causing the US to freeze all the way down to Mexico. Instead of being wrapped up nice and tight far to the north like a few others you can in the NH this one has herniated, big time, due to weakness, which allows Arctic air to spill out all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. It’s not really unusual for that to happen and in the past it became embodied in the trite local expression “There’s nothing between Austin and the North Pole but barbed wire.”

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 4:33 pm |

      It seems necessary to distinguish between cyclones and anti-cyclones and convergent and divergent winds in the systems. The anti-cyclone over Greenland has weakened since yesterday and this results in less cold air penetrating to North America. At least that is how I read it.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 5:35 pm |

      It is very cool though – zoom into North America and you can see that cold wind are being constrained to the north and plains region. East and west you can see warmer winds meeting cooler winds which I understand is a precursor for tornadoes.

    • David Springer | February 1, 2014 at 5:59 pm |

      Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 5:35 pm |

      “It is very cool though – zoom into North America and you can see that cold wind are being constrained to the north and plains region. East and west you can see warmer winds meeting cooler winds which I understand is a precursor for tornadoes.”

      Tornado season is late spring to early fall. Gulf of Mexico needs to get heated up by summer sun then hot moist Gulf air meets cold dry air from the Arctic somewhere over tornado alley then ka-boom. There’s nothing between the Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico but barbed wire. No mountains to climb over for the Gulf Air to condense the water out of them. Moist air can arrive from the Pacific through a southwest corridor over the Baja penninsula but otherwise the Rockies drys out air masses entering through California. The real fun is when a hurricane threads needle between Cuba and South America to spin up in the Gulf then slam the Gulf coast somewhere. I’m about 150 miles inland so everything is pretty much down to tropical depression strength or less that far inland. We coulda used one or three. There’s usually a persistent high in the central US created by the jet stream that pushes hurricanes hard to the east so penetrating far into Texas doesn’t happen much. ENSO changes the polar jet stream over the US pushing it farther north or south. La Nina pulls it south and with it cold dry air over the top of me. El Nino it goes north which lets warm moist air from Pacific and Gulf of Mexico bathe us in humid rainy goodness.

      That’s a really fascinating map. Thanks again.

    • David Springer | February 1, 2014 at 6:11 pm |

      Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 4:33 pm |

      “It seems necessary to distinguish between cyclones and anti-cyclones and convergent and divergent winds in the systems. The anti-cyclone over Greenland has weakened since yesterday and this results in less cold air penetrating to North America. At least that is how I read it.”

      I read accounts that have it both ways. Typical. I get the feeling sometimes the people explaining the weather are clueless. The rupture from a weak vortex seemed to make more sense to me especially since it follows from my hypothesis that lessened temperature gradient from tropics to Arctic should weaken horizontal winds aloft. Two explanations for it wickedpedia too. My boys at NASA like the polar vortex weakening caused by sudden stratospheric warming. CaptDallas probably likes that one too. Meanwhile the Met Office thinks it’s a weakened jet stream.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_North_American_cold_wave

      Sudden stratospheric warming[edit]

      The breakdown of the polar vortex and subsequent southward movement of tropospheric Arctic air was caused by sudden stratospheric warming (SSW),[12] a phenomenon discovered in 1952. NASA states, “A major midwinter SSW event occurs when polar stratospheric temperatures increase by at least 25 in one week, and the zonal-mean zonal wind at or near 10 (at about 30 km altitude) reverses direction and becomes easterly north of 60° N.”[13]

      Jet stream[edit]

      An initial contrast formed between cold air in Canada and mild winter temperatures in the United States.[7] The Met Office said the pressure difference caused significant winds where the air masses met, strengthening the jet stream, which went off-course and brought the cold air south. Winds led to bitter wind chills, worsening the impact of the record cold temperatures.[7] New Scientist magazine reported the weak jet stream as being the cause rather than a polar vortex, as there is an altitude difference.[14]

    • David Springer | February 1, 2014 at 6:14 pm |

      Hah. There’s two jet stream hypothesis. One a stronger jet stream and the other a weakened one. I didn’t read that wickedpedia paragraph on jet stream close enough. The Met Office says strong jet stream. New Scientist says weak jet stream.

      The bandwagon boys need to get their act together.

    • David Springer | February 1, 2014 at 6:22 pm |

      Last night’s low temperature here was 55F. I left most of the windows and screen doors open. I’m barefoot in shorts outside today. Two days ago the low temperature was 20F, the high the next day 35F, and there was snow on the ground that stayed (in the shadows) for 48 hours. I’ve seen the seasons change twice in the last week.

    • maksimovich | February 1, 2014 at 6:32 pm |

      It’s the weakening of that polar cyclone which is causing the US to freeze all the way down to Mexico

      The sign change in the Arctic oscillation from +ve to -ve was in the observations.

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif

      The theory for weather behavior under the AO regimes is reasonably well documented.

      https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2011/arctic_oscillation.jpg

      In the SH the simultaneous inversion in the SAM is a constraint on arctic sea ice melt etc.The northward excursion of the ST jet bringing significant cold excursions to the southern parts of NZ.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 7:04 pm |

      “My boys at NASA like the polar vortex weakening caused by sudden stratospheric warming. CaptDallas probably likes that one too.”
      _____
      SSW events can indeed disrupt, weaken, distort, and generally create a very dislocated Polar Vortex. The vortex certainly has been disrupted once more this winter by a very mild SSW event earlier in January. Planetary wave activity since that period has been quite unusually disrupted to say the least:

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_NH_2014.gif

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE3_MEAN_ALL_NH_2014.gif

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | February 1, 2014 at 7:13 pm |

      R. Gates, SSW events can indeed disrupt, weaken, distort, and generally create a very dislocated Polar Vortex. The vortex certainly has been disrupted once more this winter by a very mild SSW event earlier in January.”

      I was a bit surprised that it didn’t split the vortex. Pretty fascinating to watch in any case.

    • ceresco kid | February 1, 2014 at 7:30 pm |

      Springer

      Quit braggin. I havent seen bare ground in 6 weeks.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 9:23 pm |

      The polar vortex is shown – at the 10hPa (about 30km) level. Well into the stratosphere. The polar vortex extends from the tropopause through the stratosphere to the mesosphere. The front of this vortex is the jet stream. There does indeed seem to be two vortices at the moment.
      http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/01/30/0000Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-108.16,-282.95,356

      Currently there are 2 polar vortices in high northern latitudes.

      Cyclones and anti-cyclones occur at surface level. Cyclones are low pressure system with convergence of air at the bottom, air moving up the column and diverging at the top. They spin anti-clockwise. Anti-cyclones are the opposite – with storms and cold air diverging at the surface.

      These – again – are the surface winds.

      http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-90.37,91.16,332

      The connections between these upper level patterns and lower level winds – and indeed SSW – were discussed at WUWT just yesterday.

      The AO (or Northern Annular Mode – NAM) is based on SLP pressure in polar and sub-polar regions and generally defines the tendencies or not for storms to spin off the polar front into lower latitudes. There is an equivalent SH system – if you recall SAM the climate dog. Things seem much simpler in the SH.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 10:05 pm |

      “I was a bit surprised that it didn’t split the vortex. Pretty fascinating to watch in any case.”
      _____
      Indeed, as you know SSW events are among my most favorite things to study. The pulse of the planetary wave that began in late December and hit the vortex around the first of December didn’t have quite the intensity for an actual splitting. Additionally, a second wave squeezed the vortex from the other side of the planet, with the two of them squeezing and elongating the vortex quite severely, but no split. What I find most fascinating about these SSW events, is that even the mild one we had this winter, was a very large event, for just as air was falling and increasing pressure over the Arctic, air was rising over the equator, as shown in this chart for the equatorial stratosphere:

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_EQ_2014.gif

      Note the large area of cooling and rising air over the equator. This air was rising in the stratosphere, just as air was descending over the Arctic:

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2014.gif

      Amazing that these two events were teleconnected across 9000km!

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 10:07 pm |

      Just to clarify…the first planetary wave hit the vortex right around the beginning of JANUARY 2014, not December. It began at lower latitudes in late December and moved north toward the vortex. 10hPa charts show this pulse quite clearly.

    • David Springer | February 2, 2014 at 7:30 am |

      There’s some terminology ambiguity going on. A polar vortex and a polar cyclone are the same thing according to wickedpedia.

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

      A polar vortex (also known as a polar cyclone, polar low, or a circumpolar whirl[1]) is a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near either of a planet’s geographical poles. On Earth, the polar vortices are located in the middle and upper troposphere and the stratosphere.

      The polar vortex is a separate thing from the polar jet stream. The polar jet stream stays in the middle troposphere at 7-12 kilometers.

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

      The strongest jet streams are the polar jets, at around 7–12 km (23,000–39,000 ft) above sea level, and the higher and somewhat weaker subtropical jets at around 10–16 km (33,000–52,000 ft).

      Undoubtedly other sources with different definitions might be found. In my experience the most obvious thing that separates amateurs from professionals in any given scientific discipline is the experts all use the same definitions for terms like polar cycline and polar vortex while the amateurs do not. Typically in my experience these terms are called buzz-words. Others call them jargon. Professionals in the same disciplines use the same jargon and all agree upon it. Non-professionals who may have excellent understanding of the principles often don’t know the proper buzzwords to use when communicating. This leads the pro into believing the amateur doesn’t know what he is talking about which is a non-sequitur. Not understanding something is not the same as not knowing the jargon experts in the field use to identify it.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 2, 2014 at 11:39 am |

      ‘The stratospheric polar vortex is a large-scale region of air that is contained by a strong west-to-east jet stream that circles the polar region. This jet stream is usually referred to as the polar night jet. The polar vortex extends from the tropopause (the dividing line between the stratosphere and troposphere) through the stratosphere and into the mesosphere (above 50 km). Low values of ozone and cold temperatures are associated with the air inside the vortex.’

      http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/vortex_NH.html

      ‘Cyclones, or low-pressure systems, are circular weather patterns that rotate in a counter clockwise direction. In a cyclone, air moves upwards in the center of the pattern, bringing stormy wet weather. In the Arctic, cyclones occur year round, but they tend to happen more in certain places depending on the time of year. Semipermanent lows in the Arctic include the Aleutian Low, a low-pressure center that experiences many cyclones and storms in the winter, and the Icelandic Low, a low-pressure center located near Iceland.

      Anticyclones are the opposite of cyclones, high-pressure systems that rotate in a clockwise direction. An anticyclone known as the Beaufort High recurs year after year, sitting over the Beaufort Sea and Canadian Archipelago in winter and spring. An anticyclone also frequently appears over Siberia, known as the Siberian High.’

      http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/weather_climate_patterns.html#cyclones_anticyclones

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | February 2, 2014 at 11:54 am |

      His High Skippiness, ” Low values of ozone and cold temperatures are associated with the air inside the vortex.’”

      Interestingly, Ozone is transported poleward from the tropics and a stable Polar Stratospheric Vortex would reduce the amount of ozone transferred to the maximum polar extent. Some estimates have the “forcing” impact of the transported Ozone in the ballpark of 50C degrees (only about 6Wm-2 worth of “global”impact due to the lower energy per degree C), something overlooked by many GCM. So polar, or more accurately circumpolar vortex stability, can have a significant impact on “global” forcing or response depending on who is in charge that week.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Circular_Standing_Wave.gif

      I am surprised Webster isn’t more interested in the polar stability more given his adoption of dLOD and orbital influences.

  37. vukcevic | February 1, 2014 at 3:26 pm |

    Steinhilber et al (really should be ‘and everybody else’, no less than 13 co-authors) latest paper (2012) contains two graphs of the long term power spectra of Total Solar Irradiance TSI, and the climate data periodicities.
    I compared these to the spectrum of the GeoPolar magnetic field
    Results points out at number of spectral coincidences:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Stein-Vuk.htm
    Since I will not consider possibility that this illustrious group of well known scientists got their TSI spectrum wrong, other suppositions have to be considered, as for example this one
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-NHT.htm
    I will write a bit more (hopefully) soon.

  38. mosomoso | February 1, 2014 at 3:53 pm |

    You’d think an oil spill on an Australian tropical estuary would be quite newsworthy. The Guardian, ABC, Fairfax etc would be all over it, no? You would think that, wouldn’t you?

    But it seems like the media luvvies aren’t such fusspots after all.
    http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/sea-shepherd-on-trial-over-spill-in-coastal-waters-off-cairns/story-fnjpusyw-1226811832390

  39. Faustino aka Genghis Cunn | February 1, 2014 at 4:10 pm |

    But, moso, that’s “good” “Green” oil that was spilt, you can’t confuse it it with bad, capitalist oil!

  40. vukcevic | February 1, 2014 at 4:25 pm |

    This is for Tony B’s attention
    The CET winter looks like going to end above its 20 year average after all.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-dMm.htm
    This is the most agreeable of developments.

  41. A fan of *MORE* discourse | February 1, 2014 at 4:47 pm |

    BREAKING NEWS
    The future of the Mann-versus-Steyn/NR/CEI case has already been played-out in New Zealand courts:

    An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

    — An epic saga of secretly funded climate denial and harassment of scientists —

    If you’re not a scientist and are genuinely trying to work out who to believe when it comes to climate change, then it’s a story you need to hear, too. Because while the New Zealand fight over climate data appears to finally be over, it’s part of a much larger, ongoing war against evidence-based science.

    This has been an insidious saga. The [denialist] trust aggressively attacked the scientists instead of engaging with them to understand the technical issues, they ignored evidence that didn’t suit their case, and they regularly misrepresented [scientist] statements by taking them out of context.

    End Result A New Zealand denialist front-organization declared insolvency rather than pay a court-judgment.

    Hmmmm … looks like New Zealand’s experience of abusive, personalized, denialism may be repeating itself in the United States. Juries will decide. GOOD!

    Conclusion  Free speech is good and robust criticism of science is fine. The too-common demagogic practice of maliciously defamatory personal abuse is not-so-fine. NR and CEI should long ago have apologized, both to their readers and to Michael Mann, for (at a minimum!) the appearance of indulging in the latter practice, with consequent grievous harm to the cause of conservatism and reasoned public discourse.

    \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}

    • Chuck L | February 1, 2014 at 6:01 pm |

      Oh please, Mann constantly tweets and writes op-ed pieces where he makes unprovoked personal attacks and accusations against those who question his work while playing the “poor me, I’m a martyr” card. And it is by no means a certainty that he will win his lawsuits. I can’t wait to hear him testify under oath and respond to hostile expert witnesses, whomever they may be.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse | February 1, 2014 at 6:20 pm |

      Few thoughtful folks (if any) regard Mann’s climate-science as particularly strong or central … it’s just one stave in a big barrel of climate-knowledge.

      That’s why even fewer (if any at all) thoughtful folks regard the NR/CEI/Steyn/Stimborg personal attacks as having any relevance at all to the climate change debate.

      Three Conclusions  The worst offenses of NR/CEI/Steyn/Stimborg were to (1) waste their readers’ time with irrelevant personal attacks, and thereby to (2) harm the reputation of conservatism as a rational political philosophy in which ideology yields to facts, and most short-sightedly and harmfully of all, to (3) show zero willingness to publicly acknowledge and apologize for offenses (1) and (2).

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

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse | February 1, 2014 at 6:40 pm |

      More Breaking News

      Is National Review doomed?

      Today they [“paranoid cranks”] are the conservative movement’s most passionate supporters and foot soldiers. But they demand a steady diet of red meat, and National Review now exists in part to provide it.

      Hence the career and reckless writings of Mark Steyn, a man of considerable polemical talent who specializes in whipping right-wing readers into a froth of know-nothing indignation.

      That he [Steyn] decided to impugn a scientist’s research and reputation on the basis of little more than convictions rooted in the magazine’s ideological agenda isn’t surprising at all.

      Any form of rational conservatism would have long ago have apologized to their readers, to the public, and to Michael Mann … apologize specifically for malicious demagoguery that has proved to be harmful (obviously!) to the cause of conservatism as a whole.

      Conclusion  It’s time for NR/CEI/Steyn/Stimborg to face facts, acknowledge mistakes, and apologize to their readers, to the public, and to Michael Mann.

      \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}

  42. manacker | February 1, 2014 at 4:59 pm |

    Jim Cripwell

    Back to your first comment on this thread.

    You’ve gotten some statements of faith from Gates and Pekka, but nothing very specific.

    – Real-time empirical data confirming the CAGW meme are lacking, regardless of what both may suggest (there is just too much uncertainty regarding natural factors).

    – Subjective interpretations of dicey paleo climate proxy data from carefully selected periods of our planet’s geological past, using the “argument from ignorance” (“we can only explain this if we assume…”) are next to worthless.

    And speaking of “dicey paleo climate proxy data from carefully selected periods of our planet’s geological past”, neither Gates nor Pekka have tried explaining the Ordovician “snowball Earth” period, when atmospheric CO2 levels were several thousand ppmv.

    The “CO2 climate control knob” is a well-thought out theoretical exercise (as you write), but it has not been corroborated by empirical scientific data, so remains an uncorroborated hypothesis – no more.

    Max.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse | February 1, 2014 at 5:35 pm |

      Manacker proclaims his personal ignorance  “Neither Gates nor Pekka have tried explaining the Ordovician “snowball Earth” period, when atmospheric CO2 levels were several thousand ppmv.”

      Ordinary ignorance of science is remediable; willful ignorance not so much … the roots of willful ignorance being the all-too-common, all-too-human traits of Pride and Prejudice.

      A whole lot of folks are personally acquainted with this brand of cognition, eh Manacker?

      \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}

    • Jim Cripwell | February 1, 2014 at 7:57 pm |

      Max, I am still on my hunt to find a way to pin down some alarmists to agree that what you and I know to be obviously true, is, in fact, true. They are very slippery customers. I doubt that I will succeed, but I learn a lot from their efforts not to be pinned down.

    • kim | February 1, 2014 at 8:08 pm |

      Jim, it’s always the questions that aren’t answered.
      =============

    • lolwot | February 1, 2014 at 9:01 pm |

      CAGW is the threat that human activity will cause catastrophic warming and other knock on impacts on climate.

      The basis of CAGW is founded on greenhouse gas data alone.

      1: Earth has a greenhouse effect that renders it significantly warmer than it would be.

      2: CO2 is a significant component of that greenhouse effect.

      3: Human activity is sharply increasing CO2 level.

      The only way CAGW can be rejected is if further detailed analysis provides positive evidence that the human greenhouse effect perturbation will have no catastrophic impact. So far that hasn’t happened.

      Appeals to uncertainty don’t cut it. Every appeal to “it might have a smaller impact” is matched by the equal and opposite “it might have a bigger impact”. Net gain in disproving CAGW: zero.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 9:28 pm |

      As I keep saying – I am a climate catastrophist in the sense of Rene Thom. Although climate catastrophe is a 2 edged sword as well. The problem for space cadets however – – is that it is still not warming for a decade to 3 at least.

  43. X Anonymous | February 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm |

    There is very little point in estimating climate sensitivity from past changes on temperature and carbon dioxide, which is the real climate scientist way. According to real climate scientists, carbon dioxide changes are apparently a feedback initiated from orbital forcing:

    http://xanonymousblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/orbitalforcingversesthereal.jpg

    Is it me, or does anybody else just see a bunch of wiggles that may or may not mean anything. Do I need 3 -D glasses, a tab of LSD, Illuminati membership card, enrollment in an online course run by pseudo scientists, etc…?
    Thanks!

  44. jim2 | February 1, 2014 at 5:21 pm |

    It would be remiss not to point out the huge benefit of CO2. We emitted CO2 equivalent to 790,066,915,314 bushels of corn. That’s a lot of bushels! The 2013 corn production was 13.8 billion bushels. As you can see, this much CO2 is a huge benefit to the world!!

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 1, 2014 at 8:30 pm |

      The huge benefit of CO2 is to provide a rationalization mechanism to the denial.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

      ”
      The subject may use:
      – simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
      – minimisation: admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)
      – projection: admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility by blaming somebody or something else.
      ”

  45. leftturnandre | February 1, 2014 at 6:50 pm |

    For Jim Cripwell, Pekka and R.Gates et al

    I have been studying paleo-climate data, proxies and clues for over a century, especially the ransition from the last glacial maximum to the holocene

    My conclusion, it’s a mess, and I’m happy to demonstrate why.

    Andre

    • ceresco kid | February 1, 2014 at 7:37 pm |

      And I would be happy to have you demonstrate. Add a little kindling to the fire.

    • Jim Cripwell | February 1, 2014 at 7:41 pm |

      leftturnandre Please demonstrate.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 1, 2014 at 9:51 pm |

      “I have been studying paleo-climate data, proxies and clues for over a century, especially the ransition from the last glacial maximum to the holocene.”
      ___
      Either this is a very poorly worded sentence, or you are indeed quite old. You’ve been studying the data for over a Century? Or, you’ve been studying paleoclimate data from the past century?

      At any rate, show us what you’ve got, what data you’ve been studying, research etc. As an honest skeptic, I more than open to looking at data, proxy or otherwise.

  46. Beth Cooper | February 1, 2014 at 6:59 pm |

    lta, such an old and wise centurian ye be. )
    bts.

  47. brent | February 1, 2014 at 7:13 pm |

    Entrepreneurs Looking For ‘Windfall’ Cash In On Climate Change
    Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming
    http://www.npr.org/2014/01/28/267082833/entrepreneurs-looking-for-windfall-cash-in-on-climate-change

    Big Oil not only believes in global warming — they’ll profit from it

    One need only read Exxon’s website to know that the company that once funneled tens of millions of dollars to climate skeptics has had a change of heart: “ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent,” bold letters now declare, “to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing [greenhouse gas] emissions.”

    An internal, company-wide “shadow price” for carbon, $60 per metric ton, helps Exxon identify which of its divisions are the biggest polluters and most in need of improvement. Exxon has even quietly proposed that the United States levy a carbon tax — not necessarily out of love for the planet but because some form of greenhouse regulation seems inevitable, and Exxon would like to shield its shareholders from what it considers the worse fate of cap-and-trade.
    http://nypost.com/2014/02/01/big-oil-not-only-believes-in-global-warming-theyll-profit-from-it/

    • Bob Ludwick | February 2, 2014 at 8:37 am |

      @ brent

      It might be noted that EVERY action taken by Exxon has been in response to the political realities of Climate Change; they provide NO information as to the corporate opinion about the physics of climate change.

    • brent | February 2, 2014 at 9:33 am |

      @Bob Ludwick

      Bob, I’m an old petroleum downstreamer, a supply and refining guy who spent most of my time in the oil industry heavily involved in optimization modelling.
      I agree that the oil majors don’t believe in CAGW. The reason they support it has everything to do with financial self interest in my opinion, nothing to do with supposed validity of alarmism.
      On the thread below I linked a lot of articles indicating long term support for alarmism from the oil majors and other industrial titans such as GE and Walmart
      http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-378223

      BP along with Enron were the early strong advocates of Cap and Trade. Shell also appears to have been a long term supporter of the scam. XOM came around to the view to support a tax rather than a Cap and Trade scheme.
      John Hofmeister was head of Shell in North America until a few years ago when he retired.
      If you carefully parse what he says , he doesn’t actually say they believe in CAGW, he just says they aren’t going to argue the science any more, and they will defer to the supposed “climate scientist experts”
      Prior to his retirement, Hofmeister was on a 50 city charm tour spreading his preferred message. I’ve saved another of his speeches of about the same time period at City Club in Cleveland.
      This was behind paywall last time I looked.
      I get the same basic nuances from that as well
      Best Regards
      brent

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 9:49 am |

      That makes a lot of sense: Oil companies spending billions to access resources that would be impractical to access absent warming, because it’s profitable to spend those billions to pay lip service to a false theory that has already been disproven because of “the pause,” and even though we’re heading into decades with no warming, and in fact like cooling.

      Hmmmm..

      Skepticism or “skepticism?”

    • JCH | February 2, 2014 at 9:59 am |

      You’re forgetting the legal department. They cringe at the thought of the corporation being tied to a stance against global warming.

      Juries hate oil companies. See Alabama versus XOM.

    • Bob Ludwick | February 2, 2014 at 12:32 pm |

      @ Brent

      “I agree that the oil majors don’t believe in CAGW. The reason they support it has everything to do with financial self interest in my opinion, nothing to do with supposed validity of alarmism.”

      Oil companies didn’t learn how to locate pools of crude a couple of miles under the earth, often under a mile of water, in hostile locations, suck it out of said pools, haul it several thousand miles to their refineries, turn it into something marketable, put that marketable stuff in a tank under the gas station, pump it into my gas tank for around $2.85/gal, and make profit on the whole procedure by being stupid.

      Their scientific acumen informs them that CAGW is a scam being used to justify a naked grab for political power; their political acumen informs them that they had better pretend to believe in it wholeheartedly and get on board. Or else.

    • jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 12:39 pm |

      @Bob Ludwick | February 2, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
      + 10

  48. Jim Cripwell | February 1, 2014 at 7:50 pm |

    For R. Gates. I started off with the claim that it is a myth that meaningful scientific data can be obtained for the climate sensitivity of CO2 from paleo and modern global temperatures. Your claim that this is not so seems to depend on your definition of what a “most likely” value is. I understand numbers which are derived from calculations and measurements, but I do not understand numbers which are “most likely’.

    Would you explain to me what numbers which are “.most likely” are, and how they are obtained?

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 8:12 pm |

      You can take the last 60 years of temperature and CO2 and find that they are correlated tightly (about 0.9) corresponding to a gradient of 1 C per 100 ppm. Furthermore scientific ideas originating from a century ago can explain this correlation, and could have foreseen it. What else do you need?

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 9:58 pm |

      Utter nonsense jimmy d – http://ncwatch.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/23/co2_temp_graph.jpg

      The fit from 1945 to 1977 is as bad – and natural variability caused warming between 1978 and 1998.

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 10:08 pm |

      GS, this is how you do a correlation.
      http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~emamajek/images/co2.jpg

    • Matthew R Marler | February 1, 2014 at 10:37 pm |

      Jim Cripwell: I do not understand numbers which are “most likely’.

      Are you sure that you “do not understand” which numbers are most likely? I think that you have talked yourself into a knot. When you take your temperature with a sublingual thermometer and read off something like 98.2, do you enter a state of total bafflement about whether you are sick or not? Overheated or not? Do you regard all numbers in the range 90-100 equally likely?

    • Matthew R Marler | February 1, 2014 at 10:40 pm |

      Jim D: You can take the last 60 years of temperature and CO2 and find that they are correlated tightly (about 0.9) corresponding to a gradient of 1 C per 100 ppm.

      That does not agree with WebHubTelescope’s model, which produces a change of 2K per doubling of CO2 concentration. Do you think this estimate discredits his model?

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 10:54 pm |

      This correlation comes out to about 2.3 C per doubling. I wouldn’t quibble.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 11:03 pm |

      Given a background rate of warming of at most 0.07 degrees C/decade – for a 37% increase in CO2 since 1950. Warming for doubling is less than 1.17 degrees C given the saturation effect.

      I hate to do such simple linear analysis – it is all such nonsense in a coupled non-linear system and gives such a false sense of certainty.

    • Michael | February 1, 2014 at 11:05 pm |

      what saturation effect?

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | February 1, 2014 at 11:13 pm |

      GS, “I hate to do such simple linear analysis – it is all such nonsense in a coupled non-linear system and gives such a false sense of certainty.”

      Not really. Simple models are part of the process and the CO2 impact should be in the 0.8 to 1.2 range for the “surface” and the 1.2 to 1.5 range for the middle troposphere. There should also be an Arctic/land amplification of up to 4X that should be useful, all based on that simple CO2 forcing model. It only creates a false sense of certainty if you stop there.

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 11:16 pm |

      GS, well it is 27% and 0.1 degrees per decade since 1950, so you have to correct your numbers a bit, more like 2 C per doubling.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 11:17 pm |

      An increase from 300 to 310 ppm increases temperature more than an increase from 390 to 400. So the first 50% increase is more effective in raising temperature than the second 50%.

      e.g. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/radiativeff.htm

      This is fairly basic atmospheric physics.

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 11:26 pm |

      Exactly, GS, this is why we take logs.
      However 1 C per 100 ppm is an accurate approximation for 300-700 ppm, which is the valid range to consider for policy, and easy to calculate too.

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | February 1, 2014 at 11:27 pm |

      Michael, “what saturation effect?”

      Water vapor saturation near surface. At about 3000 meters you are past the saturation effect, but below that water tends to rule the roost. It is that nasty little cloud/aerosol issue that impact how much atmospheric window is actually available for the actual surface.

      Science of Doom has a good post on the subject,

      http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/02/02/kiehl-trenberth-and-the-atmospheric-window/

      That had been one of my pet peeves for awhile since missing 18Wm-2 is a bit much for “peer-reviewed” science.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 11:32 pm |

      I was counting a 110 ppm increase on a base of 290 or thereabout – so 37% increase.

      I think I am being generous with 0.07 degrees C/decade.

    • Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 11:45 pm |

      GS, that is not since 1950, which is what you said. The numbers I used have been since 1950. The warming and CO2 increase have both accelerated.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 2, 2014 at 12:03 am |

      100/300? – or 33% – you need to extrapolate a bit.

      There are many way to work and residual warming. I include the full cool and warm regime from 1944 to 1998 – and get 0.036 degrees C/decade. And there is no expectation that the 21st century will look anything like the 20th.

      Tung and Zhou get 0.07 to 0.08 – webby gets 0.08 – etc – without the saturation effect.

      But what part of simplistic nonsense didn’t you understand?

      .

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 2, 2014 at 12:11 am |

      Then again we could always just extrapolate 0.08 degrees C/decade – a linear increase in temp from an exponential increase in CO2 – for the next 50 years. However unlikely this looks. The energy outlook then will be a lot different.

    • Jim D | February 2, 2014 at 12:52 am |

      GS, take a look at the 0.9 correlation graph again. That is the easiest way to relate temperature to CO2 over the last half century. You are having trouble with the numbers implied by this graph, and that is expected because they are too high for comfort, and also agree with TCRs claimed by the IPCC in the region of 2 C per doubling.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 2, 2014 at 1:16 am |

      ‘Climate sensitivity is then defined mathematically as the derivative of an appropriate functional or other function of the systems state with respect to the bifurcation parameter.’ http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf

      Climate sensitivity needs to be radically rethought – so I am not arguing about whether it is low or high because both are irrelevant.

      It remains the fact – however – that the residual warming is at most 0.07 degrees C/decade and that warming is not happening for a decade to three more. This latter is the current state. –

      It is moreover by no means certain that the 20th pattern of natural warming – cooling – warming will repeat. It seems more likely that natural warming is at a 1000 year peak.

      But climate is wild – and prediction beyond the current state space currently occupied by the climate system is utterly impossible.

    • Jim D | February 2, 2014 at 1:24 am |

      GS, you insist on taking a century average warming rate, and not noticing that since 1970 it is more than double that. It is an upward curve if you check the gradient versus time. This tendency is more applicable to extending it to the future.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 2, 2014 at 1:26 am |

      ”
      Jim D | February 1, 2014 at 10:54 pm |

      This correlation comes out to about 2.3 C per doubling. I wouldn’t quibble.
      ”

      I get about 2.1C but my analysis goes back to 1880, whereas JD uses one that goes back to ~1960.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 2, 2014 at 1:47 am |

      I take the full warming/cooling regime from 1946 to 1998 – and get much less as I said – some 0.4 degrees C/decade for the period.

      Swanson excludes ENSO dragon-kings – outliers at climate tipping points – in 1976-78 and 1998-2001 to get a residual warming for the period 1979 to 1997. Some half of that at least was natural due to the warm phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.

      So some 0.5 degrees C/decade. As I say I am being generous with 0.7 degrees C/decade since the post 1945 takeoff in emissions.

      But as I say – using this to define a linear sensitivity is utter nonsense in a coupled non-linear system. What it suggests however – along with non warming for a decade to three – is a far lesser significance for greenhouse gas forcing especially over the next few decades. Time enough for practical, pragmatic and effective responses – if we can ever get past green neo-socialist groupthink intransigence.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 2, 2014 at 2:26 am |

      Lost a decimal point – 0.05 and 0.07 degree C/decade.

    • lemiere jacques | February 2, 2014 at 3:11 am |

      sorry jim D
      it is not the way to calculate a correlation.
      why is the temperature anomaly averaged on one year?
      http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~emamajek/images/co2.jpg
      it may be relevant for some reason, but you have to explain first.
      raw data is much better ant then the “correlation” is different.

  49. Thomas Hardy | February 1, 2014 at 8:01 pm |

    “As California sees the future impacts of climate change playing out in the form of epic drought on one side of the globe, across the map in the U.K. residents are seeing an opposite but related climate effect: Severe and unprecedented flooding.

    According to the world’s longest-running weather station, the Radcliffe Meteorological Station at Oxford University, more rain fell there in January than during any winter month since daily recording started in 1767. Total rainfall last month was around 5.8 inches, more than three times the average. ”
    —
    “The heat wave comes on the heels of Australia’s hottest year on record during which a slew of records were shattered, including the country’s hottest summer.

    During the most recent heat wave, dozens more records were set, including some by large margins. Narrabri, located about 320 miles northwest of Sydney, saw the thermometer hit an eye-popping 118F on January 3. That surpassed the previous record by 6.5F, which is the largest margin for an all-time high temperature record at an Australian weather station with 40 or more years of data. In Gunnedah Research Center, located 265 miles northwest of Sydney, temperatures rose to 114.6F. That topped the previous high by 5F. The station has records going back 76 years and is part of Australia’s long-term climate network. Overall, 34 locations across the country with 40 years or more of data had their hottest day on record.”

    • mosomoso | February 1, 2014 at 10:47 pm |

      The severe flooding in UK unprecedented? Even restricting oneself to winter months, there’s plenty of competition from past floods. Maybe they use “unprecedented” in a figurative sense. Yes, that must be it.

      Even allowing for the BoM’s creativity in recent times, it was hot in Oz last year. But for fans of Australian extremes and freaks, maybe 1939 was more than a little “unprecedented”. Our most lethal heatwave and the Black Friday Fires (one of the worst bushfires in world history) occurred in the middle of the LA NINA of 1938-39. (Just to prove it was the nina not the nino, the south east corner of the continent flooded shortly afterwards!) Lazy Nina obviously didn’t read the ENSO instructions for eastern Australia that year.

      But does anything trump 1950 for extreme, unprecedented etc in Oz climate? I know that an inland sea the size of England and Wales formed west of Sydney in 1955, but for sheer freakishness, my vote goes to 1950.

      I dunno. Climate’s very naughty, isn’t it? And the way it changes!

    • climatereason | February 2, 2014 at 3:39 am |

      Thomas Hardy

      I assume you are a Guardian reader? Continuous records have been kept At Radcliffe since 1815. A noted cold period. The records further back are sporadic. Radcliffe is one small measuring area. There are far wetter places in the UK which no doubt have not seen records broken. Unprecdented? You obviously don’t read the historic observations. Rainfall was truly prodigious in many past centuries in Britain most notably the 8th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 16th.
      tonyb

    • me | February 2, 2014 at 3:56 am |

      Yes, because they kept really accurate records in the 8th century didn’t they.

    • mosomoso | February 2, 2014 at 4:25 am |

      1607 would have been a doozie. In between the Great Severn Flood (winter!) and the Great Winter following, southern England actually had a hot dry summer. Plenty of priests and experts about to blame protestants or catholics or having a chick for a monarch. When I was kid and weather went haywire (it always does) we were told it was Sputnik, the A bomb, Russians or “them things they’re sending up”.

      How do you win with this climate thingy?

    • climatereason | February 2, 2014 at 4:49 am |

      me

      yes they did, as weather was the most important component of their lives. We have some good records from Saxon times, not the least the accounts of Alfred taking refuge from the Dames in the Somerset levels . They were known to be a vast lake which occasionally dried up enough to take a crop from.
      tonyb

    • Louise | February 2, 2014 at 7:04 am |

      Picturing king Alfred hiding from a bunch of pantomime dames made me smile. I wanted to shout out “He’s behind you.”

    • climatereason | February 2, 2014 at 7:09 am |

      Louse

      I was referring to the Dames who scolded him for burning the cakes :)

      tonyb

    • Chris Quayle | February 2, 2014 at 7:39 am |

      Doesn’t anyone ever bother to verify the figures ? According to this link:

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html#hightemp

      The highest measured temp in Oz was in 1889 at 128 Degrees F, or if you think the accuracy is suspect, (qualified at the bottom of the first table), of 50.7 Degrees C / 123 F in 1960…

    • jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 8:59 am |

      I really like the temperature mean marker on the anomaly scale. It would be good to have +/- 2 sigma markers there also. The map looks really good, BTW. Nice job.

  50. Steven Mosher | February 1, 2014 at 8:04 pm |

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | February 1, 2014 at 8:28 pm |

      When do we get to play with it?

    • Steven Mosher | February 1, 2014 at 9:36 pm |

      I will get a release date on tues.

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | February 1, 2014 at 10:51 pm |

      Cool, there are a couple of interesting things there that look like they push the standard error a touch.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 2, 2014 at 1:13 am |

      Exceptionally nice work!

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | February 2, 2014 at 2:24 am |

      Mosher, I’m impressed. I liked the psychedelic globe so much I watched it twice. I hope I’m not hypnotized.

    • climatereason | February 2, 2014 at 2:48 am |

      Mosh

      Nice work. It will be even better when we can put it into the context of the climate over the last 1000 years.

      Looking at your animation I tried to see the point where the globe turned red then didn’t cool again (yet) . I reckon that was around 1988 or so. Anyone else care to put a date on it?

      tonyb

    • climatereason | February 2, 2014 at 2:49 am |

      Mosh

      Sorry, my comment was more equivocal than I intended. Genuinely nice work

      tonyb

    • Brandon Shollenberger | February 2, 2014 at 4:21 am |

      Interesting. It’s weird to watch the oceans though. There are times with large swatches of warming (and cooling?) in oceans which aren’t reflected by any of the land near them. It’s hard to see how there’d be a degree or more warming in the ocean in a region than in the land of that region.

    • David Springer | February 2, 2014 at 7:38 am |

      95% confidence range for average surface tempature is a couple tenths of a degree in the 1800’s?

      Who do you expect to believe that?

    • David Springer | February 2, 2014 at 7:43 am |

      R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 2, 2014 at 1:13 am |

      “Exceptionally nice work!”

      Jackson Pollock did exceptionally nice work too. I’m not sure which of Pollock or the Berkeley Earth cartoon better represents reality though.

    • Chris Quayle | February 2, 2014 at 8:21 am |

      Brilliiant – a picture is worth a thousand words. It’s easy to see two distinct warming periods there.

      Best in full screen…

    • Bart R | February 2, 2014 at 10:31 am |

      Steven Mosher | February 1, 2014 at 8:04 pm |

      When will we see the volcano overlay?

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 2, 2014 at 11:19 am |

      Mosh,
      Brilliant stuff. I looked at the BEST interval around the Krakatoa eruption (1883) and this point spikes cooler than the GISS temperature record. This is the main point of departure from the two records. Also during WWII and the Korean War, I notice a fixed warming bias in BEST.

  51. jim2 | February 1, 2014 at 11:12 pm |

    So, it’s global warming (global heating?) that tanked Argentina?? I think it’s actually too large a dose of socialism what did it.
    From the article:
    …
    Even in normal years, the summer heat in Buenos Aires is overwhelming. Among a population of nearly 13 million packed into the long shore of the wide River Plate, the phrase most often heard from the lips of porteños is: “It’s the humidity that kills you.”

    For those who can’t afford to escape to the exclusive summer resort of Punta del Este, across the river in Uruguay, or make the longer trip to the golden beaches of Brazil, there is only one solution: air conditioning. But a combination of global warming and an abrupt economic collapse scuppered even that consolation for shopper Graciela Fernández last week. When the temperature insisted on staying at around 40C and humidity levels rose to a drenching 90%, Fernández rushed to buy an air-conditioning unit she had seen on sale a week before.

    “When I went to buy it, the price had gone up 25% since when I checked prices last week,” she complained outside the Alto Palermo shopping mall. “The same thing just happened to me at the pharmacy where I went to buy the medicine my husband takes: the price was up 20%.”
    …
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/argentina-peso-crisis-shakes-queen-cristina

  52. jim2 | February 1, 2014 at 11:19 pm |

    From the article:
    …
    I sat down with Bridgitte Anderson from Cambridge House Live last week to talk LNG catalysts, refineries, why the oil price in North America could soon experience a big drop, and why – to most peoples’ surprise – 2014 should be the best year in history for the ethanol industry.
    …
    But what EOG has shown in the last 6 to 9 months, it’s still early days but they have dramatically increased the amount of oil coming out of these wells with short wide fracks close to the well bore as opposed to long skinny fracks out in to the formation. So it’s a very simple technical change, but it has meant a step change in production for these companies, so the amount of oil and gas that they are able to get out is increasing and of course the cost base of that gas is lowering, so now you’re going to be able to get a lot more gas and oil out a lot cheaper, so we talk about the Shell revolution creating a whole new renaissance in North American Energy. Well, if this pans out we ain’t seen nothing yet.
    …
    This is how cold it was every year when I was growing up but for the last 30 years this is an abnormally cold winter and so it’s creating a lot of temporary excess demand that’s matching the permanent excess supply that we’re seeing continually coming out of both oil and gas in North America, so as soon as this cold weather stops Bridgitte, I just don’t see how commodity prices, particularly light oil and natural gas are going to have a pretty big drop because there has been a sustained increase in production that’s just being masked by this cold weather.
    …
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1985361-why-north-american-oil-prices-are-set-for-a-big-drop

  53. John | February 1, 2014 at 11:37 pm |

    It seems policy has changed from preventing global warming to preventing any detrimental change in climate. Basically the policy makers have taken the science out of the debate at this point. I’m not sure that is good for climate scientists or skeptics as both groups lose relevancy. We are debating something politically settled, it’s just a matter of the politicians now picking the winners and losers on the energy front. The real story behind global warming is going to be how a relatively few select humans influenced the human herd to advance their own self interests. Antropogenic is a fitting description of the process as we are part of nature.

    • Wagathon | February 2, 2014 at 12:08 am |

      A good working definition of societal insanity was pretty well defined in a recent comment by Prof. Lindzen: Trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem by taking actions that you know will hurt your economy.

  54. Wagathon | February 2, 2014 at 12:31 am |

    Like a ritual burning of money, global warming alarmism and the Left’s policies to fix the problem they claim confronts everyone on Earth are really a protest against Americanism and an act of embracing a purely negative act of nihilism rather than any science-based behavior that actually serves humanity.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | February 2, 2014 at 2:16 am |

      Waggy, I’m not lying when I say I can’t imagine anyone less American than eco-criminals who seek to profit from destroying the American way of life for future generations.
      If a petition can get Justin Bieber thrown out of the country, I want to start a petition to have eco-criminals thrown out.

    • David Springer | February 2, 2014 at 7:47 am |

      @wagathon

      +1

    • Chris Quayle | February 2, 2014 at 10:28 am |

      I thinkl of it as the lemming effect, but who is the piper leading the faithfull over the edge ?…

  55. Michael Davison | February 2, 2014 at 2:19 am |

    Here are two inconvenient truths:

    1) Large scale economic changes which MAY be needed to address human caused climate changes will NOT occur until the debate IS settled. No, I’m not referring to the debate that the earth is warming, we all know it is. And no, I’m not referring to the belief that industrial activity is a factor in that warming, we all know it is. The debate that is not settled (as shown next) is over just how much the human contribution is a factor, as compared to other possible causes, and whether any substantial and costly changes in how we produce energy would really make a significant difference. That debate is NOT settled, and using false information (as shown next) to claim that it is settled, far from being persuasive, only results in a loss of credibility by those arguing that drastic measures are needed now to avoid a crisis.

    2) Here’s the other, related, “inconvenient truth” – the unethical tactics used to misrepresent that 97% statistic, including numerous citations to published climate scientists who say that their papers were misrepresented in that survey.

    From link below:

    “…investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.”

    “…The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.”

    “…the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.”

    “…The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.”

    “…“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

    “…To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
    Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

    Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

    “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | February 2, 2014 at 2:56 am |

      Michael,only 6 complainers from 12,000 studies ain’t bad. Even if the complainers had as many 20 studies each, which seems unlikely, their papers would represent only 1% of the total.

      I’ve read other articles by Taylor. He sometimes gets carried away with his writing and forgets the difference between large and small.

    • Don Monfort | February 2, 2014 at 3:06 am |

      OK, Taylor gets carried away. Who cares. The Cook et al paper is 97% BS. Even a dumb okie should be able to see that. It’s an unscientific survey that is being misrepresented as something of significance. This is fact:

      “…the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.”

      It’s not science. It ain’t honest, And it is not working. The pause is killing the cause. End of story.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 2, 2014 at 4:08 am |

      ‘Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.

      The new paradigm of an abruptly changing climatic system has been well established by research over the last decade, but this new thinking is little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of natural and social scientists and policy-makers.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1

      Global warming is not quite the right idea in a coupled non-linear system. But then Cook et al had such a very low bar – greenhouse gases are climatically active – that even I would qualify as a space cadet.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 7:32 am |

      The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming.

      Dude must not read Climate Etc., WUWT, etc.

      Or polls that assess the opinions of “skeptics.”

      Why would an investigative journalist fail such basic due diligence as to actually research such a statement.

      Almost enough to make me think he’s a “skeptic” and not a skeptic.

    • David Springer | February 2, 2014 at 7:54 am |

      Joshua

      You are obviously not well enough informed.

      Let’s start with global temperature. It’s an average of the entire earth. Some of the earth has cooled since 1850 and some has warmed. Ostensibly warming areas outnumber cooling ergo global warming. All skeptics that I know of acknowledge some local anthropogenic warming called urban heat islands. UHI is thrown into the pot to construct global average temperate ergo it follows that all skeptics who acknowledge UHI acknowledge some degree of anthropogenic global warming. The question is a matter of degree not a matter of kind.

      Why don’t you just go away? No one here likes or admires you. You’re an object of scorn and derision. Are you some kind of masochist in addition to misogynist and perpetually divisive and angry? It must suck to be you even more than it sucks to be in your presence.

    • John Carpenter | February 2, 2014 at 7:57 am |

      Joshua, I’m not sure everyone even within the climate ward recognizes your distinction between “skeptics” and skeptics let alone Taylor. And you chide him for not doing due diligence? C’mon man! How about putting some numbers to your assertion…. Be a little scientific. What is the ratio of “skeptics” to skeptics? 1 ? Start there first.

    • John Carpenter | February 2, 2014 at 8:03 am |

      Huh, I used the symbols of greater than and less than and they didn’t show up in the comment. What I meant to say after ‘what is the ratio of “skeptics” to skeptics’ was ‘greater than 1 or less than 1’… Not “1”. Sorry for the confusion.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 8:13 am |

      Springer –

      Are you upset with me because I keep pointing out how you form. with complete uncertainty, obviously wrong conclusions?

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/30/atlantas-2-catastrophic-snowfall/#comment-446620

      Accountability, my brother. Accountability.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 8:27 am |

      John –

      Joshua, I’m not sure everyone even within the climate ward recognizes your distinction between “skeptics” and skeptics let alone Taylor. And you chide him for not doing due diligence? C’mon man! How about putting some numbers to your assertion…. Be a little scientific. What is the ratio of “skeptics” to skeptics?…

      I’m just a dude in the ward – not an investigative journalist. If I were claiming to be writing something more well-researched than a climate blog post, I would do more research.

      That said – here’s my guess. There are many “skeptics” just like there are many “realists.” And I admit, I am somewhat inconsistent in how I use the quotation marks.

      There are “skeptics” who are skeptical
      There are “skeptics” who are not skeptical
      There are “skeptics” who are realistic.
      There are “skeptics” who are not realistic.
      There are “realists” who are skeptical
      There are “realists” who are not skeptical
      There are “realists” who are realistic.
      There are “realists” who are not realistic.

      So I sometimes use “skeptics” to refer to faux skeptics, and I sometimes use it to refer to anyone who feels there is no reason to have any concern about the potential of ACO2 to affect our climate in ways that will cause significant disruption to our way of life.

      But when I see an “investigative journalist” who write an assumption as if it were somehow a proven fact, I point out that such an opinion deserves quotation marks.

      As for what % of “skeptics” do I think are faux skeptics….

      We know that larg %’s of the public formulate opinions on climate change w/o knowing much of anything in detail related to the science – so in that sense I would say that “skeptics” outnumber skeptics just as “realists” outnumber realists.

      Further – we know that everyone is affected by motivated reasoning – and my sense is that few people hold themselves accountable for controlling for that bias. So that means that quotation marks predominate.

      Finally, if I look at the arguments presented here, it is my opinion that relatively few are willing to account for their biases. You are one of the notably few commenters that, IMO, are willing to do that. Your stand out, notably, as being in a small minority in that regard.

      Does that answer your question, or do I need to be more specific?

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 8:50 am |

      John –

      …The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming.

      So what do the data say?

      http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Climate-Beliefs-November-2013.pdf

      Some 27% of the public thinks no warming is occurring, and some 14% don’t know.

      Some 33% believe that they don’t need any more information to inform their opinion on global warming.

      Of the “doubtful” and the “dismissives,” strong majorities (80% and 50%, respectively) think that if warming is occurring, it is occurring mostly due to natural environmental changes.

      So there is some ambiguity there – but I’d say that it is a safe bet that there are large numbers “skeptics” who think that either no warming is taking place, or that ACO2 is not causing any warming.

      I often read “skeptics” here at Climate Etc. and at places like WUWT who argue, with great certainty, that there is no detectable influence of ACO2 on our climate – not simply that the magnitude of the effect is uncertain.

      And then we have “skeptics” who argue about the basic physics of the GHE – that it either there is no such thing or that the effect could not be detectable (“trace gas”)…. Although Judith and others like to sweep them under the rug, they do exist.

      And then we have “skeptics” who argue that they don’t doubt the physics of the GHE or that adding ACO2 affects the climate in ways that are detectable (although uncertain in magnitude), but who then turn around and argue that although we’re putting more AOC2 into the climate “global warming has paused.”

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 9:09 am |

      John –

      Two more things. First, sorry about that obviously wrong “large majorities” description; 50’% is obviously not a large majority.

      Second – let’s take a look at the Springer situation were he expressed complete certainty about something where he was obviously wrong, and where he obviously didn’t even conduct research on which to base his opinion. Further, he insulted me and said I was just being “argumentative” by pointing out that he was wrong.

      So what do we call someone who is completely certain about opinions that he didn’t research, and where he was obviously wrong, and where he completely dismissed and insulted someone for disagreeing?

      “Skeptic” or skeptic?

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | February 2, 2014 at 9:20 am |

      Joshua, “with complete uncertainty, obviously wrong conclusions”

      Are you completely certain that Springer is completely uncertain? I certainly would like to know.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 9:34 am |

      No. Not sandwiched in between properly ordered comments. Brandon is right and you’re an argumentative dimwit.

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/29/the-big-question/#comment-445066

      No error bars included.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 9:38 am |

      “…with complete uncertainty…”

      Oops.

    • John Carpenter | February 2, 2014 at 9:59 am |

      “But when I see an “investigative journalist” who write an assumption as if it were somehow a proven fact, I point out that such an opinion deserves quotation marks.”

      Joshua, I think we get to the point of how one defines climate skeptic (equally so for realist) This is an elusive task and may well be impossible to achieve with any precision. But for argument sake let me make a simple definition of skeptic = someone who holds out a lower confidence level of certainty vs the realist consensus. Conversely, for argument sake, let me define realist = someone who holds a higher confidence level of certainty vs the skeptical threshold. I will not try to define the threshold, just assume the confidence level of the skeptic is less than the realist. I also stipulate the level of certainty can range from any number of areas within the climate ward such as; degree of warming, CS, attribution due to human influence, rate of sea level rise, extreme weather patterns… Etc. Would you find this simple definition of the two, the distinction of higher or lesser level of confidence, where skeptical would always be lower confidence than realist, a place to start? I have difficulty jumping on Taylor for the use of the term skeptic as he did when those in the climate ward have so many ways of looking at a term so poorly defined and interpreted so differently by so many.

      Thanks for the link to the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. I have to take a longer time reading it to respond to your other comments. I will be caught up with the Super Bowl, so don’t expect anything today.

      “So what do we call someone who is completely certain about opinions that he didn’t research, and where he was obviously wrong, and where he completely dismissed and insulted someone for disagreeing?”

      Well, I am not getting in the middle of something I have not followed and I am not looking to have anyone infer that what I am about to say is a direct reflection of Mr. Springer, but as you define the criteria… Stand alone information as you stipulate, I would call that person a moron/idiot/buffoon… Mr. Springer notwithstanding.

    • Don Monfort | February 2, 2014 at 11:03 am |

      You have really hit on something to distinguish yourself from the crowd of mere mortals here, joshie. It is really profound and a thing of beauty the way you put quotation marks around the word skeptic. It sends a thrill up lollie’s leg every time you do it. Can you please tell us more about your inspiration for that particularly smarmy affectation, joshie? Will you be writing a book?

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 11:14 am |

      OK – here we go. Looks like Lauri and I have some similar views:

      The author of the linked article says:

      The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming.

      and Lauri says:

      Lauri Heimonen | February 2, 2014 at 11:01 am | Reply

      I am personally convinced of the view expressed more and more often – in a way or an other – that any impact on global warming caused by human CO2 emissions to atmosphere can not be distinguished from zero;

      So does that mean that Lauri disagrees with “most?” Hard to say. Not enough evidence.

      But certainly Lauri’s opinion justifies a claim that “the question [weather humans cause any global warming] is meaningless” is dubious – and a claim that reflects “skepticism” as opposed to skepticism, and that in the very least should not be in an article written by an “investigative journalist,” and most particularly should not be in an article written by an “investigative journalist” who is criticizing the investigative work of other journalists.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 2:07 pm |

      John –

      I will not try to define the threshold, just assume the confidence level of the skeptic is less than the realist.

      Seems fine. Although, at some point defining the threshold is important. For example, I am not terribly confidence that extremely destructive outcomes will result from ACO2 – but I am highly confident that they are risk, and so then we should be discussing how policies should reflect that risk.

      I also stipulate the level of certainty can range from any number of areas within the climate ward such as; degree of warming, CS, attribution due to human influence, rate of sea level rise, extreme weather patterns… Etc. Would you find this simple definition of the two, the distinction of higher or lesser level of confidence, where skeptical would always be lower confidence than realist, a place to start?

      Yup.

      I have difficulty jumping on Taylor for the use of the term skeptic as he did when those in the climate ward have so many ways of looking at a term so poorly defined and interpreted so differently by so many.

      Hmmm. Yes, a big part of the problem is that people are throwing around classifications of one another without even bothering to define terminology. I particularly love the arguments made, with total confidence, as to whether Muller is a “skeptic” – when he seems to have made fairly contradictory statements. I fault Taylor for being nonchalant about how terms are defined, and making broad statements of classification w/o doing due diligence.

      The exuberance about labeling one another, in a careless and bias-confirming fashion, suggests to me that a primary feature of what is going on is that people are using the climate change debate as a proxy for group-identity defense or group-identity aggression.

      “So what do we call someone who is completely certain about opinions that he didn’t research, and where he was obviously wrong, and where he completely dismissed and insulted someone for disagreeing?”

      Well, I am not getting in the middle of something I have not followed and I am not looking to have anyone infer that what I am about to say is a direct reflection of Mr. Springer, but as you define the criteria… Stand alone information as you stipulate, I would call that person a moron/idiot/buffoon… Mr. Springer notwithstanding.

      Yes, Mr. Springer notwithstanding.

      Go Seattle!!! Started on the chile and chicken wings last night….

      Reason I’m rooting for Seattle, despite that it’s hard to root against someone as so far above the norm as Manning? John Elway is a rightwinger.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 2:08 pm |

      test

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm |

      John –

      Looks like something other than my IP got snagged in the filter. I can’t, for the life of me, figure out what in that comment could have thrown it into moderation. I’ll wait a while and see if it gets passed through. Otherwise I’ll try breaking it into chunks and sequentially re-posting to see if I can find the offending syntax.

    • Don Monfort | February 2, 2014 at 2:22 pm |

      The droning continues.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 2:35 pm |

      John –

      Btw, I should add Mr. Appell notwithstanding either. ;- )

    • John Carpenter | February 2, 2014 at 8:43 pm |

      Joshua, my 9:59 am comment went into moderation for awhile also. I think what flagged it was the use of the descriptive words I used to describe your question of what to call someone who is completely certain about opinions he did not research… Etc. potentially insulting words appear to be on a watch list.

      I am liking the flogging Denver is taking. I too dislike Elway, but not bc of his political slant. It’s tough being Browns fan.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 8:53 pm |

      I certainly didn’t expect that Seattle would dominate. Then again, the way to beat Manning has always been to get pressure – and he just hasn’t had any time.

      Of course, being a lefty, and as such always having marching order to root for the underdog, I switched allegiance after the 1rst quarter to the Broncos.

      Browns fan, huh? My sympathies. Even tougher than being an Eagles fan.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 9:09 pm |

      Wow.

      Game’s a snoozer – but I’m glad I stuck around long enough to see that Chrysler commercial.

      Really well done, but Dylan pimping an automobile, and exploiting the rhetoric of American exceptionalism to do it?

      If you’da told me 30 years ago that was going to happen, I would have said you’re nuts.

    • John Carpenter | February 2, 2014 at 11:29 pm |

      Joshua,

      It’s not the first car commercial Dylan has done. I think he did a Cadillac commercial a few years back. I’m not surprised by anything he does… Cause he doesn’t give care what anyone really thinks about him.

      Btw, another commercial featured ‘I Want You’… For chobani yogurt.

      The truth is the guy is too hard of a worker to be considered a sellout.

    • Don Monfort | February 2, 2014 at 11:45 pm |

      Joshie considers anyone a sellout, who is more successful and more respected than the typical pathetic anonymous underachieving nobody. Judith seems to be the one he resents and envies most.

  56. Peter Lang | February 2, 2014 at 3:17 am |

    The fear of radiation and of nuclear power is supported by the unjustifiably low radiation limits. If these were raised back to where they were pre-1991 (5 mSv/y) or better still to where they were pre-1957 (150 mSv/y), which seems to be justifiable based on the science, the arguments used to support the fear campaigns would be reduced.

    The effect of raising the radiation limits could be huge, if strongly argued and supported by world leaders. For example the flow-on effects could be like this:

    • The reason for most of the evacuations after accidents would be reduced;

    • Therefore, the cost of accidents would be reduced;

    • The insurance cost would be greatly reduced;

    • The cost of nuclear power would be greatly reduced;

    • Most importantly, the increase in the radiation limits could be a catalyst for a revolutionary change in public acceptance;

    • If this can be achieved, the rate of rollout would accelerate, costs would come down faster, the technologies would improve faster, more technologies would compete, more suppliers would compete, we’d get more designs more suited to more markets, and move faster to new technologies;

    • The environmental NGOs, could have a reason/excuse to come on board – only one of the major environmental NGOs is needed to get the ball rolling.

    All this could be achieved by a change in regulations to increase the Allowable radiation limit – a stroke of a pen. If the IAEA representatives of the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Russia, China, South Korea and Japan (west to east) could agree at the IAEA, the ball could start rolling (if the publicity and education programs are well prepared, presented and lead by the UN and world leaders. I believe this could be an enormous benefit for the world – perhaps as important as the inventions of the steam turbine, diesel engine, petrol engine and jet engine/gas turbine engine in 50 years: 1884, 1893, 1876, and 1936 respectively: http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/332186/4-men-who-caused-majority-global-warming

    An excellent brochure “Radiation: The Facts” has just been published http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf. Most will have seen it already. But for those who haven’t, it is well worth reading, keeping and forwarding. It explains what is important. Here’s an excerpt from the last two sections:

    RADIATION POLITICS

    Exposure limits that were set by LNT theory
    ignore observed low-level radiation effects.
    Public radiation safety limits have become
    more restrictive, from 150 mSv/y (1948) to
    5 mSv/y (1957) to 1 mSv/y (1991).

    These rules are political and inconsistent.
    Nuclear workers are allowed 50 mSv/y, and
    astronauts 500 mSv/y. EPA’s limit for indoor
    radon is 8 mSv/y, but 0.04 mSv/y for tritium in
    drinking water. EPA limits Yucca Mountain
    exposure to < 0.1 mSv/y for 10,000 years.

    The LNT fallacy that any radiation can kill you
    led to the ALARA principle (as low as
    reasonably achievable). But achievability is
    based on ever-changing technology capability,
    not health effects. LNT and ALARA ratchet
    limits lower and increase costs and fear.

    Radiation is safe within limits.

    An evidence-based radiation safety limit would
    be 100 mSv/y. Ending LNT and ALARA rules
    will enable the full environmental and
    economic benefits of green nuclear power.

    Ask your senators and representatives to
    require NRC and EPA to adopt new, scientific,
    evidence-based radiation safety limits.

    In our case, we need to tell our politicians, the journalists and the opinion leaders in the environmental NGOs.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | February 2, 2014 at 10:39 am |

      The public already fears nuclear power isn’t safe. Why does Peter Lang wants to make the public even more fearful by relaxing radiation safety limits?

  57. Jim Cripwell | February 2, 2014 at 7:59 am |

    My threads keep getting highjacked, and R. Gates seems to have disappeared. I quote
    @@@@@
    Matthew R Marler | February 1, 2014 at 10:37 pm |

    Jim Cripwell: I do not understand numbers which are “most likely’.

    Are you sure that you “do not understand” which numbers are most likely? I think that you have talked yourself into a knot.
    @@@@@

    I have not talked myself into a knot. If a number has been measured, then we know it’s value, and how accurately this value has been measured. When it comes to climate sensitivity, we can measure the CO2 concentration, and we can measure global temperature. In order to get climate sensitivity from these two numbers, we need to know how much of the change in temperature was caused by the change in CO2 concentration.

    To accomplish his we have to guess, and I use the word “guess” advisedly, we have to guess how much of the rise in temperature is caused by the change in CO2 concentration. To me, this means that we cannot use measurements of temperature and CO2 concentration to arrive at a value of climate sensitivity.

    R. Gates seems to claim otherwise. As I understand it, he claims that there is such a thing as a “most likely” value, which enables us to obtain a value for climate sensitivity. I do not understand what this “most likely” value is.

    Therefore, so far as I am concerned, it is a myth that we can obtain a valid value for climate sensitivity from observed values of global temperature and CO2 concentration.

    • Bob Ludwick | February 2, 2014 at 8:11 am |

      @ Jim

      “I do not understand what this “most likely” value is.”

      It is whatever Climate Science, speaking ex cathedra, says it is.

      If you are a climate scientist and question the ex cathedra pronouncements of Climate Science you will be excommunicated.

      For procedural details, ask Dr. Curry.

    • Jim Cripwell | February 2, 2014 at 9:20 am |

      Bob, you write “If you are a climate scientist and question the ex cathedra pronouncements of Climate Science you will be excommunicated”

      Thanks Bob. I was having breakfast, and I had a ” brilliant” idea as to what R. Gates means by “most likely” value. The warmists have invented a number of separate and independent ways of estimating climate sensitivity. None of these are based on sound physics, and the scientific method. All of these have fudge factors.

      So we arrange the fudge factors so all independent methods come up with approximately the same value for climate sensitivity. Then we cry “Eureka!! This is the most likely value”

      If I am right, the mind boggles. This isn’t science. It is con artists selling snake oil.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 2, 2014 at 9:26 am |

      “R. Gates seems to claim otherwise. As I understand it, he claims that there is such a thing as a “most likely” value, which enables us to obtain a value for climate sensitivity. I do not understand what this “most likely” value is.”
      ______
      Jim, again I wonder if you are feigning ignorance in order to make some obscure point. Everywhere in science, when a quantity or measurement has not been made directly (and even then, within the limits of the measuring technique) the value for something is always given as a range. The greater the uncertainty the greater the range. By using models, observations, and paleoclimate data a range has been established for ECS– or rather, several ranges, as it depends on which model you use, which observations, and your interpretation of the paleoclimate data. You can combine those ranges into an average of them. Perhaps you should read the last few IPCC reports, or any comprehensive study on ECS to grasp how and why ECS is stated as a range with a bell-shaped curve of probability within that range.

    • Jim Cripwell | February 2, 2014 at 10:36 am |

      R. Gates “Everywhere in science, when a quantity or measurement has not been made directly (and even then, within the limits of the measuring technique) the value for something is always given as a range.”

      Sorry, this is a load of garbage. According to the scientific method, if a quantity, such as climate sensitivity, has not been measured directly, we conclude that any idea of what the physics means, is merely a hypothesis. If there is no direct measurement of the vital quantity, then we can draw no conclusions about this hypothesis. All we have is a hypothesis, with no direct measurement to show that this hypothesis is valid.

      Sure we can speculate on the likely range of what the value might be, and hopefully use any models, etc, help us design the experiments where climate sensitivity can actually be measured. But unless and until it has been measured, CAGW is a hypothesis. If you wont agree to this, then we are never going to agree on anything to do with CAGW.

      Until climate sensitivity has actually been measured, we should not be allowed to come to any conclusions as to what is going to happen to future global temperatures.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 2, 2014 at 11:29 am |

      Jim C.,
      If you go stand in front of an oncoming train, tell me in advance exactly what will happen to your body (i.e. how far it will be thrown or splattered or smashed, dragged, broken, etc.)..I want to know, in advance, exactly what bones are going to be broken, which internal organs damaged and how.
      Now, theory would tell us pretty much that if you stand if front of an oncoming train, you’re going to get killed or certainly hurt very badly. There is a range of likely outcomes. Probably the most likely is that you’re going to die. Going out along the bell shaped curve from there and falling rapidly in probability is that your just going to be severely hurt, and on the extreme outside edge (not impossible, but very unlikely, is that you’ll be just thrown free from the train with minor injuries.

      The lesson here is that every future event is just theory until it happens, and each event is simply existing in a range of probability, but that fact does not prevent us from estimating the most likely outcomes for future events..ECS is no different, and trying to hold it up to a different standard would indicate more about your bias than about the science behind estimating the “most likely” range for ECS.

    • Jim Cripwell | February 2, 2014 at 11:44 am |

      R. Gates. More words, words, words.

      Want I wrote was
      @@@@@
      But unless and until it has been measured, CAGW is a hypothesis. If you wont agree to this, then we are never going to agree on anything to do with CAGW.
      @@@@@
      Do you agree that CAGW remains a hypothesis until climate sensitivity has been measured?

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | February 2, 2014 at 12:05 pm |

      Jim C said:
      “Do you agree that CAGW remains a hypothesis until climate sensitivity has been measured?”
      ____
      Of course. I think that should have been pretty clear from my post.

      Also, we should note that some hypotheses, should they actually materialize might not have anyone around to actually confirm them. Fortunately, all such “doomsday” hypotheses are rather unlikley.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 2, 2014 at 12:05 pm |

      Crip,
      I can set up an experiment where I can measure climate sensitivity via the CSALT model up to the year 1960. Then I use that climate sensitivity to project temperatures beyond that point.

      http://imageshack.com/a/img812/74/abh.gif

      It wouldn’t work so well unless the climate sensitivity that I measured up to 1960 did not propagate in the expected fashion. Got it?

      You can now get back to doing your needle-point.

    • Bob Ludwick | February 2, 2014 at 12:40 pm |

      @ Jim

      “If I am right, the mind boggles. ”

      You are right. Unconditional jump to the ‘Boggle_mind’ subroutine.

    • Jim Cripwell | February 2, 2014 at 1:23 pm |

      R. Gates, you write “Jim C said:
      “Do you agree that CAGW remains a hypothesis until climate sensitivity has been measured?”
      ____
      Of course. I think that should have been pretty clear from my post. ”

      Thank you very much indeed.

    • DocMartyn | February 2, 2014 at 4:12 pm |

      Web, I you look at the plot of LN(CO2) w.r.t. time one can roughly split it into two different rates, pre- and post 1960; the difference in the two slopes is about x3.8.
      So if you ‘Climate Sensitivity’ is true either side of 1960, then it follows that all lags from CO2 ‘forcing’ are less than or equal to 1. So, transient sensitivity = ‘equilibrium’ sensitivity.
      I had the same thing with the ‘graphology’ model.

  58. A fan of *MORE* discourse | February 2, 2014 at 9:52 am |

    More Breaking News

    Generalissimo Skippy claims [without reason or evidence]  “The problem for space cadets however is that it is still not warming for a decade to 3 at least.”

    Recent vigorous posts from Tamino and Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera (aka “HotWhopper”) have solidly debunked *THAT* assertion … ain’t that right, Skippy?

    Conclusion

      There ain’t many options left for rational climate-change skepticism. As for irrational skepticism, the usual suspects will likely continue to rely upon unsupported non-scientific claims (WUWT/Watts-style) and/or outright personal smears (in the style of NR/CEI/Steyn/Stimborg).

    Quibbling, gossiping, and complaining will remain popular with denialists too!

    \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}

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | February 2, 2014 at 10:05 am |

      AFMD , “Recent vigorous posts from Tamino and Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera (aka “HotWhopper”) have solidly debunked *THAT* assertion … ain’t that right, Skippy?”

      It hasn’t been solidly debunked or bunked. It is likely going to be one of the deciding measures. Since Tamino has a tendency to overstate, i.e. oversell his position, that will give the little or no warming for a few decades team an advantage. Most of the smarter skeptics with switch to abuse or over confidence in LNT statistics as a path to defrock the likes of Tamino, Mann and other fans of novel methods.

    • Jim D | February 2, 2014 at 10:16 am |

      Tamino has a point there. There is more than one way to look at trend lines. I doubt Judith will be drawing any attention to this alternative view, so thanks, Fan, for pointing it out. Discussion ensues, or not.

    • climatereason | February 2, 2014 at 10:40 am |

      Fan

      I am sure Sou is a very nice person but perhaps you can clarify why you so often reference her views on climate science?
      tonyb

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | February 2, 2014 at 10:59 am |

      Look closely at this,

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1976/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2014/trend

      The “pause” was related to Hadcrut3 in the UK press partially because of MET office statements and the Hadley Center “revising” the global “Surface” temperature during the time period where the “pause” was becoming inconvenient for the MET and HCRU. The “pause” is a political term.

      Tsonis et al. referred to “climate shifts” With 1976-1978 being an upshift and 1998-2000 being a shift to neutral possibly a downshift. “Climate Shift” is a scientific term based on Tsonis et al. plus a few other “peer-reviewed” papers.

      Tamino is “debunking” a “political” issue while Chief Skippiness is repeating a “scientific” finding, that there is likely to be little or no significant warming for decades following the 1998-2000 “Climate Shift”.

    • JCH | February 2, 2014 at 11:11 am |

      I agree with Capt D. Private pyle of stuff is not debunked by either of those articles.

      The 60-year cycle is made up of the negative phase of the PDO and the positive phase of the “AMO”. It’s the brontosaurus of climate cycles. Time will reveal this.

    • ceresco kid | February 2, 2014 at 11:49 am |

      tony b

      Upthread you provided some longer term perspective about climate just as you have done in other posts. I just wanted to pass on my appreciation for giving us information that fills in some gaps about what the climate might have been centuries ago. My instincts tell me that all this “unprecedented” weather may not be all that unprecedented after all. I enjoy learning about how things were further back than 1950. Thanks again.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 2, 2014 at 12:00 pm |

      If we didn’t have the Stadium Wave oscillating around zero, we would all be like a Wonderin’ Willis.

      Look at this. The CSALT model has a mode where it uses a time interval of the temperature record for training, and then projects to beyond that point using the model parameters. This uses data up to 1960 only:
      http://imageshack.com/a/img812/74/abh.gif

      Why does it work so well?

      Because the Cause of the Pause is explained by Thermodynamic Laws, that’s why.
      http://contextearth.com/2014/01/22/projection-training-intervals-for-csalt-model/

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 2, 2014 at 4:27 pm |

      Bravado and blog science – which I don’t read – notwithstanding – there is more than abundant evidence that natural variability added to warming in the 1976 to 1998 period and are causing the non-warming since.

      e.g. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

      Let me Google that for you – http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=Interdedcal+Pacific+Oscillation+surface+temperature

    • DocMartyn | February 2, 2014 at 4:31 pm |

      Closed Mind has a point for once, it is difficult to work out when a slope changes in noisy data.
      I had a more honest go than Tamatio

      http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/Howlongdoesthepauseneedtobetoachievesignificance_zps87256f2c.png

      I detrended the 1965-2001 and calculated the SD.

      I detrended the 2001-2014 and calculated the SD.

      I plotted the the whole 1965-2014, with the 1965-2001 trend removed. he CI are +/- 0.75 SD’s. The area above/below the CI is 22.3% of the distribution, so when the top CI of one slope crosses the bottom CI of the second, then the chances of them being part of the same population is (22.3)^2, or <5%.
      Starting in 2001, with the big spike 1998-2000 removed, you get a tight SD.
      I guesstimate, that of the monthly temperature variance doesn't change much, that we could be in a position to statistically state that the 1965-2001 and the 2001-22 temperature populations are different.
      So we need about 21 years to state with confidence, that the 1965-2001 slope has been arrested.
      This is of course based on the postulate that we have linear trends, which we know is garbage, but is OK for 'Climate Science'.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 2, 2014 at 11:40 pm |

      ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC AR4 WG1 s3.4.4.1

      It seems to be real enough.

  59. Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 10:26 am |

    I just want to thank my much beloved “skeptics” for recently defending the National Review against the unscientific and fallacious rhetoric of those dang progressives. What we need more of in this country are clear-eyed, and rationally-minded conservatives as so well-represented by the National Review, which publishes the non-tribalistic and deeply insightful analysis of folks like Mark Steyn.

    Oh

    Wait.

    –snip–

    The National Review, founded by conservative intellectual William Buckley in 1955, describes itself as America’s most influential conservative journal and, certainly for most of its life, it has been that. While it did defend for many years the segregationist leaders of the South, it has generally portrayed itself as the voice of responsible conservatism, and in fact did effectively marginalize anti-Semites, the conspiracist John Birch Society, and a variety of immigrant-bashing nativists.

    So what’s it doing promoting the myth of FEMA concentration camps?

    In a fascinating investigative article at ThinkProgress, writer Zack Beauchamp details what looks an awful lot like a scam run by a company called Reboot Marketing, founded by one Allen Baler. The story details how the company makes a fortune running such online marketing firms as Food4Patriots, Power4Patriots, SurvivalSeeds4Patriots, Water4Patriots and the Patriot Alliance.

    But a special point of interest for Hatewatch is the way Beauchamp describes marketing E-mails from the National Review promoting sponsoring advertiser Food4Patriots. They rant about the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s “Dirty Little Secret,” warn that it has snapped up “420 million survival meals” because it knows that is the best way to control the population, and suggest a terrible crisis is coming. The Review urges readers to buy Food4Patriots’ survival products to “make darn sure your family won’t go hungry or get herded into a FEMA camp.”
    Now, “FEMA camps” are not responsible conservatism. They are a myth, a fairy tale concocted by radical-right ideologues of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement. These people have been pushing the story for years that FEMA has built a series of concentration camps in which the government intends to intern all those American patriots who resist a coming confiscation of all citizen-held guns.

    To its credit, when Beauchamp alerted the Review to the apparently shady practices of Food4Patriots (read his article for the details), it promptly suspended future ads from the marketer. But it’s remarkable the journal would even touch the FEMA tale.

    –snip–

    Heh. “FEMA camps.”

    Too funny.

    • Generalissimo Skippy | February 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm |

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 4:54 pm |

      Doc –

      The Democrats were the party of segregation and the KKK was part of the Democrat Party.
      Just look up which party kept blocking the various Civil Rights Bills.

      Dude, seriously? You’re going to trot that lame argument out there – as if dramatic shifts of voters between parties didn’t occur?

      Are you truly ignorant of: Buckley’s famous transformation of views on segregation?

      And, of course, we do have this:

      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/national-review-columnist-compares-marriage-equality-racial-segregation

      and this:

      http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40196_National_Review_Fires_Another_White_Nationalist_Writer/comments/

      and this:

      http://www.thewire.com/business/2012/04/national-review-purging-its-racist-writers/51016/

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 4:57 pm |

      Sheece –

      Writing in 1957, Buckley insisted that whites in the South were “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, where they do not prevail numerically,” because the white race was “for the time being, the advanced race.”

      Shall I continue, Doc?

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 5:07 pm |

      Sheece X2

      –snip–

      A 1960 National Review editorial supported South Africa’s white minority rule (4/23/60): “The whites are entitled, we believe, to preeminence in South Africa.” In a 1961 National Review column about colonialism—which the magazine once called “that brilliantly conceived structure” (William F. Buckley, John Judis)–Buckley explained that “black Africans” left alone “tend to revert to savagery.” The same year, in a speech to the group Young Americans for Freedom, Buckley called citizens of the Congo “semi-savages” (National Review, 9/9/61).

      National Review editors condemned the 1963 bombing of a black Birmingham Church that killed four children, but because it “set back the cause of the white people there so dramatically,” the editors wondered “whether in fact the explosion was the act of a provocateur—of a Communist, or of a crazed Negro” (Chicago Reader, 8/26/05). Just months before the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed, Buckley warned in his syndicated column (2/18/65) that “chaos” and “mobocratic rule” might follow if “the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote.” In his 1969 column “On Negro Inferiority” (4/8/69), Buckley heralded as “massive” and “apparently authoritative” academic racist Arthur Jensen’s findings that blacks are less intelligent than whites and Asians.

      –snip–

    • DocMartyn | February 2, 2014 at 5:20 pm |

      Josh, here is little test for you. Show how the supporters of the racist Democrat Party, pre-JFK/LBJ, voted for the new racists of the Republican Party, who actually carried the votes that passed the civil rights acts; now do this with statistical analysis of voter rolls in the Southern States.

      You complete gimp.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 5:36 pm |

      Doc –

      You questioned this statement:

      While it did defend for many years the segregationist leaders of the South,

      It is verifiably true – and I provided you with verification.

      The argument about how “Democrats” supported segregation – with some kind of implication that somehow explains something about the association of racism with today’s political taxonomy, is a bankrupt argument. And you know it.

      I grew up with people who fought against segregation in the civil rights movement. That movement was dominated by people of the political persuasion that is now associated with “liberals” and with the Democratic Party. Absolutely dominated. To try to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

      To go from that to making assumptions of racism in members of today’s Republican Party is, obviously, a similarly bankrupt argument. That’s why I made no such argument.

      Try again.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 5:37 pm |

      Cap’n –

      Looks bipartisan to me.

      What does that have to do with the price of tea in China – or anything that I argued?

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 5:40 pm |

      Seriously –

      The kind of bogus arguments that the two of you have just made is exactly why, despite that sometimes the technical arguments you make seem to have merit, cannot be taken at face value because you then turn right around and make completely bankrupt arguments as you just did in this thread.

      Turn in you skeptic badges. Your “skeptic” badges will arrive in the mail shortly.

    • Joshua | February 2, 2014 at 5:44 pm |

      FEMA camps, dudes. FEMA camps.

      Keep your eye on the ball.

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | February 2, 2014 at 6:29 pm |

      Joshua, Bogus?

      Joshua, I thought you would find it interesting being as you are such a critical thinker.

      Since you find the “FEMA camps” so funny, perhaps you would like to know how that appears to have started. FEMA provides manufactured homes, the ones with wheels on them, for housing following disasters. Since mobile homes are not allowed in some areas due to codes, FEMA often sets up mobile home parks some distance from the disaster area for the poorest of the poor. The parks after Katrina and Wilma became affectionately known as concentration camps. They tended to have a lot more rules than the new residents were used to plus some complained that the trailers were worse than gas chambers.

      http://www.alternet.org/story/48004/dying_for_a_home%3A_toxic_trailers_are_making_katrina_refugees_ill

      The story got used a bit unscrupulously, but “FEMA camps” is a pretty accurate description of their temporary housing efforts.

  60. RichardLH | February 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm |

    Isn’t about time we addressed the lack of alignment between thermometer and satellite records and their continuing to diverge trends?

    We have data since 1979 and, so far, we still cannot make them come to an agreement.

  61. jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 10:49 pm |

    From the article:
    CIVIL NUCLEAR
    Japan researchers use cosmic rays to see nuclear fuel
    by Staff Writers
    Tokyo (AFP) Jan 23, 2014

    Japanese researchers said Thursday they had succeeded in using cosmic rays to find nuclear fuel inside a reactor, a technology that might be helpful in the complicated decommissioning at Fukushima.

    http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Japan_researchers_use_cosmic_rays_to_see_nuclear_fuel_999.html

  62. jim2 | February 2, 2014 at 10:54 pm |

    This site has articles on all kinds of energy, if you are interested.

    http://www.energy-daily.com/

  63. Steven Mosher | February 2, 2014 at 11:55 pm |

  64. RichardLH | February 3, 2014 at 5:13 am |

    The pause is here – or so says Nate Drake PhD!

    “Filter on NON-detrended GISS LOTI data: …
    I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on
    15 year data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method.” Nate Drake PhD.

    http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab357/NarwhaleNate/GISS_LOTI_S-G_Filternot-detrended_zps4a8d8e39.jpg

    Notice how nicely flat the line is today. No better proof that the warming has stopped, and by such a fervent supporter of CAGW to boot :-)

    For a more visible version (enhanced points and line)
    http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/NateAnimated_zps8efd1ce1.gif

    P.S. Two questions.

    1. Where DID he get that GISS data set from? It does not match any of the sources I can find.
    http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/GISSCompressLowPass_zps370917ca.png

    2. Does anyone have the R skills necessary to provide source code to reproduce the “5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15 year data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method”?

  65. jim2 | February 3, 2014 at 8:15 pm |

    From the article:
    A new study of the Barnett shale foresees reliable supply with slowly declining production through the year 2030, said the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the University of Texas at Austin and financed by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, a New York philanthropic grant-making institution.

    Using a model that allowed for scenario testing, the study outlined a base case for a cumulative 44 tcf of recoverable reserves from the Barnett, with annual production declining in a predictable curve from the current peak of 2 tcf/year to about 900 bcf/year by 2030.

    This forecast falls in between some of the more optimistic and pessimistic predictions of production from the Barnett and suggests that the formation will continue to be a major contributor to US natural gas production through 2030.

    By the end of 2013, BEG expects to complete assessments, following the same methodology, of the Marcellus, Haynesville, and Fayetteville.

    The Barnett shale study examined actual production data from more than 16,000 wells drilled in the play through mid-2011.

    http://www.ogj.com/articles/2013/02/ut-study-forecasts-reliable-supply-from-barnett-shale-through-20.html

  66. jim2 | February 3, 2014 at 8:18 pm |

    Just think of the added energy costs we would bear here in the US WITHOUT shale gas. I would be much, much worse. Thank Gaia for the rocks to frack!

    From the article:
    SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The “polar vortex” of early January and the deep freeze not long after resulted in record demand for natural gas, Bentek Energy said Monday.

    The extreme winter weather in January resulted in seven out of the 10 biggest demand days on record for the U.S., said Bentek, an unit of Platts.

    January natural-gas demand averaged 102 billion cubic feet a day, nearly 8 bcf a day higher than the previous maximum monthly average demand and, all told, 241 bcf more natural gas consumption than any other month on record, Bentek added. Natural-gas spot prices soared above $100 per million British thermal units.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/polar-vortex-brought-record-natural-gas-demand-2014-02-03

  67. jim2 | February 3, 2014 at 10:26 pm |

    From the article:
    Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities?

    Yes, find researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Johns Hopkins University in the US and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
    …
    The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean — with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there — causes the opposite effect of cooling in the TTL region above the warming sea surface. Once the TTL cools, less water vapor is present in the TTL and also above in the stratosphere.

    Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.
    …
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140202111055.htm

  68. anonym | February 5, 2014 at 11:29 am |

    edX is running a “Global Warming Science” MOOC provided by MIT. The listed teachers are Kerry Emanuel, Dan Cziczo and David McGee. Looks like it will cover both the core “greenhouse effect” and feedbacks and climate modelling, but not economics or policy (or impacts, or paleoclimate reconstruction, apparently):

    The course focuses on the fundamental energy balance in the climate system, between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation, and how this balance is affected by greenhouse gases. We will also discuss physical processes that shape the climate, such as atmospheric and oceanic convection and large-scale circulation, solar variability, orbital mechanics, and aerosols, as well as the evidence for past and present climate change. We will discuss climate models of varying degrees of complexity, and you will be able to run a model of a single column of the Earth’s atmosphere, which includes many of the important elements of simulating climate change. Together, this range of topics forms the scientific basis for our understanding of anthropogenic (human-influenced) climate change.

    We will not cover issues regarding policy responses to climate change. Rather, Global Warming Science is designed to be a strictly scientific introduction to this important topic.

    The start date is 19 Feb 2014, the duration 12 weeks and the estimated effort 8 hours a week. Would any perhaps overqualified people be interested in registering in order to be able to review it? :)

    • kim | February 7, 2014 at 9:54 am |

      If you like your hockey stick, I’m 97% certain you can keep your hockey stick. It’s settled, period.
      ==================

    • RichardLH | February 7, 2014 at 9:58 am |

      I want to know the background level of kitty sneezes so that I can correctly identify the delta from CO2. Any offers?

    • kim | February 7, 2014 at 10:21 am |

      Gesundheis.
      =========

    • RichardLH | February 7, 2014 at 11:03 am |

      Thank you.

    • phatboy | February 7, 2014 at 11:14 am |

      Would that be the Kittisneezi delta?

    • Bob Ludwick | February 7, 2014 at 12:17 pm |

      @ admrich

      I followed your link.

      Clearly, they are experts on climate. They know all the external physical inputs to the climate system and understand the physics underlying how they all interact to cause it to vary over time scales ranging from annual to millennial; they said so themselves. As a consequence, they can (and did) easily separate the benign ‘natural’ variations in the climate from the catastrophic variations driven by ACO2.

      They obviously take a pretty dim view of ‘denialists’, which seems a bit unfair as everyone can’t be smart enough to understand climate as easily as they seem to. Their main sticking point is apparently the fact that denialists get all defensive and resist the energy taxes and energy austerity programs, and the expansion of government that will inevitably accompany them, that are necessary to curb the ACO2 that will destroy the biosphere if they are not enacted immediately.

      I think that what bothers a lot of ‘denialists’ is that they are told that the taxes and regulations are necessary to control the ACO2 that is causing irreparable damage to our planet, but the details of exactly what the payoff will be if they are enacted tend to be a little fuzzy. It would go a long way toward easing the conflict if, rather than simply dictating solutions and demanding that denialists shut up and follow orders, they would simply present the facts: where are we now, where are we going if we delay amelioration measures, and how will we be better off if we act now. With details.

      Keeping in mind that from the beginning of the CAGW emergency the rising Temperature of the Earth (TOE) has been cited as the prime symptom of CAGW and preventing the catastrophic rise in the TOE as the justification for control of ACO2, here are three question that if answered, with supporting data, would greatly help to defuse the conflict:

      ‘If we make no energy related decisions based on CO2 emissions and simply procure our energy supplies from whatever sources are most convenient and economical, what will the TOE be in 10, 50, and 100 years?

      ‘If we enact every CO2 control tax and regulation recommended by the climate experts, collect the taxes religiously, and enforce the regulations ruthlessly, what will the TOE be in 10, 50, and 100 years?

      ‘Why is the TOE resulting from strict control of CO2 ‘better’ than the TOE resulting from ignoring ACO2 completely?

    • RickA | February 7, 2014 at 12:55 pm |

      Bob Ludwick:

      I like your three questions.

      Unfortunately, the answers are:

      1. We don’t know. Our models are drastically wrong over a very short time period, so over a longer time period they are useless. We need to do more work and hopefully we can improve the models. Until then our projections are useless.

      2. We don’t know. We are still not very sure how much of the warming since 1850 is caused by human emitted CO2, much less human land use changes, human emitted black carbon, human emitted methane, and all the other human factors which bear on climate. We thought we knew, but clearly our models suck – so I guess we don’t know as much as we thought we did. Hopefully we can improve this over the next 30 years.

      3. Not sure. We will get back to you in 30 years.

    • Bob Ludwick | February 7, 2014 at 3:26 pm |

      @ Rick A

      ‘We don’t know.’, ‘We don’t know.’ and ‘We aren’t sure.’ are YOUR answers, Rick.

      Clearly, John Cook and his friends over at ‘Skeptical Science’ DO know. If they DON’T know the results of inaction, the results of action, and the benefits of action vs inaction, why would they be advocating something so otherwise prima facie insane as drastically increasing the price of energy through taxes and drastically decreasing its supply by regulating ACO2 emissions? They HAVE to know the horrific impact on our technological civilization that will result by restricting the supply of energy and increasing its price, so if they don’t understand, quantitatively, the efficacy of their proposed policies, what could possibly motivate them to advocate them?

    • RickA | February 7, 2014 at 3:52 pm |

      Bob:

      I agree – my answers are my opinion.

      As to Skeptical Science – they think they know – but the observations don’t back them up.

      All I know is that the ocean level has risen 120 meters over the last 20,000 years or so. 119 meters is caused by nature. 1 meter may be caused by humans, but it could be as small as 1/2 meter – we just don’t know accurately enough. 1/120th is only .8333 %.

      If you look at the big picture, our current warming is fully expected and nothing out of the ordinary. It was warmer during the last interglacial and it will be warmer when we arrive at the height of the interglacial this cycle.

      If we do make the cost of food, energy and fuel more expensive and it doesn’t make any appreciable difference (because a significant portion of the warming is natural), history is not going to look kindly on Skeptical Science.

    • Herman Alexander Pope | February 8, 2014 at 12:46 pm |

      Out of 12,000 papers, they selected the 4,000 that said what they wanted. That is closer to 33% than it is to 97%

    • popesclimatetheory | February 8, 2014 at 1:11 pm |

      RickA You must have meant history is not going to look kindly on Consensus Science.

  70. pokerguy (aka al neipris) | February 7, 2014 at 4:01 pm |

    Maybe someone with a stronger stomach than mine will want to read this fantastical b,s, from “The Nation” concerning “climate justice”

    “From Occupy to Climate Justice
    There’s a growing effort to merge economic-justice and climate activism. Call it climate democracy.”

    http://www.thenation.com/article/178242/occupy-climate-justice

    • Bob Ludwick | February 7, 2014 at 4:14 pm |

      @ pokerguy

      I followed your link and found this:

      “It’s unclear what explains this reticence about the existential threat facing humanity, beginning with the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet—unless it’s that the implications of climate science, when you really begin to grasp them, are simply too radical, even for radicals.”

      It pains me to say this, but I am forced to admit that, maybe for the first time in my life, I actually agree with something from ‘The Nation’.

      They are absolutely right: Climate Science DOES pose an existential threat to civilization.

      Not climate CHANGE, of course, but Climate Science itself; or, to be more precise, the political actions that are being taken by governments around the world using what amounts to ex cathedra pronouncements by Climate Science as justification.

      Given cheap, plentiful energy we can easily deal with any realistic effects of ‘Climate Change’; dealing with the societal shambles that we are about to have inflicted upon us in the name of ‘Climate Science’ is another matter entirely. Our prospects appear bleak.

    • jeffn | February 7, 2014 at 5:18 pm |

      ” Our prospects appear bleak.”
      Politely disagree. I think that once you’re movement has been co-opted by the “(insert buzzword) justice!” crowd, it’s pretty much dead.
      The global warming/changing/weirding activists are losing all the ground their hysterics won them. Europe is backpeddling, Australia just bailed, and Canada pulled the plug. The U.S. never signed on and even the current administrations’ efforts seemed designed to take advantage of the gas boom.
      All in all, the prospects look good until the next Malthusian fantasy reaches fad status, which will run it’s course until it becomes a “(buzzword) justice!” poster.
      I particularly liked the OWS guy who’s big idea is universal “debt forgiveness.” I understand why a guy who gave up 10 years of his life and has $200,000 in loans for a bachelors in vague activism would want “debt forgiveness,” but I can’t see why anyone else would.

    • Bob Ludwick | February 7, 2014 at 6:26 pm |

      @ jeffn

      “Politely disagree. I think that once you’re movement has been co-opted by the “(insert buzzword) justice!” crowd, it’s pretty much dead.”

      Well, I’m rooting for you. After all, there must have been at least one previous example that led to the coining of the phrase ‘The triumph of hope over experience.’, If you are right, it would certainly provide a textbook example. We can only hope now and stand by for the experience.

    • Joshua | February 7, 2014 at 6:37 pm |

      They are absolutely right: Climate Science DOES pose an existential threat to civilization.

      Yet more alarmism at Climate Etc. Getting to be a regular feature.

  71. pokerguy (aka al neipris) | February 7, 2014 at 5:53 pm |

    “Universal debt forgiveness” is unbelievably pie in the sky nonsense, even for the loony climateers. It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

  72. jim2 | February 8, 2014 at 12:26 pm |

    I keep an eye out for news on Joule Unlimited, the company that is attempting to use cyanobacteria to create ethanol and diesel. There hasn’t been much news that I can find and I am wondering if no news is bad news. The only thing I’ve found lately is this:

    “Audi did not offer any estimate as to when synthetic fuel might be ready for sale to consumers.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewdepaula/2014/01/31/audi-tests-synthetic-e-fuel-derived-from-microorganisms/

  73. Terry Oldberg | February 13, 2014 at 10:52 am |

    This message is for Judith Curry. I’ve read enough of AR5 to know that the major conclusions of the report of Working Group I are drawn from
    equivocations.By logical rule, one cannot draw a proper conclusion from an equivocation. To draw an IMPROPER conclusion is the equivocation fallacy.

    Vincent Gray and I have published on this topic; my latest paper is at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 . Last fall, I testified to the EPA on this topic; the transcript is at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/07/submission-to-epa-hearing-on-carbon-pollution-standards/ . My latest paper would be an appropriate and fruitful topic for discussion in your blog, I think.

  74. Terry Oldberg | February 13, 2014 at 11:22 am |

    Pekka Pirilä ( February 1, 2014 at 10:30 am ):
    Though a numerical value for the climate sensitivity can be and is extracted from the paleo and climate data through the use of Bayesian parameter estimation, to do so is not logically feasible. The infeasibility is a consequence from the profusion of non-informative prior probability density functions. Each non-informative prior PDF generates a different posterior PDF with consequential violation of the law of non-contradiction. In AR4, the IPCC hid this problem under the rug. In AR5, they own up to it.

  75. RickA | March 4, 2014 at 8:22 am |

    I have a question.

    Why is it ok to average the runs from a bunch of ensemble models?

    Shouldn’t the models which are really out of whack with observations be thrown out and some much smaller group of models be looked at compared to observations?

    Why average them at all?