Open thread

Posted on June 7, 2014 by | 381 Comments

by Judith Curry

It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.

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

381 responses to “Open thread”

    • David Springer | June 10, 2014 at 6:47 pm |

      Check out this crap-ass biased correction done by BEST to Amundsen Station temperature series:

      http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/166900

      Note a slight downward trend of 0.05C/century is massaged into a 0.23C/century rise.

      Note this is all due to “quality control failures” which are indicated by tiny pink circles on the data points in the top graph. Each and every failure is a low temperature measurement not a high temperature measurement.

      WTF? Amundsen Station is continuously occupied by scientists and technicians trained in reading and recording temperatures.

      The quality control failures are due to inept programmers using computers to process data and failing to validate their results.

  2. Bob Tisdale | June 7, 2014 at 12:41 pm |

    Here’s a topic for conversation.

    Judith Curry, you should be proud of this blog. Your posts have become a wonderful resource.

    Cheers.

  3. pokerguy (aka al neipris) | June 7, 2014 at 1:05 pm |

    J.M Keynes has this well-known quote: “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

    Good question. Despite nearly 18 years of no additional warming…and the near universal failure of the models on which this whole thing is predicated to predict same….Despite no increase in extreme weather events….Despite no increase in rate of sea level rise…climate apostates remain rare.

    I once asked Andrew Revkin what it would take to change his mind re CAGW, and he answered another 3 or so years of no more warming would force him to re-evaluate. That was 3 years ago now, and I don’t see anything from him indicating a change of heart.

    So I’d like to ask you “climate etc.” warmists, what it would take to change your minds? Is there anything in the way of real world data, that would tempt you to join the skeptics ?

    • Steven Mosher | June 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm |

      I reevaluate sensitivity estimates every month. Its trending down.
      Theres no sharp line between warmist and skeptic.

      • David Springer | June 7, 2014 at 9:07 pm |

        You reevaluate sensitivity every month? Is that often enough? Climate changes so fast. You could miss something important. LOL

    • Steven Mosher | June 7, 2014 at 2:03 pm |

      Pokerguy let me give you a framework to understand this.

      There are really only two views

      A. Skydragons who deny radiative physics and the role of
      Ghg in planetary temps.
      B. All others. Lets call them the sane people.

      Within the sane people we have all shades. From those who see little role for co2 to a great role.

      So im in B. What would it take for me to accept A?

    • Raving | June 7, 2014 at 2:16 pm |

      There are really only two views

      A. Skydragons who deny radiative physics and the role of
      Ghg in planetary temps.
      B. All others. Lets call them the sane people.

      There is also the view that climatology is a second rate science. That is an unpleasant and perhaps unfair thing to ask and consider for the underlying reasons. Best to avoid the topic.

    • David Springer | June 7, 2014 at 2:20 pm |

      Read harder, Mosher. He asked what it would take for a warmist on this blog to change his mind about CAGW.

    • sunshinehours1 | June 7, 2014 at 2:44 pm |

      Sane people wonder why the rate of warming after 1945 is lower than the rate of warming before 1945 despite the massive increase in man made CO2 after 1945.

    • R. Gates | June 7, 2014 at 2:45 pm |

      “So I’d like to ask you “climate etc.” warmists, what it would take to change your minds? Is there anything in the way of real world data, that would tempt you to join the skeptics ?”
      —-
      Of course real skepticism is not separate from being a “warmist” and real skeptics don’t want to join anything as their skepticism is not an entry badge.

      As a warmist I think it is far more likely than not that GH gas increases are allowing the Earth climate system to retain more energy than it is losing. As a skeptic, I hold this position as a provisional truth. Changing this position would require a longer-term decline of energy in the system– on the order of a decade.

    • Raving | June 7, 2014 at 3:04 pm |

      It’s human’s lot to alter the environment. Much thought is given to decrying or denying human industry. Too much misanthropy here

    • Steven Mosher | June 7, 2014 at 3:17 pm |

      Springer im arguing that the term warmist is not defined in any meaningful or empirical manner.
      I am arguing there are only two views.
      Read harder

      • David Springer | June 7, 2014 at 9:10 pm |

        He didn’t ask for your definition of warmist. He defined it as someone who believes in CAGW. If you don’t believe in CAGW then just STFU if you possibly can and let someone who believes in CAGW answer the phucking question fercrisakes.

    • R. Gates | June 7, 2014 at 3:25 pm |

      Interesting perspective Steven, but since group A are pretty much not worthy of considering, looking at the finer distinctions in group B holds more interest for many if us, and would seem to one reason CE is so popular.

    • nottawa rafter | June 7, 2014 at 3:32 pm |

      So I would like to modify Pokerguy’s question a bit. Accepting Gates’s premise that earth’s system is gaining more energy, why is it that there is a pause or that sea level rise has not accelerated in 20 years or there has been no Cat 3 hurricane in 3100 days or the incidence of tornadoes is below average or that the Antarctic Sea ice is at record high or that global droughts shows no up trend . All these observations are not consistent with forecasts made by warmists 25 years ago.

    • jacobress | June 7, 2014 at 4:36 pm |

      Here is how you recognize a warmist:
      Warmists say: the heating is unprecedented, OMG, it’s worse than we thought, in a few years we’ll hit some tipping points, and then we’ll all burn in a Venus like hell, and why don’t we do something right now!

      Skeptics say: It may be heating somewhat, it’s happened before, we’re not sure about the reasons, and don’t know what will happen in 100 years. So far, there’s nothing unusual is happening, and spending $$$ on windmills is silly, while burning our food (ethanol) is outright insane.

    • gbaikie | June 7, 2014 at 5:03 pm |

      -Steven Mosher | June 7, 2014 at 2:03 pm |

      Pokerguy let me give you a framework to understand this.

      There are really only two views

      A. Skydragons who deny radiative physics and the role of
      Ghg in planetary temps.
      B. All others. Lets call them the sane people.

      Within the sane people we have all shades. From those who see little role for co2 to a great role.

      So im in B. What would it take for me to accept A?–

      Perhaps since what has been claimed hysterically, is that CO2 increases temperature, rather than increase average temperature
      One can increase average temperature but this different than making days become warmer.
      Or if you reduce the amount it cools, it’s increasing average temperature.

      So if skydragons were arguing about different thing- CO2 does not make days hotter, perhaps you could accept A.
      There is no evidence that days are getting hotter due to CO2, yet the media will claim it does.

      Now, effects unrelated to CO2, do make a day slightly hotter. Though UHI effect mostly make the night warmer, they can make the day warmer to some extent.

    • Edim | June 7, 2014 at 5:11 pm |

      “who deny radiative physics and the role of Ghg in planetary temps”

      The real skydragons are those who bring up radiative physics or even worse radiative balance for the Earth’s surface that’s cooled mostly non-radiatively (evaporation and convection).
      http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris) | June 7, 2014 at 5:16 pm |

      Mosh,
      Fine, if that’s how you see the climate debate, though of course I think you’re wrong. The fundamental problem imvho is that the issue has been so deeply politicized. The climate debate has become just one more flash point in the ongoing culture wars between, broadly speaking, conservative and progressives. How frequently does it happen would you say, that a conservative after carefully listening to a liberal’s argument…or vice versa, “You’re absolutely right my good man. I now see the error in my thinking. Thanks sincerely for setting me straight!”

      In fact, the only movement I see on Climate Etc is in the direction of a hardening of positions. I’m not surprised that no alarmist wants to engage with my question. (I could have told you Gates response before I even read it. )

      That said, I’m betting that if you asked skeptics what would cause them to change their minds, some would make an honest attempt at answering. Why is that? Unlike Gary M I don’t believe that conservatives are somehow more honest than liberals, but I do think they’ve got the better of this particular argument, Hence they tend not to be as defensive as most of the alarmists….

    • Steven Mosher | June 7, 2014 at 6:00 pm |

      pokerguy.

      I am suggesting that you change your view of the debate. Its easy to do.
      As long as you try to argue within the ill defined and shifting descriptions of skeptic, warmist, lukewarmer, catastrophist… etc you wont see things clearly. Sure youall have arguments.. but you wont see things clearly.

      What Im suggesting is that the terms skeptic warmist lukewarmer etc are all just tools we use to position each other in the the debate and its really not helpful.

      More helpful is to draw a bright line between those who

      A) argue that GHGs have no role in planetary temperature
      B) those who accept radiative physics

      Im betting you belong to B. which means we are on the same side of the debate. finding that common ground means that we can actually have a dialog about the various SHADES of B.

      In other terms.. Im saying that if you believe in B then you really are on my team.

      For me everything thing I do is about reframing this debate so we can actually talk

      Of course somepeople will want to distinguish between the catholics and protestants and baptists, and unitarians.. But those distinctions are flimsy, biased, self interested, incomplete, ill defined, and basically useless.

      • Diag | June 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm |

        The radiative physics line is good, as far as it goes. There are also other scientific issues. The big line for me is the proper conduct of science.

        “reframing this debate so we can actually talk”
        Or you can draw a line in front of those who say the debate is over and do not want to talk to skeptics.

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 6:24 pm |

      The US National Academy of Sciences defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.

      And now for some advanced climate physics.

    • J Martin | June 7, 2014 at 6:27 pm |

      “Changing this position would require a longer-term decline of energy in the system– on the order of a decade.

      @Gates.

      Temperatures have been declining for the last 6 years. Are you really telling us that we only have to wait 4 years for you to formally announce your “coming out”, so to speak,

      Would you like to rephrase your positin ? With a minimum expected about 2022, and the next solar cycle expected to be interesting. Perhaps you will become an ‘official’ sceptic certainly by 2030, maybe 2020.

      Due to natural variability its quite possible we may see some increase in temperatures before 2020, but after that if solar cycle 25 turns out to be a limbo dancer, then we will surely get that decde of cooling and more.

      The reason the co2 preachers are desperately ramping up the pressure to reduce co2 output is that some of them are not stupid, they know that cooling is coming, courtesy of the sun. To keep their careers and reputations they have to bring a halt to co2 growth so that when falling temperatures or a long stillstand arrive, they can then claim that it was their succesfull actions in bringing co2 under control that led to the reduced temperatures and not the sun.

      I raise a toast to ever increasing co2, long may it continue. Or at least long enough to destroy many careers and reputations.

    • J Martin | June 7, 2014 at 6:40 pm |

      @ Gates and Mosher. I look forward to welcoming you both to the broad church that is the sceptosphere. We even accept different spellings, eg. skeptosphere.

    • Matthew R Marler | June 7, 2014 at 6:44 pm |

      pokerguy (aka al neipris) : So I’d like to ask you “climate etc.” warmists, what it would take to change your minds? Is there anything in the way of real world data, that would tempt you to join the skeptics ?

      I have been asking myself this question from the other side. What would make me give real credit to the CO2 theory, that doubling CO2 will warm the surface and atmosphere a lot.

      1. something surprising that I have not thought of yet might do it.

      2. 30 years (maybe 17 years would do) of model accuracy within some pre-specified accuracy, such as perhaps an integrated (across time) rmse (across locations) of an important outcome like temperature. This would be more complicated than, but modeled after, the CUSUM charts in industrial process control. The current disparity between the IPCC FAR (1992) mean and the global mean RSS is about 0.34C (integrated rmse of about 0.17 over 22 years), but that’s means only, and does not take into account regional variation. And the error is increasing. Besides the irmse, we would want a pre-specified bound on the bias in trend: right now the bias is about 1.4C per century on the trend. To get around the problem of “cherry-picking”, the accuracy criterion would be published right before the model was run, and then model would be repeatedly compared to the data collected after the model run.

      The necessity of computing the rmse across regions was illustrated by the Ghana example in the World Bank post.

      If anybody has confidence in a model, or mean of an ensemble of models, the model owners could specify the criterion now and the model owners could run the models now.

      Since the model outputs are contingent on aerosols and volcanoes and such, the model runs could be updated “contingently”, that is by changing nothing in the model except new knowledge about the contingencies. You’ll recall that Hansen did something like that with his 3 scenarios, but he guessed at contingencies in advance.

      This sort of thing is done in pharmacokinetics and measuring instrument calibration every day, but the systems studied are much smaller. And CUSUM charts are used internationally.

      I doubt an extant model could pass such a test, and I doubt that any model owners would accept my proposal to start testing such a model this way any time soon. We are coming up on the 100th anniversary of the Eddington Expedition. The results were much debated in a public forum, and illustrate that nothing else is ever as convincing as a correct prediction of out of sample data.

    • Matthew R Marler | June 7, 2014 at 6:46 pm |

      Stephen Mosher: So im in B. What would it take for me to accept A?

      Very clever. 8-)

    • J Martin | June 7, 2014 at 7:33 pm |

      Gates. You’ve had nigh on 18 years of model inacurracy. How many more do you want ?

    • DocMartyn | June 7, 2014 at 8:00 pm |

      I did this graphic last year, but nothing much has changed

      http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/HADCRU41976in1911_zpse8c7011a.png

      1976 is 1911 plus a bit.

    • Eeyore Rifkin | June 7, 2014 at 8:56 pm |

      Mosher, you’re mischaracterizing the public debate. Mann says Curry is a denier. He says that about quite a few scientists in your category B. He’s way more influential than you. Not you or any other scientist can seriously impact the public debate without confronting the terms set by Mann and his cohort.

    • David Springer | June 7, 2014 at 9:13 pm |

      “He’s way more influential than you.”

      No you must be mistaken. Mosher is invited to the table. He’s at least as influential as anyone else doncha know. LOL

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 7, 2014 at 9:50 pm |

      ”
      I did this graphic last year, but nothing much has changed

      http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/HADCRU41976in1911_zpse8c7011a.png

      1976 is 1911 plus a bit.
      “

      A Sharpe person would actually take each of the peaks and valleys in the two time series and match those up. Every one of the fluctuations has an explanation.
      So does the overall trend. Some of us know how to do this.

    • Peter Lang | June 8, 2014 at 12:34 am |

      Kosher,
      You are wrong. Warmist versus CAGQ skeptic is not defied by belief in sensitivity or physics. It’s defined by acceptance of dire consequences of warming Versus not dire consequences

    • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 8:04 am |

      ““Changing this position would require a longer-term decline of energy in the system– on the order of a decade.

      @Gates.

      Temperatures have been declining for the last 6 years. Are you really telling us that we only have to wait 4 years for you to formally announce your “coming out”, so to speak,
      ——-
      You seem to be confusing sensible tropospheric heat (temperature) with net energy in the climate system. Tropospheric sensible heat is just one very small part of the net climate system energy. From the widest perspective using the very best data we have, the system continues to accumulate energy at least on the order of 0.5 x 10^22 joules per year. If this trend reverses for a decade, there would be no choice but for me to abandon AGW as it is currently formulated.

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:07 am |

      RG, it’s remarkable the faith you have in our very limited knowledge of ocean heat content.
      ============

    • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 8:07 am |

      “J Martin | June 7, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
      Gates. You’ve had nigh on 18 years of model inacurracy. How many more do you want ?”
      —-
      The past 10 years have been the warmest on record. Anything less than decadal average temperature is ENSO.

    • phatboy | June 8, 2014 at 8:09 am |

      R Gates, I seem to remember you saying much the same things years back on Richard Black’s blog.
      Except then you were plugging tropospheric temperatures and not OHC.

    • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 8:11 am |

      “kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:07 am |
      RG, it’s remarkable the faith you have in our very limited knowledge of ocean heat content.
      ============
      My level of skepticism is never a matter of faith. I look at the sum total of available data to form the basis of what I think is most likely true at any given moment. Jason, ARGO and Grace data all point to the same thing– the system continues to gain energy.

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:15 am |

      Well, I still believe that much of the ‘missing heat’ has been radiated out, but of that which has not, isn’t it just ducky that it’s going into the ocean instead of the troposphere?

      By Golly, when glaciation re-emerges, can you help make sure that ocean heat gets into the troposphere where it can do some good? I’m counting on you.
      ==============

    • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 8:16 am |

      “R Gates, I seem to remember you saying much the same things years back on Richard Black’s blog.
      Except then you were plugging tropospheric temperatures and not OHC.”
      —
      Links?

      I don’t recall ever posting on that blog. As it stands, OHC is the best single proxy for net gain of energy in the system, if you had to look at just one metric, and I’ve known and stated this since before ARGO was even completely deployed, and still fully acknowledge, as all experts do, that we need to expand and refine ARGO even more.

    • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 8:19 am |

      “By Golly, when glaciation re-emerges, can you help make sure that ocean heat gets into the troposphere where it can do some good? I’m counting on you.”
      —-
      I think we’ll be long gone before a new period of glacial advance occurs. But if you see some consistent signs if it, be sure to let me know.

      • aaron | June 9, 2014 at 3:26 pm |

        I doubt that. We might see some minor glaciation and then more retreat.

        And yeah when that happens the tropo should warm from latent heat release.

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:19 am |

      Yes, it would be nice to know if that heat is going into the ocean where we can eventually count on it. Also, knowing it’s going there instead of the troposphere is reassuring for those of us who dwell in the troposphere.
      ==============================

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:23 am |

      Heh, you mean you ‘hope’ we are long gone before the next glacial advance. Well, speaking for those who won’t be long gone, I hope you are right and that there will be a little extra anthropogenic heat to buffer our entry into the icehouse.
      ==========

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:44 am |

      You know, RG, that we’ll still love the Human Carbon Cornucopia even if it isn’t stashing up heat against the next glaciation.
      ================

    • JCH | June 8, 2014 at 8:51 am |

      Say it’s in 8000 years. That’s 8000 years of diffusion. AOHC is going raise temperature of the glacier ramming its way down from Canada by just enough to go completely unnoticed.

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:56 am |

      Heh, you’ve noticed it’s trivial. When will the rest, ever learn?
      ============

    • angech | June 8, 2014 at 9:30 am |

      Poker guy,
      There are only two views
      A sky dragons
      B skeptics
      C warmists
      Between B and C lie 50 shades of grey.
      For a warmist who believes in radiative forcing there is no pause which will disprove we are all going to fry.
      For a skeptic who believes in radiative forcing there has to come a time when he admits that if a pause goes on long enough then the earth has enough adaptive inbuilt natural balancing measures that any change in one of the minor measures like the important water vapour IR absorber and emitter and the less important CO2 and the hilariously funny and unimportant methane monster will not result in a runaway temperature rise. If climate sensitivity to CO2 rise proves negligible in the long run more skeptics will perforce move to the view that CO2 regulation is not needed as AGW is not provable.
      (Like there are only three types of people, those who can count and those that cannot)

    • nottawa rafter | June 8, 2014 at 9:34 am |

      Gates
      Tell me again what the OHC trend was before 1950. What? You don’t know? Just like everything else. We get unprecedented stuff because we never know the precedent. I get it now.

    • JCH | June 8, 2014 at 10:32 am |

      The question is when will you learn? You’re a political/religious beast, and they can’t learn. They’re dead enders.

    • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 11:34 am |

      “Well, speaking for those who won’t be long gone…”
      ——
      Perhaps you will be the first human to live for thousands or ten of thousands of years. If so, more power to ya…

      All current observations and basic science research would say that many centuries of warming are far more likely.

    • aaron | June 9, 2014 at 2:51 pm |

      .3 increase in 10 years.

  4. jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 1:10 pm |

    LENR news:
    From the article:
    …
    Meanwhile Brillouin, one of the lead contenders for commercialising LENR technology, announced in December that they had signed a licence agreement with an un-named South Korean company after a year of due diligence. The deal, described as being worth ‘millions of dollars’ in Pure Energy Systems News, licenses the Koreans to manufacture cold fusion units, with production and installation in 2014.

    The plan is to use reactors powered by Brillouin’s cold fusion technology to replace existing boilers in a conventional power station. Bob George, CEO of Brillouin, says they should produce electricity at two cents per kilowatt-hour — about a third of the cost of electricity from advanced gas power generation, the cheapest current option. Once the units are proven, George expects many other customers to be interested in similar retrofitting.

    There has also been a small but potentially significant shift by US officialdom. Steven Krivit of New Energy Times noted a change in the small print of a document issued by the US Department of Energy. The DoE provides funding for innovative energy projects via their Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E). The latest funding opportunity announcement included a new addition in the list of technologies which the DoE is interested in: alongside solar, photochemical reactors and radioisotope thermoelectrics and many more, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions made the cut.

    This represents the first US government recognition that the technology might be valuable. While there has been previous work on LENR as a sideline by scientists in NASA and elsewhere, there has been little sign of official funding. That may be set to change now the technology seems to have made the list of approved concepts.

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream

    …
    (end of quote)

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/

    Chief IO also has a write up.

    • J Martin | June 7, 2014 at 6:37 pm |

      The way research, demonstrations and announcements in the field of LENR are conducted, leave me feeling that the whole thing is just not credible.

    • jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 6:44 pm |

      And I’m not saying it’s credible, just passing on the article.

    • Matthew R Marler | June 7, 2014 at 7:01 pm |

      jim2, lenr folks are even worse than solar energy folks at promising really cheap energy, real soon now, maybe the first quarter of next year. So far they can not reliably produce anything except neutron beams for making medical isotopes — admittedly that is valueable, but the process consumes energy.

      What would it take for me to believe in lenr? Following on an earlier query? When I can walk into the hardware store and buy a device that works; or watch one of them operating in the open with no input for weeks at a time. When I read the “technical details” of those reports, I think that if the devices worked as described they’d be in Home Depot now, or powering strip malls. Instead, unknown parties have invested unknown amounts of money to develop them, “maybe in 2014.”

    • AlainCo (@alain_co) | June 8, 2014 at 9:31 am |

      I think that like on many scientific subject, the secret is to be informed, and less rely on mainstream consensus, and unproven claims.

      The main question, that prevent many people to accept evidence of the latest E-cat test, and soon to came test, is simply that Cold Fusion is assumed to be debunked.
      To be simple, I have rambled on many skeptic blog and asked : do you have a paper that challenge the calorimetry of Fleischman&Pons ?

      I have not received the least answer.

      By the very documented book of charles beaudette (if you did not read it, best is not to talk of cold fusion – sorry it is a real subject not for chatting on rumors),
      http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35

      I know there have been until 2011 on the planet only 4 written paper challenging cold fusion calorimetry for F&P.
      Lewis and hansen just get bashed by Wilson for incompetence in a polite way. morrisson article is not even bad, and Wilson the only competent of the 4 just introduced correction that was integrated by F&P. however he could not explain the massive energy produced by many experiments.

      Later Shanahan produced an article that was rejected, probably unfairly because without any argument, but that was refuted in details by experts, with argument that are very clear.
      http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/71632

      This rebuttal is good not only to understand tha Shanahan is wrong, that Morrisson, Lewis, Hansen, were worse, but also that the measurement of F&P, like the one on McKubre, Oriani, Miles, Iwamura, were done according to very high standards unlike the mythology you can see on Wikipedia.

      on wikipedia this page was erased and was clearly stating the anti-scientific behavior of the mainstream defenders, and of wikipravda admins
      http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html
      I’m sure honest skeptic of climate science can understand what it mean.

      so the question of how a pile of frauds (yes, what do you think of a paper when the editor Eugene Mallove claim it is tweaked, but it did nothing, he had to resign rather) , of myths, of incompetence of such magnitude could reach the consensus status ?
      This is well described in that article that compare the myth on Titanic to the myth on cold Fusion.
      http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4
      People like morrison, Huzenga, parks, avd in a lessr way Lewis and hansen, made so huge errors (some errors than a subcollege electrician can understand), were refuted so clearly that it is evident that nobody who supported them did even read their claims seriously.

      the fact is that like on many subject, like in economics, the Nobel price like most physicist, like my mother, decided to support the conspiracy books of Morrisson&al because they liked the conclusion.

      now about E-cat, it is a commercial claim.
      the only serious critic on E-cat is that it is an international conspiracy involving the Swedish DoE, Italian and Swedish researchers…
      even that conspiracy if assumed possible, does not explain all the facts that people who follow the story know.

      for example the desperate denier, stephan Pomp admitted he was contacted for the test (and he refused to look into the telescope), not because he was prevented to say his opinion finally, but because it was annoying for his daily work.

      not really the behavior of a scam artist to call your arch-skeptic… and for a sincere skeptic not participating the test is irrational. but if you admit E-cat is real, and skeptics are just dogmatic , all is clear.

      the story is complex, and I urge anyone who want to state critics, to first read the massive data available.

      best is to first start with Beaudette Book excess Heat cited up there.
      The key to E-cat denial is initial assumption tha LENR cannot be real.
      not only LENr can be real (no impossibility claims is scientific for anybody knowing material science), but it is real (as anyone knowing calorimetry can judge from the debate).

      the Titanic article is fun, like the wikipedia page.
      for commercial claims this is a good synthesis
      http://lenrftw.net/are_lenr_devices_real.html
      (check also Brillouin who work with SRI which work with Navy NRL which work with ENEA)

      for the epistemology background, I advise like judith curry the papers of Roland Benabou on Mutual assured Delusion and Groupthink
      http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf
      Of course Thomas Kuhn
      http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html
      and also “Stupidity based organization” concept
      http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/indek2013/program/Alvesson_functional_stupidity_scaIEM.pdf
      Think also of Antifragile by Taleb (Lecturing Birds how to fly and History written by the losers)

      as example read the real story of HTSC
      http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf
      and planes
      http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html
      and semiconductors
      http://blog.disorderedmatter.eu/2009/03/16/wolfgang-pauli-speaking/
      and for a list of mainstream stupidities
      http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

      you can reuse all that material for climate consensus.

      the problem is that climate consensus is not refutable in a reasonable detay (see how the refutation by recent hiatus is ignored, like is latest E-cat test).

      No test will be accepted by mainstream for E-cat, but we can expect that successful sales will trigger panic among the mainstream. few semester to way. So LENr will be accepted, and climate fear will disappear by lack of CO2, and funding, without being debunked.

      • Matthew R Marler | June 8, 2014 at 2:35 pm |

        AlainCo: To be simple, I have rambled on many skeptic blog and asked : do you have a paper that challenge the calorimetry of Fleischman&Pons ?

        To put it most simply, if the devices worked as claimed they’d be powering homes and golf carts by now. This was the subject of a bet between Richard Garwin and a Pons-Fleischman proponent who promised that he would indeed have a motorized vehicle before the end of the year — at the end of the year, Garwin reminded everyone of this in a letter to Science Magazine. That was about 20 years ago.

        Calorimetry or no, published critique or no, the promised energy is not there.

        No test will be accepted by mainstream for E-cat, but we can expect that successful sales will trigger panic among the mainstream. few semester to way.

        As I wrote, I look forward to buying the devices at Home Depot. They have been a few semesters away for years now. The “tests” as you put them have been ludicrous: if the devices worked, they could power Stirling engines and generate electricity for weeks on end after the start-up power supply was detached. Except for the fuel, which is what you might call “inadequately described”, everything else in the devices can be bought off the shelf at hardware stores and autoparts stores.

        But don’t take my word for it: come back in 2 years with news of a detached, functioning device putting out the rated power at an established cost for weeks at a time. It’s very simple.

      • AlainCo (@alain_co) | June 8, 2014 at 5:23 pm |

        It seems you are neither familiar with innovation timescale, not with LENR history, or thermodynamics.
        Until the recent breakthrough with NiH the main protocol was wet, with temperature limited to about 100C, thus with low potential interest. Moreover the COP observed were up to 150%, which are useless even if scientifically it is a revolution.

        Second innovators know that from lab result to the market the typical delay is 5 years and downscaled ambition.
        Seing E-cat, or Brillouin HHT in home-depot is not even for 5 years, as there is huge regulation problem.
        It will be sold for industrial in few semesters, but it is about business, regulation.

        your argument is well know, it is the tea kettle fallacy.

        imagine that I say you that I don’t believe in relativity because there is no industrial application on the market…

        more generally it is fascinating to see a scientific community parrotinf huge fallacies , pretending to use scientific method, popperian logic, while doing the opposite.

        Popper is laughing in his tomb when people use absence of excess heat in some (bad) experiments to bash the successfully observed excess heat.

        That fact is that following scientific method, cold fusion is proven.
        There is 153 positive article peer-reviewed, (some in JJAP or journal of electroanalytical chemistry, more serious than Nature and Science in that domain), there is no written critics that is not refuted, and is not showing either the total incompetence of tha pathetic lack of honesty of the author, often both.

        of course to see those fact one have to access the data, and avoid the handful of books hastily written in 1989, with pathetic ciration coverage, evident bias, conpiracy theory on every page, no evidence to support them, not caring of the real job done by chemist in 89-91 period, because calorimetry takes years not days as the incompetent physicist imagined.
        incompetent in calorimetry, because calorimetry was not their job since 1950… and Cold fusion is a chemistry experiment, not a physicist experiment… heat produced, transmutation observed, but nearly no radiation… Physicist should just have provided the theory, but they failed,… not essential unless if as we observe in climatology, modern scientists prefer a theory that is not matching reality, from the reality.

        the irony is that a phenomenon that was victim of an awful anti-scientific academic consensus, accused to be a scam, will put an end to one of the worst scientific scam of the human history, climatology.

      • Matthew R Marler | June 9, 2014 at 12:35 pm |

        AlainCo: It seems you are neither familiar with innovation timescale, not with LENR history, or thermodynamics.

        Besides those, I also am familiar with the history of fraud and gullibility in “innovation”. What I wrote about E-Cat and lenr is true: if the devices worked as described in the “reports” of the “tests”, the devices would be cheaply available now and producing power with the backup/initiator power supplies turned off.

        But, I look forward to seeing the working devices, should they ever be produced. Whoever can make one work at the reported prices can earn a bundle of money and the gratitude of all mankind. How long you say? two semesters? four semesters?

      • AlainCo (@alain_co) | June 9, 2014 at 1:48 pm |

        @Matthew R Marler
        I agree that like on internet or green energy people should take care of any company claim.

        however unlike what you say, the E-cat is only a prototype, very promising, but not finished.
        You should read An Impossible Invention to see that many test failed because of last minute changes.

        You cannot change that even if it worsk, making it industrially reliable, stable, avoiding meltdown like it happened, avoiding extinguishing it too much cooled, improving performance much above 3, is not so easy.

        Many people imagine that developing a technology is a matter of few quarters, but it is many years. Moreover developping a technology when you are a single inventor on your own business (Rossi get funded only recently when buyed out by Cherokee fund of Tom darden http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology-241853361.html http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/05/09/tom-darden-involved-in-opening-of-nickel-hydrogen-energy-research-center-in-tianjin-china/ ) is not easy, especially if any partner is afraid to be ridiculed by mainstream deniers, or fooled by a scam artist.

        This is where following the evidence is important, like on climate controversy.

        Scientifically the question is closed since long, and recent data let no doubt the test was scientifically very positive.
        A hard skeptic (Stephan pomp) was contacted to participate the tes, but he refused (just because it will annoy his usual activities and because he could not talk until the final report), letting no doubt that the test was real.
        It is known that there was 3 reactor donated, but only one was used for the 6 month test. Since it is more than 9 month that the test was launched, if it was negative it would be published. If it was ended by failure of the device, backup reactor would be used…

        as I say every where, give me just one article that you base your opinion on, to conclude that Fleischman&Pons experiment was bad.
        there are only 4 until 2001, one after, and all refuted seriously to the point of dismissal.
        Not the least skeptics, except Shanahan himself have even presented the least, even broken paper.
        It is clear that anti-LENR people don’t need science, don’t need evidence, don’t need scientific method.

        They need nature, Science, or APS to think for them.

        for Rossi, he is simply an inventor, and entrepreneur, in that difficult technology, with supporters that are too optimistic as usual, and deniers that cannot even concede the least evidence whatever it is.

        in a way, if science was a rational activity (and here we know it is all but rational) the only question would be to find at last one good critic of the 153 peer-reviewed replications of F&P excess heat, at least the one in JJAP or Journal of Electroanalytical chemistry whose competence is not to be challenged compared to science comics like Nature & Science (as we observe frequently here).

        Someone noticed that in “cold fusion Science” there is no lukewarmer skeptics, the kind who concede some facts, who question evidences… those skeptics are simply what people name believers because they admit the reality after careful analysis. If you ear the “believers” named “Mats Lewan”, “Jed Rothwell” “McKubre”, “Edmund Storms”, they are very skeptic against anything new, agains E-cat, against most announces… but of course they cannot doubt that cold fusion is real, whatever it is, because it is proven by hundred of unchallenged papers.

        critics today are based on 1989 myth, from Baltimore conference mistakes, carefully not updated since, but parroted until mom and pop surrender to the propaganda.

        anyway as it is hard to convince AGW true-believers, it is impossible to convince APS true believers.

        In mercatu veritas… in market the truth.

        After all, SciAm did not yet believe in the fabled performance of Wright Brothers plane many month after it was sold to French government.

        my only advise to people who want to know, is to read
        Charles beaudette “Excess Heat” book http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35

        the rest is not so important, even the book “an impossible invention” who describe just some entrepreneurs story. Funny for the curious, but not as fundamental as Beaudette (free) book…

        You can even read the books of parks, Huizenga, Morrison afterward, just for the fun.

        Of course after reading, I sure people will be hungry for more… and there is much more!

        good reading, or good night.

      • Matthew R Marler | June 10, 2014 at 8:37 pm |

        AlainCo: Many people imagine that developing a technology is a matter of few quarters,

        You wrote “semesters”, and I asked: how many?

        The point about the Ecat was that the reports claimed it was a “working” prototype, but there was never any evidence that it produced more energy than had been input as electricity. As I wrote, Rossi could easily have taken the energy output to drive a Stirling engine to provide electricity over and above that used to get it started — what he did (at least in one instance, was quit because he was “bored”. Who would get bored watching a convincing demonstration that such a new technology would work?

        And what idiot with a working device would be afraid of or embarrassed by criticism?

        But as I wrote, when they show up at Home Depot or powering shopping malls, then I’ll be convinced. Until then, the tests display everything else except what is advertised, usable energy from fusion.

        Now, on your writing, the scene shifts to China. Please let us know when they start shipping devices that work.

      • AlainCo (@alain_co) | June 11, 2014 at 6:46 pm |

        Sorry for the unknow delay…
        being optimistic it maybe delivered in 3-6mont for a client, but I expect delays as usual.

        Rossi seems more confident since few month, and more controlled too. Now he is just an employee (and probably a share holder).

        The previous report did really prove huge anomalous heat but a modest performance. Stating that it prove nothing is not so sincere.
        There was just some fear of fraud (hard to believe given the freedom let to the testers) to answer.
        The real question is the stability and the performance. The first test have shown the runaway of a reactor… the second have been done at lower temperature to avoid runaway… so it was not yet market-ready.

        Scientifically it is a bomb. even if there is not much new as LENR is proven since long (see http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/401-Ulrika-Bj%C3%B6rkst%C3%A9n-Cold-fusion-is-contrary-to-scientific-knowledge/ ).
        Industrially it is still only a potential.

  5. jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 1:12 pm |

    From the article:
    …
    The Director of Communications at Sunrise Coal, in Indiana, Suzanne Jaworowski spoke with Terre Haute, IN CBS and Fox affiliated television station in WTHI about the Obama Administrations New EPA regulation that will reportedly force approximately 600 existing coal-fired power plants to reduce their carbon pollution 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Jaworowski warned not only energy prices will be effected but food costs will rise as well saying “The cost of bread will go up and the cost of everything in-between will go up”
    …
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/06/Coal-Industry-Warns-of-Higher-Food-Prices-Due-To-EPA-Rules

  6. DocMartyn | June 7, 2014 at 1:58 pm |

    The polywell fusion reactor has passed a big test

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/bussard-emc2-fusion-project-publishes.html

    General Fusion got a good write up

    http://www.canadianbusiness.com/technology-news/crazy-genius/

    I like both approaches, but GF is great

    • David Springer | June 7, 2014 at 2:41 pm |

      You know it still takes several orders of magnitude more energy to begin a fusion reaction than comes out of it, right? Recently the NIF at Lawrence Livermore produced a fusion reaction with less energy in the beam than came out of the fused fuel.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-powered-lasers-deliver-fusion-energy-breakthrough/

      Unfortunately it takes a thousand times more energy to produce the beam than what’s actually in the beam. There is nothing at all to suggest that artificial fusion will ever be a useful source of energy.

    • R. Gates | June 7, 2014 at 3:15 pm |

      I saw my first fusion reactor many decades ago, it was safely shielded and exceptionally low maintenance. There was zero net cost to operate. It is called the sun. The obvious way forward is artificial photosynthesis to fully use this free energy from the largest fusion reactor in this part of the galaxy.

      • gbaikie | June 8, 2014 at 4:04 pm |

        The sun is excellent source of energy, but we should harvest it beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
        The only problem with harvesting solar energy in space for Earth is the cost to launch stuff from Earth. Of course harvesting solar energy to be used in space has been going on for decades. The power requirements for satellites is more than average residential home.
        There more than thousand satellites in space, the demand for satellites over the decades is lower the cost to launch anything in space.And this demand will continue, and over the future decades launch costs will decrease further.
        But there things governments could do to increase this trend in lower launch costs, but to do this one realize that government doesn’t lower costs as it has no motivation to do so, and that only competitive market have and will continue lower costs. Markets lower costs because they want to make more money. If a company lowers costs it make more money, if governments lower costs they get less money for their budgets.
        Government tend to sell their “projects” by saying it will cost less, and once funded they end up costing more.
        So for instance, Obamacare was sold to public by saying it would lower prices of health care, and most should realize by now, there is zero hope of this happening. instead it has and will continue to increase healthcare costs and give poorer healthcare.

        So what you don’t want to do is an Obamacare for space. Instead what government can do to lower costs is explore space to find new markets in space. And/or government can pass laws that allow properties rights in space.
        Or reason there is a need of the government exploring space, is government has not passed laws allowing investment in space exploration. Or the current legal regime, requires the governments to pay for space exploration.
        The Moon treaty was not accepted by US, because it’s hopelessly Marxists. But it looms as possible route taken- particularly by US courts.
        So I what mean by government action in terms of law, is something that is the opposite of the Moon treaty. So to remove uncertainty in regards to property rights in regard to the Moon.
        But this seems unlikely, so we stuck with relying on governments to explore space. What NASA should do is explore to Moon to find minable water deposits. Mining water on the Moon would a new market in space.
        If one mines water on the Moon, and one makes rocket fuel, one significant lower costs of going to Moon. And significantly lower cost of exporting stuff from the Moon.
        Which could eventually lead to solar panels made on the Moon and exported to Earth high orbit. So within a century we could get to point of harvesting energy from Space and exporting electrical power to Earth.
        Before this, mining lunar water will lower cost of Mars exploration, and lower costs of current satellite market.

      • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 4:31 pm |

        “The sun is excellent source of energy, but we should harvest it beyond Earth’s atmosphere.”
        _____
        Why? We can already design technology that is more efficient in use of solar energy than nature itself– so why move it outside the atmosphere? Artificial photosynthesis is an area of great promise:

        http://solarfuelshub.org/

        Of all the new technologies, this one I have the greatest hope for.

      • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 4:36 pm |

        And for any qualified scientist interested in Artificial Photosynthesis, there is a summer program in Berkeley that you still might be able to attend:

        https://www.regonline.com/Register/Checkin.aspx?EventID=1548068

      • Tonyb | June 8, 2014 at 4:45 pm |

        Rgates

        Is this the sort of research you mean?
        http://www.bioc.cam.ac.uk/people/uto/howe

        Tonyb

      • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 5:04 pm |

        Precisely Tony. From the bio:

        “As part of the Algal Biotechnology Consortium, based in Cambridge, we are studying ways of manipulating the photosynthetic machinery of algae for renewable energy production.”

        AP (Artificial Photosynthesis) offers such amazing potential– and far more sustainable and environmentally friendly than any other technology. Also, because it can draw down CO2 from the air, there is a win-win nature to the technology. At some point in the future, if AP really gets going it may be that we actually have to have CO2 “generators”, to keep CO2 from going too low in the atmosphere if most power comes from AP. This would be geoengineering in the extreme, but quite possible. We simply ‘dial in” the CO2 level we want (aka the thermostat) and balance that with our global use of AP for energy.

      • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 5:09 pm |

        gbaikie,

        We are already seeing that sending robots out for interplanetary exploration is the way to go. Humans simply have serious limitations. Star Trek remains a nice fantasy. Now we might genetically engineer humans and/or biobots for space exploration, but then it won’t be humans as we know them. Captain Kirk will either be a robot, a bio-engineered human or robot, or remain forever in the world of fantasy.

      • gbaikie | June 8, 2014 at 5:11 pm |

        — R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 4:31 pm |

        “The sun is excellent source of energy, but we should harvest it beyond Earth’s atmosphere.”
        _____
        Why? We can already design technology that is more efficient in use of solar energy than nature itself– so why move it outside the atmosphere?–

        Basically because only reason not to do it outside Earth atmosphere is the cost of shipping it outside the atmosphere.
        And this cost is being address and will continue to be addressed.

        People are under the impression that getting into space is too hard and too costly. People were also under the impression that flying was too hard and too expensive.
        In future flying will be even easier and cheaper [and much faster] than it is right now. But getting into space will be more dramatic in this regards.

        One could simplify why we don’t have settlement on the Moon and Mars at the moment [or had people living there decades ago] due to simple fact of not having a market for rocket fuel in Earth orbit.
        It’s not a technological barrier, it’s a political barrier.

        If want to solve global problems [poverty, energy, etc] get into Space.

      • Tonyb | June 8, 2014 at 5:14 pm |

        Rgates

        By one of life’s coincidences my sons girlfriend is in the research team at Cambridge that I linked to.

        It seems to me to be a most interesting and worthwhile research field

        Tonyb

      • gbaikie | June 8, 2014 at 5:57 pm |

        –gbaikie,

        We are already seeing that sending robots out for interplanetary exploration is the way to go. Humans simply have serious limitations. Star Trek remains a nice fantasy. Now we might genetically engineer humans and/or biobots for space exploration, but then it won’t be humans as we know them. Captain Kirk will either be a robot, a bio-engineered human or robot, or remain forever in the world of fantasy.–

        Ah, the robotic vs human debate. This like all political debates.
        So, first, I want more of robotic NASA program. Fuel depots would be robotic [mostly]. But I don’t want to prohibit human exploration.
        The robot only side of debate, feels that if we wasted less money on human spaceflight, that there would be more funds for robotic programs.
        And this is simply wrong.
        First, robotic exploration is expensive. Robotic exploration does have a key element which helps it be cheaper- you don’t need to bring the robot back to Earth.
        Another reason human spaceflight is expensive, is it’s tied to idea that NASA needs to make the rocket to launch humans. So it’s the NASA manned rocket which is the vast majority of the expense involved. Or NASA does not feel it needs to make the rocket which launches robots.

        Another way to look at this, is that, EU though it is involved in human spaceflight it does not spend a lot money on it, yet EU with higher GNP
        spends less and does less on space activity. Or the EU has proven that if we only spent less on manned spaceflight, we could do more exploration with robots.

        Another thing, is human exploration does more exploration than robots do. The Moon though we only gave exploration a minor consideration [as compared to beating the Soviets to the Moon] has had more exploration done on it, than any other body, and it done in period of less than a decade of time. Or if want to do a lot of exploration and in shortest period of time, send human crew.

        The other part, is related to why are you exploring space, at all?
        One could spend billions tunneling to Earth core, and find out lots of interesting things, but not much is being done in this regard. Also we explore the ocean- as some have said, it’s less explored than the Moon.
        Which is almost right. It’s not right because we have not really explored the polar region on the Moon. One of coldest spots in solar system, and is in permanent shadow.
        The reason why we explore space, is to ultimately make easier to go into space, where 99.999 etc % of the Universe is. It’s similar to why live on the land instead of remaining in the ocean.

        So we explored the Moon back in 1960’s and concluded that Moon had no water. And we were wrong. The Moon doesn’t have much water, but it has enough water [probably]. So we done some exploration of lunar poles, but we need more robotic and crewed exploration of lunar poles- we need to determine if and where water on lunar poles in minable- meaning profitable to extract water. Or there is probably a trillion dollars worth of minable lunar water at lunar poles. Or a near terms market of hundreds of billions of dollars of lunar rocket fuel. Tens billions of water, tens of billion of market size of electrical power which over decades of time amounts to a total of trillion [s] of commercial activity. Or it will take some time before the Moon has GNP of hundreds of billions.
        Once Moon has GNP of 50 billion, it changes everything.

      • gbaikie | June 8, 2014 at 6:47 pm |

        Also example of what commercial human flight would be:

  7. Jim Cripwell | June 7, 2014 at 1:58 pm |

    There is a forecast for Arctic sea ice extent this summer, from NOAA. I have no idea what it is based on or how good it is.

    http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif

    If I interpret it correctly, and it turns out to be correct, then my guess that this year’s minimum will have more ice than 2013, looks pretty good.

    But there are some 20 yachts which got stuck in the NW passage last year, when the owners seemed to believe the warmists that it was safe to go there in the summer with no help from icebreakers. They overwintered at Cambridge Bay. If the NW passage does not open up this year, what are the owners of these yachts going to do? There is a lot of money tied up in these boats, but to get them out might mean the use of Canadian icebreakers; at a cost of $50,000 per day.

    • Steven Mosher | June 7, 2014 at 5:50 pm |

      its not an official forecast.
      read the background

    • bob droege | June 7, 2014 at 5:56 pm |

      Too bad extent by JAXA, area by Cryosphere Today and Ice Volume by PIOMAS are all less than 2013 at the latest data point for 2014.

      Volume has a slight lead, extent a medium 300k and area more like 600k.

      Too early to tell for sure, but more than 2013 looks unlikely.

    • Jim Cripwell | June 8, 2014 at 9:47 am |

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

      I find it interesting that during the winter, COI reported temperatures above the average. Now we are into the melt season, temperatures are solidly below average. I thought the poles were supposed to be “the canary in the coal mine”, and temperatures were, by this time, to be above average.

    • bob droege | June 9, 2014 at 10:44 am |

      Jim,
      You link to the site where you can see the temperatures modeled for the last 50 some years, it is almost always below average in the summer and above average in winter.

      I think it has to do with the phase change of water, a below average temperature during the summer indicates that melting is indeed going on.

  8. cwon14 | June 7, 2014 at 2:05 pm |

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/the-politics-of-being-green-20140605

    Past time to accept the political meme that is the core of “climate change” and mitigate the false credibility given to it by the garb of compliant partisan “science”.

  9. omanuel | June 7, 2014 at 2:17 pm |

    Skeptics won the AGW debate, but Believers retain the political power.

    Peaceful reconciliation is the best and quickest way to restore sanity to our troubled society.

    Missing is a spokesman for consensus government models who can replace official worship of models with sacred respect for precise measurements and observations.

    • cwon14 | June 7, 2014 at 7:48 pm |

      This misses the entire point of the AGW belief system and underlying politics it supports. Until green extremism is acknowledged and rejected the situation will remain bleak.

      What’s missing is a professional and objective science academia willing to stop towing the line of their political peers. Models are only an instrument, it’s complicity of the agenda itself that must be confronted.

    • omanuel | June 7, 2014 at 11:30 pm |

      “What’s missing is a professional and objective science academia willing to stop towing the line of their political peers.”

      The post-WWII system of research grants was designed to assure that scientific academia would tow the line of those distributing the funds.

      World leaders had good reason* to believe in August 1945 that Earth’s atmosphere might be accidentally ignited by nuclear weapons.

      Instead of being angry and seeking to punish them for corrupting science, we need to accept that their motives in 1945 were not totally selfish.

      Reconciliation is in the best interest of everyone.

      *See last paragraph of Aston’s Nobel Prize Lecture on 12 Dec 1922.

    • omanuel | June 7, 2014 at 11:53 pm |

      *Last paragraph of Aston’s lecture: “Should the research worker of the future discover some means of releasing this energy in a form which could be employed, the human race will have at its command powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction; but the remote possibility must always be considered that the energy once liberated will be completely uncontrollable and by its intense violence detonate all neighbouring substances. In this event the whole of the hydrogen on the earth might be transformed at once and the success of the experiment published at large to the universe as a new star.“

    • omanuel | June 8, 2014 at 12:30 am |

      This 2002 BBC news report confirms loss of atomic bomb plans fifty-seven years earlier in 1945.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

      Kuroda’s 1992 autobiography (pp. 5-8) explains the importance of Aston’s lecture in Tokyo on June 13, 1936.

      http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/PKKAutobiography.pdf

    • brent | June 7, 2014 at 7:55 pm |

      The Evolution Of The Politician
      http://wackytimes.com/WackyTimesEvolution.html

    • Mike Flynn | June 7, 2014 at 8:06 pm |

      curryja,

      I am concerned that an even number of coin flips was used to be the final arbiter of consensus in some cases. There doesn’t seem to be provision for a similar scientific mechanism in the case of equal numbers of heads and tails.

      Possibly the coin flips could be modelled to provide impartial outputs which ensure the desired outcome. Climatologists could assist in this regard, I am sure.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

  11. John Vonderlin | June 7, 2014 at 2:30 pm |

    The Wired article had some quotes with too many weasel words for my liking, so I went to the Brillouin Energy Corp. website. The last entry in their site’s blog was from 2012, a bad sign in my opinion. A web search turns up nothing recent of interest concerning deployment. It does turn up interviews from several years ago that were promising imminent success. I guess a few bugs showed up during Beta testing; shocking I know. It would seem in this claimed Cold Fusion breakthrough, as with almost every other Pie-In-The-Sky exotic energy breakthrough I’ve seen claimed in the last 40 years, there is no there there when you dig deeper. My Skeptic’s B.S. meter’s klaxon is sounding loudly.

  12. Hockey Schtick | June 7, 2014 at 2:51 pm |

    I came across these lecture notes from Dr. Irina N. Sokolik of Dr. Curry’s department at Georgia Tech:

    http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_SPRING2012/Lec12.pdf

    which show in Fig 12.1 “the thermal IR heating rate profiles in a cloud-free standard tropical atmosphere, segregated according to main absorbing gases. Note that negative values represent cooling.”

    CO2 is shown as a cooling agent throughout the entire troposphere & stratosphere, and as a slight warming agent only in the tropopause near 15 km. According to Dr. Sokolik’s notes,

    “NOTE: CO2 has very small radiative heating rates. Radiation emitted at one level is absorbed at nearby level having almost the same temperature. Only at the tropopause (near 15 km), where the temperature profile has a minimum, there is a small amount of heating. At higher altitudes, pressure broadening is much weaker allowing emitted radiation to escape to space with little compensating radiation downward from higher levels.”

    H2O is also shown in 12.1 to be an IR cooling agent throughout 0-30km.

    How is it that if both H2O and CO2 are acting as net IR cooling agents throughout the entire troposphere as shown in fig 12.1 that they are also alleged to have a net 33C warming effect?

    • Pierre-Normand | June 8, 2014 at 1:16 am |

      Hockey Schtick wrote: “How is it that if both H2O and CO2 are acting as net IR cooling agents throughout the entire troposphere as shown in fig 12.1 that they are also alleged to have a net 33C warming effect?”

      I this lecture they only consider cooling/warming rates from IR “cooling agents” (e.g. clouds, aerosols and greenhouse gases), excluding the solar contribution and the non-radiative fluxes (latent and convective/sensible). So, those figure don’t represent actual rates of temperature change but rather IR heat fluxes expressed as rates of temperature change — that is, how much the temperature of the air in some layer would change per unit time as a function of heat capacity if this IR flux were the sole heat flux.

      You are surprised that the contribution of greenhouse gases to IR heat fluxes in most atmospheric layers (except near the tropopause) is a net cooling flux. But that’s as expected. Were it not for the greenhouse gases, the atmosphere wouldn’t be able to radiate heat to space at all. The atmosphere would only be warmed by sensible, convective and latent fluxes originating from the surface until it would reach the same temperature as the surface through most of the atmospheric column and then the internal heat fluxes would stop (except for small near surface diurnal fluctuations and minor solar effects in the ionosphere). The surface would radiate directly through space through the IR-transparent atmosphere and so the IR flux from the surface to space would equal the incoming solar flux to the surface.

      The greenhouse gases both make the surface more IR-opaque and allow it to cool to space. Since they are mostly transparent to the solar incoming radiation (mainly shortwave) they still allow the Sun to warm the surface. But the surface ability to radiate to space now is much reduced. It is instead higher up in the atmosphere that IR radiation is now enabled to escape. The heat that the Sun deposits to the surface must thus be transported higher up before it can escape. This transport is mainly convective, and latent (through evaporation and condensation of water). It establishes the lapse rate and the cooler temperature of the upper troposphere and stratosphere. Since the IR flux from the atmosphere to space is much reduced compared with the case with no greenhouse gases, the Earth surface warms until more radiation is able to escape withing those narrow spectral regions that greenhouse gases are transparent to, and the radiative balance is thereby restored.

      So, it’s precisely because greenhouse gases enable the atmosphere to cool to space — both directly through radiating from lower levels to higher levels, and indirectly through establishing a temperature gradient that enables convective and sensible fluxes — that the surface warms.

    • Pierre-Normand | June 8, 2014 at 1:57 am |

      I now see A Lacis replied to your inquiry further down, in case you also missed it. His response seems consistent with mine, though more detailed.

  13. John Vonderlin | June 7, 2014 at 3:04 pm |

    Dr. Curry,
    Your link was indeed funny, and clever, intelligent satire to boot. Which gives me an opportunity to echo Bob Tisdale’s thoughts about the quality of your blog. With your creative work, broad knowledge of climatology, and an eclectic interest in synergizing related fields providing the blog’s infrastructure and the wide-ranging spectrum of opinionated denizens you’ve attracted fleshing out its skeleton, you have created a powerful chimeric monster that is shambling down the crooked path of knowledge sharing. I’m delighted to be a flea, hanging on, enjoying the ride to places I never thought about visiting. Kudos to all the denizens, especially the warmists and CAGWers, irritating as you might be on occasion, who in stirring the pot, force others to up their game. You help provide a balance here that I’ve not often found on the other websites I monitor in the climatology area.

    • R. Gates | June 7, 2014 at 3:10 pm |

      I agree with you assessment of what Judith has created here. There is a nice mix of perspectives and thus far she has done a good job of keeping it from becoming another Watt’s or Nova echo chamber.

    • DocMartyn | June 7, 2014 at 8:14 pm |

      Mosher, the longer the pause goes on. the lower the climate sensitivity, indicating that water amplification, a positive feed-back, is low.

      However, we are assured that the ‘Climate Model”TM are all based on fundamental physics. So either the people who designed the models are lying about their basis in physics, or the fundamental physics is wrong.

      I have always suspected the former, and if that turns out to be the case then we will see the first case of the use of RICO being used against the scientific community.
      In two years it is likely that you will have a Republican President, Senate and Congress. These people are going to spend a lot of time looking at this as the Democrats have presented them as anti-science retards.

  14. rls | June 7, 2014 at 3:25 pm |

    I’m not as well read as most of you and Kuhn may be known to you, but was curious as to your reaction:
    “The temperature plateau and the persistent limitations and errors of the computer models strongly suggest the kind of “anomalies” that Thomas Kuhn famously explained should constitute a crisis for dominant scientific theories”

    • AK | June 7, 2014 at 3:31 pm |

      Not nearly that simple. Remember Kuhn specifically excluded from his preliminary analysis scientific fields strongly supported by industry or government money.

    • Steven Mosher | June 7, 2014 at 5:38 pm |

      not really.

      handling the pause is a matter of tuning not revolution

      Here is what a revolution or crisis would be

      Finding out that radiative physics was wrong

    • AK | June 7, 2014 at 10:33 pm |

      Finding out that radiative physics was wrong

      Finding out that radiative physics was wrong can’t be applied on a scale larger than a few hundred microns.

      It can’t.

      • andrew adams | June 8, 2014 at 6:43 pm |

        Finding out that radiative physics was wrong can’t be applied on a scale larger than a few hundred microns.

        It can’t.

        Yet the GHE exists.

  15. Ragnaar | June 7, 2014 at 3:44 pm |

    Looking at this 30 graph, are we really circling the drain?
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/00/tavg/1/04/1984-2014?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1984&lasttrendyear=2014
    Looking for the 1997/1998 El Nino in the lower 48 records, it came just in time to warm us up, followed by some cooling, maybe.

  16. jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 3:47 pm |

    It’s about time someone figured this out.
    From the article:
    …
    Forget about Barack Obama’s ultra-liberal policies — should Americans now be worried about the mental health of the current occupant of the White House? That was the alarming suggestion Fox Business Network viewers heard Tuesday evening.

    Talking about the bewildering decision to trade five “high risk” Taliban leaders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on Lou Dobbs Tonight, psychologist Dr. Gina Loudon said she has become “very, very concerned” that President Obama has become “irrational, erratic and perhaps not exactly what we might want to deem sane.” [Video and transcript after the jump.]

    Host Lou Dobbs asked Loudon about the case of U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who is currently imprisoned in Mexico after accidentally crossing the border March 31 with guns in his vehicle, a case which seems much less urgent to the Obama administration than that of Bowe Bergdahl.

    But instead of talking about the Tahmooressi case, Loudon made the much more disturbing observation that Obama is exhibiting signs of “irrational” behavior:
    …

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2014/06/04/fox-biz-psychologist-worries-erratic-obama-may-not-be-sane

    • GaryM | June 7, 2014 at 6:30 pm |

      There is nothing irrational about the prisoner exchange. Obama has been trying to shut Gitmo since he was elected. He has been trying to send the five terrorist leaders home for several years.

      The “exchange” for Bergdahl was just an attempt to put a humanitarian face on an anti-American policy. He thought he could set a precedent for sending home terrorists, close Gitmo over the objections of congress, and get credit for “rescuing” s soldier being held “captive.” The fact that he was a deserter, that he left seeking the Taliban, and had condemned his country and comrades, meant nothing to the geniuses running the White House PR machine.

      One of Obama’s primary goals is to realize one of the dreams of his father, the ending of American primacy in foreign affairs, particularly militarily.

      Stupid is not the same as irrational.

    • Tonyb | June 7, 2014 at 6:38 pm |

      Gary

      Has Obama never heard of Danegeld?

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

      This trading of soldiers for terrorists will surely come back to bite him

      Tonyb

    • jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 6:46 pm |

      Tony – for the sake of the USA, we can only hope it does.

    • GaryM | June 7, 2014 at 6:56 pm |

      tonyb,

      I doubt Obama knows much of anything about western history. Other than a litany of progressive revisionism denigrating everything that came before as the legacy of racist, sexist, homophobic dead white males. I think he harbors the same animosity for the west, and the US in particular, that his father did.

      He is as oblivious as most who were educated in the modern progressive university system in the west.

    • rhhardin | June 7, 2014 at 8:45 pm |

      It’s just classic incompetence.

      Belmont Club has a historical explanation.

    • Stephen Segrest | June 7, 2014 at 10:22 pm |

      What’s the purpose of your post on Bergdahl for this CE blog?

    • jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 11:00 pm |

      SS – Note: Open Thread.

    • Stephen Segrest | June 7, 2014 at 11:12 pm |

      Dr. Curry’s Blog Rules (include) Don’t grind your personal axes by filling up the comments with extensive posts that are not deemed relevant or interesting in the context of blog objectives.
      ============
      Many of us come to Dr. Curry’s blog to try and learn something (primarily science). With typically 400 to 600 responses this can be difficult scanning through what’s relevant and what’s not.

      When about 10 people take up so much space ranting about Obama or Liberals this and that — the attempt to learn (time-wise) becomes hard wading through all this stuff. One can get frustrated in quickly scanning and miss posts that “ARE” meaningful.

      If you have ideological or personal problems with Obama or Liberals, take it to another blog!

    • jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 11:17 pm |

      From the blog rules:
      Objectionable posts will be rejected or snipped, and I will do my best to spot them in a timely manner.

      And Dr. Curry is the moderator, in case you are suffering from delusions.

    • Stephen Segrest | June 7, 2014 at 11:33 pm |

      Jim2 — not a very mature or responsible attitude.

    • rmdobservations | June 8, 2014 at 3:33 am |

      Stephen Segrest I agree with you. However, it is useful for detecting the news sources of those who express opinions about climate change in other topics.

  17. A fan of *MORE* discourse | June 7, 2014 at 3:51 pm |

    BREAKING NEWS
    “Amici Scientists” file historic brief
    “Stale-Pale-Male” denialism faces historic defeat

    Calling themselves the Amici Scientists, James Hansen and colleagues are attacking the “stale-pale-male” forces of denialism at their weakest point: inability to recruit young scientists and young family-starting voters.

    The Amici Scientists strategy is three-pronged: scientific, legal and moral. The strategy is disclosed in three documents:

    • Young People’s Day in Court: Part I  “The situation is crystal clear. The climate threat is undeniable. Yet the executive and legislative branches of government, concerned with short-term politics, are failing to protect young people.”

    • Young People’s Day in Court: Part II  “The courts have a crucial role to play, because of their ability to take a long view. Regardless of the outcome of this specific trial, if we continue to improve the presentation and press for the rights of young people, their case will be won eventually.”

    • Brief Of Scientists Amicus Group 

    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

    I. GREENHOUSE GASES HAVE ALREADY REACHED THE DANGEROUS LEVEL AND, WITHOUT EFFECTIVE ACTION, WILL PRODUCE CATASTROPHIC AND IRRETRIEVABLE LOSSES.

    II. ACTION TO PHASE OUT CO2 EMISSIONS IS URGENTLY REQUIRED, WHILE DELAY VIRTUALLY ENSURES CALAMITY.

    III. LOWER COURTS HAS MISAPPREHENDED THE NATURE OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS

    Unsurprisingly, the response of “stale-pale-male” market-fundamentalists amounts to a real-life goat-joke.

    Conclusion (1)  As the tropospheric “pause” ends, the scientific, economic, moral, political, and (now) legal case for effective climate-change action all are becoming ever-stronger.

    Conclusion (2)  The scientific, economic, moral, political, and (now) legal influence of the Amici Scientists — in english, the Friend Scientists — is destined to increase too.

    Meanwhile denialists offer young scientists and young voters nothing better than an absurd “goat-joke” vision of computerized globalized market-tyranny.

    Needless to say, young researchers and young family-starting voters aren’t fooled. That’s why — over the long haul — the Amici Scientists are already winning.

    These accelerating (and confluent) scientific, economic, moral, political, and (now) legal trends are obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?

    \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}

    • jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 3:56 pm |

      This assemblage of loonies reminds me of the movie “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

    • Tonyb | June 7, 2014 at 4:15 pm |

      Fan

      No one denies climate change is happening as dr Hansen asserts. It has happened since the earth began. The question is whether man is having a material effect. Here is a later update than yours

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/05/1297175/-Young-People-Sue-Federal-Government-Ignoring-Climate-Change-Violates-Constitutional-Rights

      This is scientist as an advocate. One of the appellants is 13 . She comments as to how she can see things change in her lifetime. Don’t you think we need a much better historic perspective than the musings of a 13 year old, no matter how well intentioned?

      Tonyb

    • Raving | June 7, 2014 at 4:18 pm |

      Deniers are a minor backwater constiuency. They are unimportant. What is your motive for relentlessly pillorying them?

    • jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 4:36 pm |

      Tony – My 86 yr old father-in-law, who lives in the Southern US, told me of the polar vortex that he hadn’t seen anything like that in his lifetime. Joe D’Aeleo wrote on WUWT at the time that the polar vortex weather pattern hadn’t been seen since the end of WW I. That precluded my f-i-l from experiencing it, even given HIS old age. Full disclosure, I haven’t verified what D’Aeleo said.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse | June 7, 2014 at 4:39 pm |

      Raving asserts [correctly] “Deniers are a minor backwater constituency. [In the long run] they are unimportant.”

      Truth by Raving, restriction by FOMD!

      Like all rational conservatives, the Amicus Scientists appreciate that the sole elements of society that are charged with the long-view (meaning generations and longer) are the judicial, religious, educational, artistic, and family elements.

      The reason is common-sense: Constitutions, religious fellowships, universities, artworks, and family blood-lines (and farms!) all endure for centuries … and so these communities work together in planning ahead for centuries.

      Whereas politicians, media-pundits, CEOs, stock-traders, and demagogues have *ZERO* incentive to look farther ahead than the next election, ratings, or earnings report.

      That’s common-sense, eh Raving?

      And so it’s unsurprising that the judicial, religious, educational, artistic, and family elements of society are passionately concerned with climate-change.

      Whereas politicians, CEOS, stock-traders, and demagogues are irresistably attracted to the expediency of denialism … without much caring that in the long-run denialism is utterly wrong scientifically, economically, morally, politically, and (now) legally.

      That’s obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?

      Thank you for a fine post, Raving!

      \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}

    • Tonyb | June 7, 2014 at 4:46 pm |

      Jim2

      That’s interesting.

      With our long records in the UK we are always being told the weather was the worst for 30/50/100/150 Years. It is very rarely unprecedented particularly when we delve into the even older records which is what I like to do.

      I am sure the 13 year old I referenced is genuinely worried, which brings us to a major problem developing with our youth who are not provided with a historic perspective so they can view things in context. As a result they are becoming nihilistic and fearful and prone to being manipulated.

      Tonyb

    • Raving | June 7, 2014 at 5:06 pm |

      Thank you for providing the context for your viewpoint FAN. Appreciate your opinion far more clearly now. I see where you are coming from and what you mean by it

    • jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 5:06 pm |

      Ah youth, the tabula rasa for the alarmists and propagandists of all stripes. Pity to be them.

    • jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 6:43 pm |

      If Hansen and his ilk have their way, our youth’s inheritance will be frittered away on solar panels, windmills, unicorn farts, and carbon taxes before they know enough to figure it out. By the time they do figure it out, they will be serfs.

    • DocMartyn | June 7, 2014 at 8:18 pm |

      FOMD, can you tell me which of the two groups; progressives and conservatives are likely to have live children, rather than abortions?

    • rmdobservations | June 8, 2014 at 3:38 am |

      Jim2 I believe unicorns, if they existed, would be ungulates (hoofed animals) and therefore their farts would be a major source of methane, a greenhouse gas. Therefore, not popular in the alarmist camp.

    • jim2 | June 8, 2014 at 8:43 am |

      Tony – My f-i-l lies politically somewhat to the left of Karl Marx. I once asked him to look at some climate-related data. He literally got agitated and declared that he believed in global warming and nothing would change his mind. That might explain his statement about the weather.

  18. Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 4:08 pm |

    Robust evidence for benefits more than 15 times higher than costs

    1.e) achieve full and productive employment for all, reduce barriers to productive employment for all women.
    2.b) reduce by 50% or more malnutrition in all its forms, notably stunting and wasting in children under five years of age
    3.b) by 2030 reverse the spread of and significantly reduce deaths from tuberculosis and malaria see notes for disease specific targets).
    3.c) achieve universal health coverage (UHC), including financial risk protection, assuming a gradual increase in coverage over time, focusing first on diseases where interventions have high benefits-to-costs.
    3.f) and 5.i) ensure universal access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health including modern methods of family planning.
    4.c) by 2030 increase by x% the proportion of children able to access and complete quality pre-primary education.
    5.c) by 2030 ensure equal access to education at all levels.
    7.a) by 2030 ensure increased access to modern energy services.
    7.e) by 2030 phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
    12.b) Build resilience and adaptive capacity to climate induced hazards in all vulnerable countries.
    15.a) promote open, rules-based, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading and financial systems, including complying with the agricultural mandate of the WTO Doha Round.
    15.c) improve market access for agricultural and industrial exports of developing countries, especially Least Developed Countries, and at least double the share of LDCs’ exports in global exports by 2020.

    http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/final_un_ccc_2015.pdf

    • pochas | June 8, 2014 at 10:07 am |

      That’s an excellent summary, assuming its implementation doesn’t fall into the hands of bureaucrats.

  19. Real But Exaggerated | June 7, 2014 at 4:16 pm |

    Temperature change in and of itself is not a problem, at least within a few degrees. We can say this because the diurnal, inter-day, seasonal, and inter-annual variation we all experience at our respective localities is degrees or even tens of degrees Celsius.

    That being the case, it would be helpful to enumerate exactly what problems we perceive. Since the evidence of the records of drought, fire, tornadoes, and hurricanes are not correlated with global temperature exactly what are your anxieties?

    You can say sea level rise if you want, but SLR is 3mm/year, only 2mm of which are attributable to warming.

    You can say heatwaves, but reversing coldwaves would be just as likely.

    If you can’t identify clearly the harms in a measurable way, please consider them more carefully..

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 4:24 pm |

      The US National Academy of Sciences defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.

      Abrupt climate change happens on scales of decades to many millennia. It suggests a larger role for natural variability but also an inherent instability in the complex and dynamic Earth system. Instability to which we theoretically may be driving the system towards. The further out we get the greater the impetus to instability – although it also suggests little warming – if any – for decades. This latter seems the core of the political impasse we are at in climate politics – but it is a false dichotomy. There are many states possible in the climate system – and the world will shift between them unpredictably. It seems more than time therefore that the political impasse was broken in favour of pragmatic – and politically feasible – solutions.

      Anthropogenic forcing of climate is a multi-gas problem with population and development dimensions – CO2 from fossil fuels, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, land clearing, loss of soil carbon, nitrous oxide, methane, sulfide – compounded by population and development issues. Carbon dioxide is the smaller part of the overall problem. Population adds to all of the pressures on climate and the environment. Development allows room for amelioration of all these problems – including population pressures. Early and substantial progress can be made on a multi-gas strategy – in conserving and restoring ecosystems and in sequestering CO2 in repaired agricultural soils – with benefits for incomes, health, agricultural productivity and the environment.

    • lolwot | June 7, 2014 at 4:44 pm |

      “Temperature change in and of itself is not a problem, at least within a few degrees. We can say this because the diurnal, inter-day, seasonal, and inter-annual variation we all experience at our respective localities is degrees or even tens of degrees Celsius.”

      But none of that is sustained.

    • phatboy | June 7, 2014 at 5:05 pm |

      You’re right – it’s not sustained.
      And that’s the whole point – the big hoo-ha is about some small nebulous change over time in the average

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 5:08 pm |

      I suggest that the new energy state was the result of a step change in cloud post 1998/2001 – and it has been pretty steady since.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=112

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Earthshine-1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=144

      ‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’

      The Sun is cooling – which we presume is amplified through the system – and these decadal modes last 20 to 40 years.

      The pause is here to stay for a bit yet. It comes at the price of an inherent instability of the system.

      Is the ocean warming? Depends on which Argo climatology you ‘believe’.

      e.g. steric sea level rise 0.2mm +/- 0.8mm/yr

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ARGOGRACE_Leuliette2012_zps9386d419.png.html?sort=3&o=11

    • Steven Mosher | June 7, 2014 at 5:35 pm |

      “Temperature change in and of itself is not a problem, at least within a few degrees. We can say this because the diurnal, inter-day, seasonal, and inter-annual variation we all experience at our respective localities is degrees or even tens of degrees Celsius.”

      Logic Fail.

      Your bank account
      Jan Low 1000, Jan High 5000
      Feb Low 900 Feb High 5000
      March Low 750 March high 4500
      Apr Low 700 April high 4500
      may Low 600 May high 4000
      June Low 400 June High 3500

      You get the idea.

      On the climate: The dirunal range will actually shrink as we warm
      wrong metric.

      Further, some things are not sensitive to the spread of data but are sensitive to the extremes. Like my bank account. its not sensistive to the difference between high and low.. its sensitive to the low. when it hits zero
      you got problems.

    • Don Monfort | June 7, 2014 at 5:44 pm |

      Mosher, ask him how he would feel if his body temperature increased by 3C.

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 6:53 pm |

      The point was that very minor increase in temp is well within natural variability at any scale – inane analogies notwithstanding.

    • DocMartyn | June 7, 2014 at 8:24 pm |

      Mosher, the one place we should expect to observe surface warming due to atmospheric CO2 increases in back radiation is in Antarctica. The rate of cooling in the polar night should slow and the warming from spring to summer should increase. Oddly, there has been no change in the Antarctic temperature profile, although we have records stretching back to the late 50’s.

    • phatboy | June 9, 2014 at 1:26 am |

      But Mosh, if you only see a small increase in the average of your bank account, you don’t know whether that’s because you’ve received a pay rise, or because you’re hitting zero less often.
      Especially if you’re looking at the average bank account of your entire neighbourhood.

    • phatboy | June 9, 2014 at 1:30 am |

      …actually you’re not even looking at the average of their bank accounts, you’re looking at the average of the anomalies.

  20. rls | June 7, 2014 at 4:17 pm |

    A few years back the US Energy Department was planning to build a small pilot nuclear reactor with the capability to directly produce hydrogen, without the need to first convert to electricity; it would have had application to fuel cell cars. Don’t know what happened to that project.

  21. Mikky | June 7, 2014 at 4:18 pm |

    A suggestion for discussion of why the climate can seem to (or can be made to seem to) change around the time of the industrial revolution. Not the “spewing” of CO2 into the atmosphere, but the fact than Man started to make measurements.

    To show the history of some variable (e.g. temperature or sea-level) a splicing together is often made between proxies and actual measurements. Not surprising to me that the transition can give the appearance of a change.

    Besides the obvious example of the Hockey Stick (“hide the decline”), there is a similar hockey stick effect seen in some sea-level histories (e.g. the one featured by the IPCC), and can it be a coincidence that Trenberth’s ocean heat starts to rise suddenly at exactly the time that the Argo buoys started to be deployed?

  22. rls | June 7, 2014 at 4:54 pm |

    Thank you for the information Dr Allison.

  23. jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 4:55 pm |

    From the article:
    …
    Additionally, Lonestar’s cash margins per boe averaged $66.43 in 2013, which was among the highest in the Eagle Ford. This is primarily attributed to the following key factors:

    1) The company operates most of its wells and controls the method of completions, costs & flowback. As such, it controls its pace of spending too.

    2) All of Lonestar’s wells have been pad drilled to cut costs and the company will continue doing so over the next years.

    3) Lonestar has a low well cost that ranges from $4.9 million to $7.0 million.

    4) The Eagle Ford play provides not only exposure to light oil, but also to Gulf Coast crude oil markets with established transportation systems.
    …
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/2255893-lonestar-resources-is-the-next-multi-bagger-getting-ready-to-rock-in-the-lone-star-state

  24. jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 5:00 pm |

    Nat gas.
    From the article:
    …
    Bottom Line: The latest inventory data from the EIA were neutral, as the inventory deficit against the five-year average fell from 912 to 887 bcf and the deficit against last year fell from 761 to 753 bcf.

    While bearish on the surface, the 119 bcf build was only modestly larger than last year’s 111 bcf injection, leading to only a small decline in the year-over-year surplus. As is typically the case, injections peak during the week of Memorial Day; thus, we expect injections to trend lower from here as summer kicks into gear.

    On the downside, the biggest risk to the market is surging production. U.S. output was up 4.34 bcf per day from a year ago in March, according to the latest data from the EIA. Excluding Gulf of Mexico production, output was up even more-5 bcf/d. If maintained, such a torrid pace of production growth would surely pressure the market eventually.

    That said, Bentek, a leading energy analytics company, said that its most recent pipeline data indicated output was up only 3 bcf/d in May. If that’s correct, output growth may be slowing. In either case, this is the factor that bears close watching throughout the rest of the year.

    In the meantime, bulls are firmly in the driver’s seat as long as the inventory deficit remains substantial. All indications are that storage levels will remain at uncomfortably low levels for some time to come. That leaves the market prone to price spikes in the event of a surge in demand.

    A period of warmer-than-normal temperatures during the height of summer in July or August would surely lead to a rally above $5/mmbtu. Likewise, if the 2014/2015 winter is colder than normal, a surge above $6 or $7 is likely.
    …
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/2255613-natural-gas-bulls-in-drivers-seat-despite-big-builds-and-surging-production

  25. Ragnaar | June 7, 2014 at 5:32 pm |

    “A recent article in Grist proposes that we aren’t sufficiently afraid of climate change. The writer bases his claim on a paper in Nature Geoscience, which reports that global climate models do a lousy job of simulating abrupt climatic shifts, favoring slow-moving changes that they can more easily wrap their silicon-chip brains around.”
    “Paul Valdes, author of the aforementioned Nature Geoscience article, cites four examples from the deep past to illustrate what happens when a climate trend passes a “tipping point” that sets larger and faster changes in motion (and how badly most models handle it).”
    “Valdes concludes: “If the models are to be used for the prediction of potential future events of abrupt change, their ability to simulate such events needs to be firmly established–science is about evidence, not belief systems.””
    http://www.fastcompany.com/1765659/should-we-be-more-scared-climate-change

    How to move this one forward?

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 6:11 pm |

      Mojib Latif – Head of the Research Division: Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics – Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel – and colleagues have made major progress in predicting abrupt climate shifts based on analysis of the 1976/1977 and 1998/2001 climate shifts. ‘The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts. We have taken a major step forward in terms of short-term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming.’ Numerical prediction of climate shifts using powerful climate models is now as accurate as tossing a coin – although perhaps we should not make light of such a difficult problem in climate science.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 7, 2014 at 7:02 pm |

      Every significant ENSO movement is an “abrupt climate shift”.
      We are not “frightened” by these because we realize that they are part of an oscillation that will revert back to the mean:
      http://contextearth.com/2014/05/27/the-soim-differential-equation/
      The mathematical model of ENSO is a second-order non-linear differential equation synchronized by a the more ordered behavior known as the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation.

      It’s nice to have discovered the keys to the kingdom with respect to the ENSO’s behavior. I suppose things that are understood and well-characterized are no longer “frightening”.

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 7:30 pm |

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n5/fig_tab/ngeo2138_F2.html

      More loony tunes garbage from webby. Take a solution of the wave equation for elliptical bathtubs and modulate against the QBO. You can see the QBO graphed against ENSO above. How does that help? Your guess is as good as mine. I just can’t say how crazy this all seems.

      The rest is equally insane. ENSO is has two states but it is not what is meant by abrupt climate change. The latter is characterized by multiple states of climate equilibria. It can be seen – by everyone but webby – in changes in the frequency and intensity of ENSO events.

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

      Blue dominant to 1976/1977, red to 1998 and blue again since – with changes in mean and variance between regimes.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 7, 2014 at 7:56 pm |

      Thanks for the confirming link RobbIE !
      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n5/fig_tab/ngeo2138_F2.html
      No one can score own goals like you can. That’s why I come here.

      One thing that is very interesting about this particular figure is how the QBO and ENSO line up more precisely over the interval 2005 to 2010

      This is in general not true, as the ENSO signal is much more erratic while the QBO has a quasi-period that fluctuates about a 28 month period.

      The fact that the nature of the oscillations differ is not unexpected as the hydrodynamic properties of a mass of water are obviously different than the fluid properties of a mass of thin air.

      Please keep the own goals coming!

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 8:09 pm |

      Does he really not get that the QBO reflects ENSO? And the point it is that it is thus a pointless exercise that simply substitutes one index and another that has the same form and is scaled to fit the first. Does he imagine that drawing parallels between them hasn’t been obvious to anyone who had a clue?

      Yes my point is that the QBO has pretty much the same shape as the MEI. It is utterly insane not to see that and then not to draw the obvious conclusion that it is all just incompetent and loud mouthed nonsense.

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 8:14 pm |

      The solution for standing waves in an elliptical bathtub.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Mathieuplots_zps3ec1411a.png.html?sort=3&o=7

      Modulated by the QBO.

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n5/fig_tab/ngeo2138_F2.html

      Gives you something that looks like SOI?

      It is all stupid and pointless nonsense.

    • Ragnaar | June 7, 2014 at 8:32 pm |

      WebHubTelescope:
      Every significant ENSO movement is an “abrupt climate shift”.
      Yes. ENSO seems the most logical one to model. Forecasts are being made from ENSO about California’s rainfall. These are some of the longer term forecasts that are useful. Far beyond the 10 day weather forecasts. The ENSO in ways has 2 variables. IPWP cubic area and tradewinds velocity. If the PDO could be reduced to 2 or 3 variables, some kind of momentum variable perhaps or potential energy as with the IPWP. I think it’s possible the PDO is an example of a positive feedback that collapses and changes signs. That the North Pacific Gyre spends it time trying to sync with the South Paficic Gyre. When it does there’s strengthened coupling and so forth.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 7, 2014 at 8:49 pm |

      RobbIE said this:

      “Yes my point is that the QBO has pretty much the same shape as the MEI. “

      Yet it doesn’t !
      This is what the QBO looks like since 1950:
      http://www.jisao.washington.edu/datasets/qbo/qbo.gif

      This is what an ENSO MEI index looks like over roughly the same period:
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif

      Same color-code and everything, perfect for comparison.

      It is a wonder that RobbIE can even think straight if he sees everything through a funhouse mirror as in this case.

      So as everyone but RobbIE can obviously tell, the QBO is much more periodic than ENSO, with peaks and valleys having much more predictable values — while the ENSO shows erratic peak and valley heights and irregular periods.

      So how does one get from a periodic function to an erratic function that is potentially more predictable? Via a nonlinear transfer function that simulates the hydrodynamic sloshing of the ocean to a first-order approximation. More explanation here:
      http://contextearth.com/2014/05/27/the-soim-differential-equation/

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 9:24 pm |

      ‘We examine the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) influence on the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) modulation of the cold-point tropopause (CPT) temperatures. An analysis of approximately five decades (in most cases 1950s to near-present) of radiosonde data from 10 near-equatorial stations, distributed along the Equator, shows that the ENSO influence on the QBO is quite zonally symmetric. At all stations analyzed, the QBO has larger amplitude and longer period during La Niña conditions than during El Niño over this total period. We also show that as a consequence of the ENSO influences on QBO periods and amplitudes, the differences between the warmer CPT temperatures during QBO westerly shear conditions and colder temperatures during QBO easterly shear conditions are larger during La Niña than during El Niño for all stations for the entire period considered here. This strengthens earlier findings that the greatest dehydration of air entering the stratosphere from the troposphere occurs during the winter under La Niña and easterly QBO conditions. In addition, stratosphere/troposphere wind and temperature profiles are derived to establish the degree of QBO downward penetration necessary to influence zonal winds and temperatures in the upper troposphere.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2247/abstract

      It is freaking flying monkeys out of his butt all the way. The totally freaking stupid question he should ask is how modulating a bathtub equation with a scaled QBO is anymore than curve fitting nonsense with no predictive capability at all.

      This should pretty evident to any but the lunatic fringe.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 7, 2014 at 10:07 pm |

      RobbIE is backpedaling from what he said earlier:

      “Yes my point is that the QBO has pretty much the same shape as the MEI. “

      And now he is embarrassed when I point out that they do not have the “same shape”, except to say that they both oscillate. LOL!

      This is what the QBO looks like since 1950:
      http://www.jisao.washington.edu/datasets/qbo/qbo.gif

      This is what an ENSO MEI index looks like over roughly the same period:
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif

      Notice how they have “pretty much the same shape”. Not.

      I think he is upset that MNFTIU.
      http://contextearth.com/2014/05/27/the-soim-differential-equation/

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 10:16 pm |

      Now he is repeating the flying monkey crap.

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n5/fig_tab/ngeo2138_F2.html

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 10:20 pm |

      ‘We examine the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) influence on the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) modulation of the cold-point tropopause (CPT) temperatures. An analysis of approximately five decades (in most cases 1950s to near-present) of radiosonde data from 10 near-equatorial stations, distributed along the Equator, shows that the ENSO influence on the QBO is quite zonally symmetric. At all stations analyzed, the QBO has larger amplitude and longer period during La Niña conditions than during El Niño over this total period. We also show that as a consequence of the ENSO influences on QBO periods and amplitudes, the differences between the warmer CPT temperatures during QBO westerly shear conditions and colder temperatures during QBO easterly shear conditions are larger during La Niña than during El Niño for all stations for the entire period considered here. This strengthens earlier findings that the greatest dehydration of air entering the stratosphere from the troposphere occurs during the winter under La Niña and easterly QBO conditions. In addition, stratosphere/troposphere wind and temperature profiles are derived to establish the degree of QBO downward penetration necessary to influence zonal winds and temperatures in the upper troposphere.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2247/abstract

      It is freaking flying monkeys out of his butt all the way. The totally freaking stupid question he should ask is how modulating a bathtub equation with a scaled QBO is anymore than curve fitting nonsense with no predictive capability at all.

      This should pretty evident to any but the lunatic fringe.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 7, 2014 at 11:08 pm |

      This is the quality of RobbIE’s observations:

      “Yes my point is that the QBO has pretty much the same shape as the MEI. “

      Yet if we compare the shape of QBO and the shape pf MEI/ENSO, they are nowhere near the same over the last 60+ years:

      This is what the QBO looks like since 1950:
      http://www.jisao.washington.edu/datasets/qbo/qbo.gif

      This is what an ENSO MEI index looks like over roughly the same period:
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif

      So how do we get from one to the other?

      watch this shot:
      http://contextearth.com/2014/05/27/the-soim-differential-equation/

      swish!

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 11:44 pm |

      ‘We have used both high vertical-resolution and conventional radiosonde data to investigate two aspects of the quasi-biennial oscillation in the equatorial lower stratosphere. Taguchi (2010) used monthly mean wind information from three radiosonde stations in the Western Pacific region to show that QBO periods are generally shorter during El Nino than during La Nina conditions and that QBO amplitudes are generally greater during La Nina conditions. We show that these results are valid for all longitudes in equatorial regions. We also show that QBO modulations of the cold-point-tropopause, on the average, are greater during La Nina conditions, although this result is variable for different stations at different latitudes and longitudes. We believe that this variability is likely due to local influences of convection significantly affecting the cold-point tropopause. Our strategy for investigating both of these aspects of ENSO influences on the QBO was to show that spline-fitting of conventional radiosonde observations gave similar results for both ENSO and QBO variations of winds and temperatures to those derived using high vertical-resolution radiosonde data over a nine year period (as suggested by the results of Bell and Geller, 2008), but that this was too short a period to properly separate ENSO from QBO effects. Given that these similar results were obtained using spline-fits to conventional radiosonde data to those obtained using high vertical-resolution radiosonde data, we then analyzed much longer time series of conventional radiosonde data for several stations, where such data were available over several decades.’

      The QBO looks nothing like ENSO – yet modulating a harmonic solution to standing waves in an elliptical bathtub –
      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Mathieuplots_zps3ec1411a.png.html?sort=3&o=7 – reproduces ENSO?

      It is insane curve fitting to no sane purpose.

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 11:52 pm |

      Let me try to stick to the point.

      The solution for standing waves in an elliptical bathtub.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Mathieuplots_zps3ec1411a.png.html?sort=3&o=7

      Modulated by the QBO.

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n5/fig_tab/ngeo2138_F2.html

      Gives you something that looks like SOI?

      It is all stupid and pointless nonsense.

      So once there is a curve that is poorly fitted to the data – using the QBO – what then? Monkeys flying out his butt I propose.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 8, 2014 at 12:36 am |

      Looky here. We have RobbIE changing his tune so fast that we can see the whiplash in action:

      First he says:

      “Yes my point is that the QBO has pretty much the same shape as the MEI. “

      Now he says:

      “The QBO looks nothing like ENSO”

      As usual he can’t stick to an argument. Ain’t that special?

    • Robert I Ellison | June 8, 2014 at 12:43 am |

      The QBO looks nothing like ENSO – yet modulating a harmonic solution to standing waves with the QBO in an elliptical bathtub –
      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Mathieuplots_zps3ec1411a.png.html?sort=3&o=7 – reproduces ENSO?

      More insane monkey crap from webby.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 8, 2014 at 1:57 am |

      Amazing how well the ENSO can be modeled using a Mathieu-like modulation in the time domain:
      http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img845/835/u1e3.gif

      As usual, RobbIE is very confused as the elliptical nature applies to the spatial domain. Standing waves are a spatio-temporal phenomenon and for modeling the SOI, all we need is the temporal feature.

      I would also like to thank RobbIE for feeding me the following ref:
      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.A11K..03G

    • Robert I Ellison | June 8, 2014 at 2:12 am |

      More monkey shine insanity.

      The solution of the wave equation for an elliptical bathtub of a constant depth is a periodic function – which he then modulates by an ENSO dependent index and pisses on with defective whines about irrelevant crap.

      Circular reasoning all the way – when it is not bent out of shape by meaningless twaddle.

    • WebHubTelescope | June 8, 2014 at 6:51 am |

      RobbIE the RainMan considers himself “an excellent driver” and continues to ignore anything not within his peculiar world view. Other readers can provide their own diagnosis of his psychosis.

    • Robert I Ellison | June 8, 2014 at 3:08 pm |

      The solution for standing waves in an elliptical bathtub.

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Mathieuplots_zps3ec1411a.png.html?sort=3&o=7

      Modulated by the QBO.

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n5/fig_tab/ngeo2138_F2.html

      Gives you something that looks like SOI? Now that’s a surprise. It is curve fitting – that’s all he ever does – poorly fitting curves to data series – that has zilch potential. Yes we know what the series looks like.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 8, 2014 at 3:24 pm |

      RobbIE, What exactly are you so afraid of?

  26. Ragnaar | June 7, 2014 at 5:57 pm |

    This graph says one thing to Minnesota farmers. Money.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/21/00/pcp/12/04/1908-2014?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1908&lasttrendyear=2014&filter=true
    And they need it. Rural populations are generally decreasing. Small town businesses can struggle.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse | June 7, 2014 at 6:51 pm |

      Ragnaar provides [bizarrely] “This graph [that] says one thing to Minnesota farmers.”

      Ragnaar, instead of farmers listening to denialists …

      …  perhaps denialists should listen to farmers.

      That would be wisdom, eh Ragnaar?

      \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}

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 7:01 pm |

      Very odd – NOAA are now denialists and we should listen to Wendell Berry instead?

      The insanity seems to know no bounds.

    • JCH | June 7, 2014 at 7:28 pm |

      In general, if you have just the right snow cover and you get thaw at just the right time and just the right spring rains, you’ll make the most money based on the start.

      Too much precipitation can mean late planting. Late planting can mean less money.

      When I was a kid we harvested early in the fall. In many years they cannot do that now. Ground water is much higher, and the equipment, which is much heavier now, just drops to the axles. So they have to wait until the ground is solidly frozen.

    • Ragnaar | June 7, 2014 at 7:35 pm |

      Kentucky Farmer Wendell Berry may see that his prayers have been answered: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/15/00/pcp/12/04/1908-2014?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1908&lasttrendyear=2014&filter=true

      Jeremiah 14:22: Are there any among the false gods of the nations that can bring rain? Or can the heavens give showers? Are you not he, O Lord our God? We set our hope on you, for you do all these things.

      (Long biblical arguments here.)

      Does Wendell Berry doubt his Lord? The climate world wonders.

    • Ragnaar | June 7, 2014 at 8:06 pm |

      JCH:
      I agree that mud is the biggest fear. When plowing I used to get out of a pickle by raising the plow (losing drag) and praying I wouldn’t get stuck.
      Rainfall can mean delayed planting and drowned crops. We need to drain tile less for environmental and river flood reasons. Minnesota has a Continental Climate and most of the time we’d like more rain and snowfall. The most vulnerable time is before planting where growing season days can be lost.

    • dalyplanet | June 8, 2014 at 12:16 am |

      Another nice link Ragnaar. You have put up some good ones. I spent an hour already looking at the data presented from NOAA in your link. Poor old cold Minnesota sure has suffered a lot with warming winters and more precipitation.It’s becoming so unbearable I may have to move.

    • Ragnaar | June 8, 2014 at 12:43 am |

      dalyplanet | June 8, 2014 at 12:16 am |
      I’d of thought I’d see problems, but we’ve had rainfall trending up. And in the Minnesota data I linked, I eyeballed the Tsonis Sync dates and it seems, when it warms our rainfall increases. When there are cool or flat temperatures, our rainfall flattens. In a way this make sense. We are on the end of the line. Gulf moisture keeps us going but it is a long haul from the Gulf of Mexico. This same distance from the oceans makes us the coldest state in the nation (excluding Alaska) on average. Why go to the Arctic? Minneapolis is a lot cheaper, has WiFi and it would make sense that extreme changes would show up here.

  27. CS | June 7, 2014 at 6:24 pm |

    can anyone point me to good summaries (of both “sides”) on what is thought to the significance of, and explanation for, the circa 1910-1940 warm up ? Thanks.

    • Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 6:31 pm |

      How about some advanced climate physics instead?

      Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.

      It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

      Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication

    • CS | June 7, 2014 at 11:30 pm |

      thanks!

  28. GaryM | June 7, 2014 at 6:35 pm |

    willard,

    Here’s an open thread. I await your full and fair post in favor of a skeptical position in the climate debate, to which I will respond with the consensus argument as best I can. Or you pick the topic and I will post first, as long as you agree to respond in kind.

  29. David L. Hagen | June 7, 2014 at 6:56 pm |

    Does Le Chatelier’s Principle apply to Climate?
    Chiefio has a thought provoking post:
    Le Chatelier and his Principle vs The Trouble with Trenberth

    In chemistry, Le Chatelier’s principle . . .
    “If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counteract the imposed change and a new equilibrium is established.”
    . . . a more general observation, roughly stated:
    “Any change in status quo prompts an opposing reaction in the responding system.”
    . . .
    So a tiny increase of CO2 could be expected to be offset by a similar tiny change in the water cycle as the system seeks to return to the prior conditions. Right out the gate, to PRESUME a positive feedback runaway system, as the Global Warmers do, is a mistake. The first presumption ought to be a negative feedback and Le Chatelier taking his due. Only when that can NOT be shown, ought suspicion move on to a positive feedback somewhere. . . .
    For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. . . .
    Trenberth assumes that CO2 will cause more IR to pass through a closed radiative window, in a convective non-radiative atmospheric zone, not being absorbed into the already saturated CO2 band, heat the surface, but NOT cause more convection nor more evaporation, and cause a rise of surface temperatures without a compensating mass flow or phase change. And that, IMHO, is The Trouble With Trenberth. It is non-physical and violates Le Chatelier’s Principle.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 7, 2014 at 7:14 pm |

      It’s a moderate positive feedback system as it is — both water vapor and CO2 partial pressure wrt temperature. The argument is just plain wrong. No parting gift.

      • David L. Hagen | June 8, 2014 at 12:33 pm |

        WHUT
        Reread: “to PRESUME a positive feedback runaway system”
        Water also increasing is a second positive COMPONENT
        NOT a “positive feedback runaway system”.
        What are the OTHER feedbacks?
        T^4 black body radiation is a strong negative feedback, rarely mentioned.
        Do clouds give positive or negative feedbacks?
        Or both depending on altitude?
        IPCC AR4 said clouds form 97% of the uncertainty.
        Then likely modify the overall feedback. How much?

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 8, 2014 at 1:20 pm |

        Read what I said. It is a MODERATE positive feedback system. That’s what happens given the valid assumption of an Arrhenius rate law in the partial pressure of H20 and CO2 with respect to temperature.

        A moderate positive feedback system is not runaway but it is limiting for a given nudge in one direction. So if we continue nudging in that direction, it will continue to adjust with a limited positive feedback in that direction.

        Please read what Lacis has written in his recent comments
        http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/07/open-thread-13/#comment-588632
        and then read this post that I wrote last year:
        http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-sensitivity-and-33c-discrepancy.html

        If you don’t want to understand chemical thermodynamics, that is your right, but I can’t stand to see people like yourself pushing some doofus that misrepresents what amounts to be freshman chemistry and physics.

        The good rule of thumb is to not trust anyone that calls themselves Chief ThisOrThat.

  30. jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 7:01 pm |

    Encrypt your email

    ‘The FSF has published a (rather beautiful) infographic and guide to encrypting your email using GnuPG. In their blog post announcing the guide they write: “One year ago today, an NSA contractor named Edward Snowden went public with his history-changing revelations about the NSA’s massive system of indiscriminate surveillance. Today the FSF is releasing Email Self-Defense, a guide to personal email encryption to help everyone, including beginners, make the NSA’s job a little harder.'”

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/06/05/1728240/a-year-after-snowdens-disclosures-eff-fsf-want-you-to-fight-surveillance

    but then this …

    Using a spin cascade in a single-molecule magnet, scientists at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology and their French partners have demonstrated that a single nuclear spin can be realized in a purely electric manner, rather than through the use of magnetic fields (abstract). For their experiments, the researchers used a nuclear spin-qubit transistor that consists of a single-molecule magnet connected to three electrodes (source, drain, and gate).

    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/06/07/1130205/electrical-control-of-nuclear-spin-qubits-important-step-for-quantum-computing

  31. Mark Silbert | June 7, 2014 at 7:20 pm |

    There’s something I am missing.

    So (as Mosher defined warmists) if we agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that mankind is responsible for increasing levels of CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels and we also agree that we really don’t know how much of a warming problem this is and we probably won’t know for a long time (if ever), then why are so many warmists advocating spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year to try to reduce the amount of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere? There are so many more pressing problems facing humanity that this money can be used for.

    I think Lomborg has it right, spending big bucks for token reductions in CO2 for no well defined benefit is insane.

    • jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 8:00 pm |

      I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but do not classify myself as a warmist. AFAIK, no one died and put Mosher in charge of definitions.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 7, 2014 at 10:00 pm |

      ”
      I think Lomborg has it right, spending big bucks for token reductions in CO2 for no well defined benefit is insane.
      “

      The “token reductions” in CO2 are occurring because we are experiencing “token” reductions in the reserves of high-grade fossil fuel. The UK is finding out that the North Sea crude oil reserve is rapidly declining. And this is happening all over the world, save for a few spots that found remnant sludge in the botom-of-the-barrel (Bakken, tar sands).

      LOL! There is no well-defined benefit for reducing CO2 !

    • jim2 | June 8, 2014 at 10:00 am |

      Right, WHT, as you can see from this chart, petroleum production is declining. (Sure it is.) You should actually look at data before you spout your BS.

      http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/images/fig32.png

  32. GaryM | June 7, 2014 at 7:22 pm |

    Ya gotta like these guys’ style.

    “We will see more and more cases,’ Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in New York, told the wire service. ‘No one is expected to plan for the 500-year storm, but if horrible events are happening with increasing frequency, that may shift the duties.'”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/06/Insurance-Companies-to-Sue-Cities-Over-Climate-Change

  33. harkin | June 7, 2014 at 7:29 pm |

    From the most unscientific-titled article I’ve ever seen (“This Is Why You Have No Business Challenging Scientific Experts”) in Mother Jones comes this statement on M Mann:

    “one of the most attacked emails was one that was simply misunderstood by its attackers. The email referred to “Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline,” and it was assumed on this basis that scientists were doing something underhanded to suppress the fact that temperatures were supposedly declining. But that’s just incorrect, as you would have known if you were part of the community of scientists doing the research. The “decline” being referred to wasn’t even about global temperatures at all, but rather, a decline in the growth of certain trees whose rings were being used to infer past temperatures.

    “What the scientists meant by ‘trick’ was ‘a neat trick’—’Hey, that was a really good piece of science,'” explains Collins. “Whereas the public were interpreting it as something tricky, disreputable, and underhand. So you’ve got to know the context in order to interpret what the very words mean, and you can only know the context by once again, being part of the oral culture of science.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/harry-collins-inquiring-minds-science-studies-saves-scientific-expertise

    Anyone care to provide a concise and fact-based reply to this?

    • kim | June 7, 2014 at 8:10 pm |

      Despicable as the ‘trick’ was, I’ve long considered it a wonderful irony that the public has understood it to be even more ‘despicable’ than it was.
      ==============

    • Eeyore Rifkin | June 7, 2014 at 9:35 pm |

      It stinks. Of course the decline was about global temps. Temps were graphed. Temperature graphs were spliced together, one from proxies, an other from instrumental data. A decline in the proxy temps was hidden. It was a trick. It misrepresented the totality of the data.

      I don’t believe that Collins is honest. An honest person would know that hiding data is inimical to science, and they wouldn’t try to elide that fact when explaining this notorious email to the public.

      If I’m wrong, correct me.

    • harkin | June 7, 2014 at 9:45 pm |

      KIm:
      “Despicable as the ‘trick’ was, I’ve long considered it a wonderful irony that the public has understood it to be even more ‘despicable’ than it was”.

      You sound like Whoopi Goldberg saying Roman Polanski may have raped a 13 year old, but it wasn’t ‘rape rape’.

      [wondering if Mann will sue me for this comparison]

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 7, 2014 at 10:13 pm |

      ”
      Of course the decline was about global temps.
      “

      No, the decline was actually about fossil fuel reserves. They were trying to hide this decline so that people would go on BAU and not be concerned about the future. After all, will just adapt, right?

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 5:55 am |

      Well, clearly a rape of a naive population, unable to give consent, by a scientific/activist elite. There has been violence.

      On with ‘Hide the Decline’. As mentioned, I’ve been amused by the public misunderstanding of the term. Whahoppened? Could it be the stench of deceit has been sniffed, and the particular dead thing causing the stink is still poorly identified? Were they ‘hiding the decline’ in scientific ethics? Were they hiding the decline in expectations for the models? The perversion of the proxies, hiding their decline, resonates little with the general populace, but ‘hiding’ and ‘declining’ are potent words. ‘Decline’, the stench, attaches itself to many behaviours in this long-running political fiasco.

      The Crook’t Hockey Stick was a phony icon. ‘Hiding the decline’ rings true.

      The Hockey Stick is in the penalty box, the players hiding from the decline in the applause of the crowd.
      ======================

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 5:57 am |

      Heh, I just noticed ‘oral culture of science’. How about ‘aural culture’, it’s shiny.
      ==========

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 6:11 am |

      Oops, better H/t Eeyore for the aroma.

      Collins is not just dishonest, he’s a sad joke upon himself and his readers, those who believe him.

      One quite tasty bit about ‘Hiding the Decline’ is that opaque though it may be to hoi polloi, the ‘trick’ is is quite transparent to the science minded, and it isn’t kosher, nor is it cricket, nor is it swinging with a straight bat. It’s crooked. It’s crooked. It’s crooked.

      Heh, just like the Hockey Stick. Three cheers for feathers in hats. Doodle ooh, doodle ooh, dandy.
      ============

    • David Springer | June 8, 2014 at 10:49 am |

      Neat trick actually makes it worse. A trick may or may not have malicious intent. A neat trick in science and engineering refers to something acceptable and praise-worthy. The trick in this case was hiding a proxy-indicated temperature decline that would have ruined the conclusion by surreptitiously replacing the proxy data with thermometer data. This constitutes scientific misconduct and if we then deem it “neat” the participants not only knew it was misconduct they were proud of it.

    • Jim D | June 8, 2014 at 9:30 pm |

      “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” are the phrases most taken out of context probably in the history of email snippets. These were related to adding real observations at the end of tree ring data, and Mike’s Nature trick clearly labelled these lines as separate things. The tree-ring decline in the 60’s is a sign of the weakness of specific tree rings as a proxy, and the divergence problem was an ongoing debate at the time. Did they want to add the decline and go into that whole unresolved debate? Probably not. Better to just go with the thermometers, which are probably better than tree rings going back to the 19th century. I have doubts about tree rings too. They only give clues or have any value at all in the pre-thermometer era.

  34. Stephen Segrest | June 7, 2014 at 9:27 pm |

    While we talk about clouds some on CE, it seems like its usually a cursory mention. Can folks provide some links to what you feel are the leading/cutting edge research on clouds? Thanks

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-air-pollution-affect-clouds/?WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook

  35. Mark Silbert | June 7, 2014 at 9:35 pm |

    Steve Mosher, can you help me understand what the Berkley Earth end game really is?

    I am about half way through your book…..nice job. Good work in putting some standards and traceability around the instrument temperature record. This needed to be done, but it hardly cements the case for CAGW.

    You and BE clearly don’t like coal. Lots of reasons to care about burning coal besides CO2. Why confuse the issue with CAGW? Kudos for noting the advantages of natural gas and the fact that fracking can be done responsibly. As a retired big oil guy, I would caution you to be careful about the latest fad.

    China will do what’s best for China’s leaders. Sending them billions to not burn coal is a fools errand.

    Surely you and the Mullers can do more good by focusing on solvable problems.

    • Steven Mosher | June 8, 2014 at 12:53 am |

      Steve Mosher, can you help me understand what the Berkley Earth end game really is?
      #########################
      hmm. I play chess. what we are doing is not chess and the notion of end game seems a stretch. The mission is pretty straight forward. The team suggests scientific questions that we think are interesting or important or misunderstood. We then discuss them and form loose teams to go look at stuff. So, Zeke may go look at gas versus coal, R Rohde may go another direction, I may decide extremes are interesting.. or I may just read piles of papers and suggest the good ones to dr muller.. or work on some policy question. At the same time we try to identify policy questions that we can provide information on. Like trade offs between coal and gas..PM2.5 is a key area for us now..

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

      I am about half way through your book…..nice job. Good work in putting some standards and traceability around the instrument temperature record. This needed to be done, but it hardly cements the case for CAGW.

      CAGW is ill defined. No case is ever cemented. The numbers merely are what they are. How folks react is a different beast. For the most part, with some exceptions, many on the team take a dim view of economic science.
      In short, we dont take a catastrophist view.
      .
      ####################################

      You and BE clearly don’t like coal. Lots of reasons to care about burning coal besides CO2. Why confuse the issue with CAGW? Kudos for noting the advantages of natural gas and the fact that fracking can be done responsibly. As a retired big oil guy, I would caution you to be careful about the latest fad.

      The case against coal rests squarely on the PM2.5 question for us.
      reducing c02 is a happy by product.

      #####################
      China will do what’s best for China’s leaders. Sending them billions to not burn coal is a fools errand.

      Huh?
      That’s not the idea.
      The idea is very simple.
      identify the barriers to switching and remove them. Sending them money
      is not a proposal.
      some of the barriers are just wrong information ( how deep one can frack,
      what kind of water and how much )
      Some of the barriers are governmental.. ( better to be discrete )
      some of the barriers are technology sharing related
      some are cultural.

      In no case would we propose sending money.

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 6:17 am |

      The disappointment is palpable. Copenhagen crashed over the failure of the BRICs and others in their shakedown of the guilt-ridden developed West. The Chinese were able to cover their chagrin by denouncing the neo-colonial finaglings of the incompetent Obama, but the hope of ‘climate reparations’ still lingers on in the haze.

      I wonder how it would have all turned out if the developed world hadn’t run out of money following another modeled craze.
      ==============

    • Howard | June 8, 2014 at 9:17 am |

      Glad to see BE advance the policy priorities that I have been ineffectively proposing on blogs for the past 8-years. What surprises me is that Europe does not do more to reduce particulates. One would think that lefties would take the Zen approach and deal with the Now and not some dream of a future that may never be. I understand the Chinese being more concerned with generating wealth at the expense of health as the tradeoff with poverty disease is a wash. Europe has no excuse except ideology.

      (For Joshua)

    • David Springer | June 8, 2014 at 9:30 am |

      Horwad, your ignorance knows no continental boundary. Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong are three of the most polluted cities on the planet. Average lifespan in those cities is over 80 years of age equaling or exceeding average lifespan in San Francisco, New York, and Berlin. Get a clue and don’t forget to write that down.

      • Joseph | June 8, 2014 at 2:52 pm |

        over 80 years of age

        One confounding factor is that growth and the resulting pollution only started to take off in the 90’s and so you can’t determine what impact living under these conditions would have over the entire lifespan.

    • Tom Fuller | June 8, 2014 at 10:47 am |

      Hmm. Somebody isn’t paying attention. Registered citizens of China’s large cities do live a long time. As their property has become worth millions, they spend a lot of time out of town. This helps cleanse their lungs.

      Those without the urban houkous live a decade less than their more fortunate countrymen.

      Both groups dearly want clean air. Clean water, too. They’re also a little upset about the levels of heavy metal in their rice.

      They could use a little help. As China becomes increasingly unequal it might be well for us to remember that the bottom half of their populace really, really needs help.

    • Tom Fuller | June 8, 2014 at 10:55 am |

      Mr. Springer, just to be clear, if an immigrant from Anhui living in Shanghai dies at age 69, as so many do, their deaths are not recorded in Shanghai. They don’t pull down the average. Their deaths are recorded in the province where they are registered.

      Would you please switch to a subject you know something about? I’d be grateful.

      • Tom Fuller | June 8, 2014 at 7:23 pm |

        David Springer, you cannot become an expert on the subject in three minutes of websearching, a fact that has been obvious when discussing climate issues. It is true of demography as well.

        I live here. The demography of Shanghai is part of my daily business. I urge you to find a subject you are more conversant with as opposed to making a fool of yourself. If you want data, it’s there on the internet for you as well as for me. Don’t ask me to spoon-feed you. Go look it up. It’s available in traditional as well as simplified characters. How long were you in Taipei and in what years? Taipei is a nice city. The life experience in Taipei is radically different to that of cities in mainland China.

        Riddle me this. If a Shanghainese is buried with full pomp and circumstance and people say he died at age 80 here in 2014, in what year was he born?

    • David Springer | June 8, 2014 at 10:58 am |

      Tom if you have some actual data to support your claims I’d be glad to look at it. Otherwise your excuses for why average age in polluted Chinese cities is so high is no more than handwaving,

    • David Springer | June 8, 2014 at 11:45 am |

      Tom if you have some actual data to support your claims I’d be glad to look at it. Otherwise your excuses for why average age life expectancy in polluted Chinese cities is so high is no more than handwaving,

      Shianghai registered population is 14 million. Unregistrant migrants number 9 million. I find it not even close to credible that 14 million people are “lung cleansers” as you described not to mention that you failed to include any medical data pertaining to the pollution-nullifying effect of spending a little time breathing unpolluted air.

      As to the migrants it’s impossible to know their average life expectancy since as unregistered people that census data by definition is neither tracked nor tabulated. Moreover the migrant population lives in poverty so you cannot extricate the effect of polluted air from the effects of poor sanitation, poor diet, poor medical care, accidents, high infant mortality, and so on and so forth.

      Produce some data or kindly cease the ignorant but fashionable handwaving about air pollution.

      • Tom Fuller | June 8, 2014 at 7:52 pm |

        Actually Mr. Springer, Shanghai’s population varies between 23 and 28 million depending on who’s doing the counting and why. Precision demographics is not exactly a salient feature here. People use differing numbers to make different political points.

        It’s actually quite fascinating.

    • David Springer | June 8, 2014 at 12:30 pm |

      Furthermore, Tom, if living and working in China confers expert status then include me. Tapei specifically. You know the thing that really struck me as an American liivng in China is the lack of genetic and cultural diversity. From upper story windows you see a sea of straight black hair in the streets below. I’ll admit my experience with migrants in Taipei was not migrants from other parts of China but imported factory labor from Indonesia housed in barracks by the host company, but still with straight black hair. Their health data is not comparable. Anyone with much experience living in or around urban migrant populations is that younger, healthier, working age people are the migrants. Old people in poor health don’t move to big expensive bustling urban sprawls they move away from them. Having lived all my adult life in and around big bustling urban sprawls in the US southwest including significant migrant populations it’s always the same story – younger people move to cities to find work and older retired people leave because it becomes unaffordable to live there. Tapei was no exception.

      Anyhow, I believe a lot of the success in improved longevity in China is diet, exercise, cultural and genetic homogeneity. In other words good habits combined with genetic tendency for longevity more than compensates for ill health effects of smog which is generally confined to small more vulnerable population segments. I lived and worked in the Los Angeles area from 1975 to 1993 so my experience living with smog is vast and personal.

  36. A Lacis | June 7, 2014 at 10:04 pm |

    Hockey Schtick –
    Re upstream – lecture notes from Dr. Irina N. Sokolik of Dr. Curry’s department at Georgia Tech:
    “How is it that if both H2O and CO2 are acting as net IR cooling agents throughout the entire troposphere as shown in fig 12.1 that they are also alleged to have a net 33C warming effect (on the global surface temperature)?

    That is a legitimate question of the inquisitive kind.

    The short answer is that the IR cooling rate by H2O and CO2 is established entirely by radiative transfer for the given atmospheric temperature profile, the ground surface temperature, and the H2O and CO2 atmospheric distributions – all in response to the solar energy absorbed by the ground surface and also solar heating of the atmosphere.

    A precursor question might be: Why does the atmosphere have the quasi-equilibrium temperature profile that it does? – with the temperature near 288 K at the ground surface, a decreasing temperature with height, a tropopause minimum as low as 200 K, followed by increasing temperature in the stratosphere to about 270 K (near 30 mile altitude), decreasing then to about 180 K near 60 mile altitude, then continuing to increase again in the thermosphere.

    The short answer to the temperature profile question is basically the same as that to the IR cooling question above, except for O3 absorption of UV solar radiation to account for the higher temperatures in the stratosphere, and the convective and advective transport of heat energy from the ground surface to higher altitudes in the troposphere (otherwise the radiative equilibrium temperature at the ground surface would be 321 K, instead of 288 K).

    The 33 K global mean greenhouse effect arises naturally as the quasi-equilibrium temperature structure (with the current climate distribution of H2O, CO2, O3, clouds) that is in energy balance with the 240 W/m2 of global-mean absorbed solar energy by the Earth.

    You can compare Irina Sokolik’s IR cooling results with Figure 9 of my 2013 paper http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la06400p.html which shows relatively small changes occurring in the LW net flux in the stratosphere (top-right panel). The IR cooling rate (bottom-right panel) is expressed in degK/Day (a small change in IR flux produces larger cooling in the rarified stratosphere). The cooling seen in the stratosphere counteracts precisely the stratospheric heating by O3. The substantial cooling seen in the troposphere counteracts precisely the heat deposited by the convective/advective energy transports.

    Figure 10 of my 2013 Tellus B paper shows what happens to the IR cooling rate when atmospheric CO2 is instantaneously doubled. The top panel shows an instantaneous decrease in the (outgoing) LW net flux throughout the atmosphere (meaning a temporary excess of absorbed solar energy, causing the planet to warm to restore energy balance).

    The bottom panel of Figure 10 shows the instantaneous IR cooling rate (in degK/Day) for doubled CO2. Note the strong stratospheric cooling and slight warming in the troposphere.

    If the atmosphere is allowed to reach its new (doubled CO2) energy balance equilibrium while keeping the H2O and cloud distributions fixed, the stratosphere will have cooled by 5-10 K in the 20-50 km range, and the global surface temperature will have warmed by about 1.2 K (the no-feedback equivalent of doubled CO2).

    The radiative transfer calculations for all of the above, while a bit beyond back-of-the-envelope verification, are all computationally straightforward with no debilitating assumptions – just the basic radiative response of the climate system.

    • Ragnaar | June 7, 2014 at 10:40 pm |

      A Lacis:
      Your figure 9 at your link above shows something similar to this:
      http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg
      The CO2 bands at about 650 seems neutral below the horizontal line which is about 15 km. I do not know what to make of this? I hesitate to even bring it up as I suspect there’s a reasonable explanation. Maybe that it’s netting to zero while delaying upward heat movement.

    • DocMartyn | June 7, 2014 at 11:03 pm |

      A Lacis, why not just do something really simple.
      Plot the temperature profile for the equatorial Pacific ocean starting at 100 m depth, all the way out to space, over 24 hours; show the math for 280 ppm and for 560 ppm CO2, and perhaps I will not laugh at your use of equilibrium.
      Come now, you can do decades of global temperature change, so just do me 1 square meter of water and air, 70 kilometers long, over 24 hours.
      I can wait.

    • A Lacis | June 7, 2014 at 11:12 pm |

      Ragnaar –
      The CO2 spectral absorption coefficients are exceedingly large in the middle of the CO2 band near 650 nm. In the troposphere, the emitted radiation gets absorbed within inches so that exchange of radiation with neighboring layers is very limited leading to a small cooling rate. With height, the atmospheric density decreases, as does the pressure broadening. Above the tropopause, the CO2 line width decreases significantly, allowing emitted radiation from below to escape more directly to space – hence the increasing cooling rate with height in the stratosphere. At some point the CO2 line width becomes Doppler broadening limited, with the cooling rate then decreasing with height,

    • dalyplanet | June 8, 2014 at 12:55 am |

      Andy, thanks for the link to your interesting paper. I appreciate that you come here and explain your understanding. I find your explanations add to my understanding of radiative physics.

    • Ragnaar | June 8, 2014 at 12:58 am |

      A Lacis | June 7, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
      “…the emitted radiation gets absorbed within inches so that exchange of radiation with neighboring layers is very limited leading to a small cooling rate. With height, the atmospheric density decreases, as does the pressure broadening. Above the tropopause, the CO2 line width decreases significantly, allowing emitted radiation from below to escape more directly to space…”

      I am seeing it as below the tropopause CO2 is blocking. Thank you for bearing with me, I am an accountant. The roughly 650 band looks like a vertical pipeline.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 8, 2014 at 2:15 am |

      ”
      (otherwise the radiative equilibrium temperature at the ground surface would be 321 K, instead of 288 K)
      “

      This parenthetical remark has an interesting history. The skeptics should be well advised to understand for themselves what it means. The way I understand it, if it wasn’t for the lapse rate negative feedback of water vapor and its latent heat of vaporization, the equilibrium temperature difference would be 66C=33C+(321K-288K) and not 33C.
      So the negative lapse rate feedback is already “baked in” and shouldn’t be used as an anti-AGW argument.

    • A Lacis | June 8, 2014 at 3:22 am |

      WHT –
      Quantification of the 66 C radiative-only greenhouse effect dates back to radiative equilibrium calculations by Manabe and Moller (1961). Dry air cannot support a temperature gradient greater than 9.8 C/km before convective instability sets in to establish the dry adiabatic lapse rate of 9.8 C/km. So, a significant fraction of the 66 C radiative-only greenhouse effect would be counteracted by compliance with the dry adiabatic lapse rate limit.

      Evaporating water vapor at ground level imparts significant latent heat potential energy to an air parcel. Condensation at height releases this latent heat energy locally, establishing in the process the moist adiabatic temperature lapse rate, which is typically about 5 C/km. Using the moist adiabatic lapse rate establishes the terrestrial radiative/convective greenhouse effect to be about 33 C.

      In climate GCMs, the atmospheric temperature lapse rate is established dynamically depending on the existing temperature structure and the actual rate of latent heat conversion. So, the GCM moist adiabatic lapse rate varies with time and place, and also with height in the atmosphere.

      Radiative-only calculations are hardly ever performed with GCMs, as that would require disabling some aspects of the integrated model physics and thermodynamics – not a simple task since the model physics are indeed “baked in” rather firmly, and managerial types are not particularly keen on wasting computer time running non-physical climate problems of academic interest only.

      1-D radiative/convective models are more amenable for evaluating the greenhouse sensitivity to changing lapse rate constraints. I should at some point take the time to re-run the 1-D model more systematically to see by just how much the 66 C radiative-only greenhouse effect would be diminished in complying with an increasingly stronger critical lapse rate limit.

    • Robert I Ellison | June 8, 2014 at 3:31 am |

      ‘The exchanges of sensible and latent heat between land and atmosphere occur because of turbulent mixing of air and resultant heat and moisture transport. The movement of air can be represented as discrete parcels of air, each with its own temperature, humidity, and momentum (mass times velocity), moving vertically and horizontally. As the parcels of air move, they carry with them their heat, moisture, and momentum. Wind mixes air and transports heat and water vapor in relation to the temperature and moisture of the parcels of air being mixed.’

      Energy is transported away from the surface. It is not a mystery in principle – but not an observable parameter over the entire globe. Without this transport of heat away from the surface the surface would be warmer – but it is not calculable in practical sense. It is why the land temperature has increased more than the temperature over oceans – in response to decadally changing rainfall regimes.

      Simple physics doesn’t do it – and Lacis seems entirely lacking in Earth sciences – at least from anything I have read. Lacking Earth sciences is lacking essential information for interpreting climate.

    • David Springer | June 8, 2014 at 9:48 am |

      A Lacis

      The fly in the ointment is that the surface in question is water which has vastly different response to sunlight and IR back radiation from the atmosphere. Black (or grey) bodies do not exhibit polar opposite absorption characteristics so all calculations which treat the ocean as a grey body equally responsive to all wavelengths of illumination have a fundamental physical fallacy incorporated therein.

  37. Robert I Ellison | June 7, 2014 at 10:14 pm |

    The trouble with Lacis is that it is all so last century – or perhaps the one before.

    How about some advanced physics.

    • rmdobservations | June 8, 2014 at 4:26 am |

      Robert I Ellison What do you mean by “advanced physics”? Dr. Lacis gave an excellent review of the evolution from basic theory to simple models to GCMs. This is something many readers on this blog, based on their comments, seem to not know. Many react as if the GCMs were designed to model global warming. That is simply not true.

      If by advanced physics you mean better algorithms to simulate clouds and regional climate, I agree.

      • David Springer | June 8, 2014 at 12:48 pm |

        rmd

        Radiative physics is a bit player in the lower troposphere which is dominated by mechanical transport of latent heat in the troposphere and sensible heat in ocean currents.

      • David Springer | June 8, 2014 at 1:01 pm |

        Get real. No one would give a tinker’s dam about climate models if it wasn’t for hyperbolic claims of CAGW. Said models have no regional or short term skill, much too much warming in projections of global average surface temperature in first 35 years of global surface temperature observation via satellite. And no statistical increases in severe weather.

        What value, other than supporting or undermining opposing political energy-use agendas, would these models possibly have that would warrant such attention paid to them?

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 6:01 am |

      A. Lacis exquisitely, explicitly, explicates the precious.

      There’s a wonderful laboratory out there, teeming with life and reality and understanding, and he wants to huddle in a corner, sticking his thumb plumb into a model.
      =============

    • lolwot | June 8, 2014 at 7:35 am |

      It’s a familiar pattern. Scientist comes along and talks science and denizens go into meltdown spitting and spluttering revealing their inner denier.

      My favorite line has to be “Lacis seems entirely lacking in Earth sciences”.

      • David Springer | June 8, 2014 at 1:05 pm |

        loltwat writes: My favorite line has to be “Lacis seems entirely lacking in Earth sciences”.

        It was your favorite because it was the only line mentioning science where scientific illiteracy wasn’t an impediment to understanding it.

    • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm |

      “Radiative physics is a bit player in the lower troposphere…”
      ____
      This is nonsense of course. Energy is constantly and instantly being changed between a variety of forms in the lower troposphere with radiative energy being just one, and hardly a “bit” player. There actually are no “bit” players in atmospheric physics, as it is a highly evolved and integrated system.

    • rmdobservations | June 9, 2014 at 2:17 am |

      David Springer I agree that GCMs are being used to make predictions beyond their capability. However, they evolved as a tool to study the earth (and other planets) atmospheres. It’s called basic science. There are scientists who study model output, who study satellite data, do lab work and do field work. Not one scientist can do everything. They even have conferences where they gather together to talk about their research. There is no end product except knowledge.

      The politicization of climate change has caused a disturbance in this web of research and I am dismayed by it.

  38. jim2 | June 7, 2014 at 11:25 pm |

    Here’s a concept that can be applied to climate science.
    From the article:
    …
    Today it has become far too obvious that numbers no longer matter or state a true value. What a number is, or what it now represents, is no longer what we grew up learning as in 1+1=2. That’s now considered old math. Today numbers represent connotations with abstract meanings, or better yet – clouds in the sky. What you see is what they are.

    Remember when “give me the facts” meant just that? Or, “the numbers don’t lie?” How old-fashioned that is. Today’s experts recite figures, and facts ad nausea, but those facts mean nothing because as we’ve all found out over the last few years: numbers now have more in common with what the definition of is – is. Rather than having an actual knowable understandable quality.
    …
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-07/clothing-naked-experts

    • Mike Flynn | June 8, 2014 at 2:08 am |

      jim2,

      It’s possible that so called climate science was created to make economic forecasts believable – or was it the other way round?

      No matter. Did you hear the one about the economist who was awarded a Nobel for correctly predicting all eight of the last three recessions?

      And still the Baffled Bearded Bollywood Bengali Buffoon show goes on, ably supported by the all juggling, talking in tongues, upside down tree ring inverting Climate Clowns, with a drooling dribbling crowd of sycophantic suck ups.

      Anything for a laugh!

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

    • jim2 | June 8, 2014 at 9:02 am |

      MF. Free markets work because people keep their ears to the ground, seeking trends and new developments that might open a niche into which they can insert themselves to supply a good or service for profit.

      People discussing the political and financial aspects of climate science sometimes are accused of promulgating conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories aren’t necessary to explain the seeming coordination of governments, businesses, and scientists.

      Like the businessmen described in the first paragraph, scientists don’t need anyone to tell them how their bread gets buttered. The already know. The government has a ton of our money and they know this. They know that any topic that captures the eye of the government will be very profitable for them.

      Businesses, likewise, will bend to the will of government because they can get special laws that benefit them. And, a seat at the government table provides an opportunity for them to guide the process in order ensure regulations either don’t hurt their business or that they are compensated another way if it does.

      And politicians know businesses have money they can use to run for office and win elections. In the case of Google, the company lent its information technology expertise to the Dimowits to help Obama win the election.

      So, no conspiracy theory is needed to explain the apparent coordination of actions concerning global warming. It’s a natural result of smart people seeking their fortune.

  39. Stephen Segrest | June 8, 2014 at 1:05 am |

    ENSO Forecast — I understand what the bars mean in the chart. What do the lines represent as Climatological probability? —-(i.e., difference between bars and lines) Thanks.

    http://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-cpc_plume

  40. deakin | June 8, 2014 at 3:42 am |

    Dr Curry,
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment . Your openness and dedication to climate science is greatly appreciated. Many years ago I read an article from a Russian astrophysicist on the earth’s climate. Although universally available his paper has not been discussed at an IPCC level (as far as I can tell) or given much credence in climate science circles. Is this because astrophysics is regarded as old fashioned? Or is it to do with his premise or quality of work? Your comments and of other bloggers would be appreciated. The paper is,”Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age”.Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Science, St. Petersburg, 196140, Russia
    Applied Physics Research, Vol. 4, No. 1 February 2012 linkhttp://www.thegwpf.org/russian-astrophysicist-predicts-global-cooling/

    • rmdobservations | June 8, 2014 at 4:58 am |

      Much of climate research is focused on the Global Climate Models. I think that is why some topics are not discussed. Seasonal lag in temperature and solar incidence has always interested me. For example: Why is the average temperature at mid-latitudes hotter in July than on 21 June? The Abdussamatov paper takes this further with global insolation and temperature.

      I found the reference to measured solar irradiation (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant) a nice source.

      But the study cannot help resolve how the changing climate will affect regional climates (like flooding and drought) and this seems a bigger concern.

  41. ianl8888 | June 8, 2014 at 4:37 am |

    Open thread – I’ll try an experiment here

    The following quote is from a well-enough known commenter with good credentials. I’ll identify the writer if there are reasonable responses, but I’m hoping for non ad-hom comments that deal with the actual content

    >While the basic physics of infrared heat absorption by CO2 is well established, both theoretical understanding and real world evidence strongly indicate the effect of increased CO2 in the complex dynamics of the global climate system has been greatly exaggerated. The amount of back-radiated infrared energy from the planet’s surface is limited and is not increased by more CO2 in the air above. Although a small amount of CO2 in the air results in significant warming, this effect is quickly saturated. At pre-industrial levels of CO2 the portion of the IR spectrum in the absorption bands of CO2 was already 99.9% absorbed within a few tens of metres of the surface. Although doubling CO2 must halve the distance over which such absorption occurs, any increased heating near the surface is continuously distributed into a much larger volume of the atmosphere by wind, convection and turbulence. How close to the surface initial warming occurs has minimal effect on the total amount of heat energy being absorbed or on the temperature of the much larger volume of atmosphere into which it is being mixed.

    However, concentrating the initial heating nearer to the surface must also strengthen both convection and evaporation which, in turn, increases transport of heat away from the surface to higher in the troposphere, where the increased evaporation then results in increased condensation. In this process the latent heat of evaporation absorbed from the surface is released high in the atmosphere, where the thinner gases permit it to radiate into space. At the same time more cloud cover and precipitation also results, acting as a further negative feedback to cool the surface<

    This comment comes close to my current view that AGW is not significant and won't become so for quite a while yet. Obviously, chaos in the form of unpredictable interactions also pertains, and volcanics/aerosols are not included

    As usual, ad-homs will be ignored. This includes "non peer-reviewed" sillies. Perhaps the results here may be interesting, or interesting enough (or perhaps not)

    • Jim Cripwell | June 8, 2014 at 8:11 am |

      ian18888, you write “This comment comes close to my current view that AGW is not significant and won’t become so for quite a while yet”

      I too think your comment represents something lose to reality. But surely, the test is whether the empirical data supports what you have written. This is why, for centuries, physicists have relied on The Scientific Method. And no-one, and I mean NO-ONE, has measured a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. Unless and until a CO2 signal has actually been measured, and it has been shown by observed data that adding CO2 to the atmosphere from recent levels actually affects temperatures, CAGW will remain what it has always been; namely an unproven hypothesis.

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:28 am |

      Not much proof available, but what can be proven is that the higher the climate sensitivity to CO2, the colder we would now be without Anthropogenic CO2.
      ==========

    • Jim D | June 8, 2014 at 8:42 am |

      The saturation meme is just wrong physics. It is just one of the things we have to deal with from so-called “skeptics”. If you could be shown that the saturation idea is wrong, would you then believe AGW? I didn’t think so.

      • ianl8888 | June 10, 2014 at 11:20 pm |

        Until you make a prediction that requires some event or clear, measured trend that would NOT otherwise occur if CO2 < 400ppm, then AGW remains insignificant in empirical terms

        Will you do so ? I didn't think so

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:50 am |

      Now, consider the behaviour of water vapour and its nasty, er, wicked little condensates. And consider, and consider, and consider.
      =================

    • Jim Cripwell | June 8, 2014 at 9:37 am |

      Jim D, you write “If you could be shown that the saturation idea is wrong, would you then believe AGW?”

      I have ALWAYS believed in AGW. I don’t believe in CAGW. But then we have to agree what AGW and CAGW actually mean.

    • Jim D | June 8, 2014 at 9:52 am |

      The people who disbelieve CAGW should define what that means. I don’t know that it even has a good definition, the way AGW does.

    • Jim Cripwell | June 8, 2014 at 10:41 am |

      Jm D. you write “I don’t know that it even has a good definition, the way AGW does”

      What is your definition of AGW?

    • AK | June 8, 2014 at 10:49 am |

      The people who disbelieve CAGW should define what that means. I don’t know that it even has a good definition, the way AGW does.

      Like many words used in these discussions, the functional definition tends to float around a little lot. But, in general, I’d say most people mean something like this:

      CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) means AGW sufficient to bring on a catastrophe that represents an existential threat to civilization, justifying actions in mitigation that will substantially raise the cost/price of energy.

      Like many here, I am reasonably sure there’s a large fraction of CAGW proponents who regard such actions as desirable independently of any CO2 considerations.

    • harkin | June 8, 2014 at 11:13 am |

      What a coincidence, climate models predicted 1,000% the actual warming.

  42. Mr. pettersen | June 8, 2014 at 4:57 am |

    Why do i have to choose A or B? I do know my physics but i also see that CO2 dosnt change temperature like predicted.
    The reason is simple. Convection and evaporation cools the planets surface not radiation. Radiation is only important when there are no mass present.

    The IGL is the only reason why the atmosphere is warmer near the surface!

    So i dont deny the radiative energy budget but it does not control the temperature.

  43. Quondam | June 8, 2014 at 5:00 am |

    While a range of physical processes are relevant to climate change, greenhouse gases are the current emphasis. This is fortunate, for parameters are well-defined physically and amenable to mathematical analysis. At present, there exists a ‘consensus theory’ with catastrophic implications. Should we wish to challenge this theory, we ought:

    1. Identify its weaknesses and their quantitative import.
    2. Provide an alternative theory.

    As to the latter, I’ve suggested a thermodynamic perturbation model based on thermal dissipation which, for a 3.7 W/m2 forcing, predicts a surface temperature increase of 0.6K and, with unlimited positive feedback, a 1.4K increase. More significantly, positive feedbacks are capped and a minimum dissipation theorem applies. My intent here is to explore the former to better understand the difference in modeling results.

    To begin, let’s use David Archer’s Modtran program.
    http://forecast.uchicago.edu/models.html
    For its default U.S. Standard Atmosphere, the net radiative flux at 15Km is 246.52W/m2 while at the surface it is 101.80W/m2, i.e. only 41% of the net surface flux is radiative, the balance presumably of convective origin. Should we add greenhouse gases to the mix keeping all else constant, let the 246.52 figure be reduced by 3.7W/m2. To restore its original level, we need increase surface energy fluxes. But how are these increases to be allocated?

    1. Increase the radiative flux by 3.7.
    2. Split the allocation according to their existing ratio (approx 50/50).
    3. Increase the convective flux by 3.7.

    Scheme #1 represents the Convective Adjustment Algorithm common to consensus models. This algorithm rules out thermal gradient increases in the lower troposphere, limiting increased convection. These models typically lead to surface temperature increases of 1.2K under zero-feedback conditions.

    Should we adopt scheme #2, the surface radiative flux increase need only be 50% of that for scheme #1, halving the required temperature change to 0.6K. A mean lapse rate increase of 0.04K/Km then accounts for increased convection.

    Should we adopt scheme #3, the surface convective flux changes would be twice those required for scheme #2, i.e. 1.2K and 0.08K/Km. 3.7W/m2 is the work required to maintain increased circulating convective currents.

    How does positive feedback with its catastrophic implications fit into this picture? Positive feedbacks reduce the radiative flux response to a given surface temperature change. In the limit of unrestricted feedback, scheme #1 implies unlimited temperature increases.

    Schemes #2 and #3 require, in this limit, that convection be responsible for all increases, equivalent to scheme #3 in the zero-feedback case.

    But how to choose? This is a recurrent problem in the physical sciences and is often resolved by a variational algorithm. Steady-state thermodynamic problems have minimum dissipation solutions for properly prescribed boundary conditions. Qualitatively, this implies that natural allocation minimizes thermal gradients and flux divergencies. One seeks that blend of convection and radiation which minimizes the surface temperature while satisfying given boundary constraints.

    Conclusions: The Convective Adjustment Model leads to surface temperature changes at least twice those for models allowing thermal gradient changes. Dissipation is a function of both temperature (radiation) and thermal gradients (convection) and a proper solution should reflect both degrees of freedom. The arguments presented here are heuristic but, perhaps, illustrate why one physical chemist finds consensus theory less than convincing.

    Q

  44. rmdobservations | June 8, 2014 at 5:36 am |

    Steven Mosher’s category A and B is useful in providing a common point of agreement. It reduces the noise a little bit.

    I find Lacis’s comments are very helpful. From a heat transfer engineer’s viewpoint it is important to emphasize that the earth’s atmospheric density decreases with altitude. Co2 molecules (and H2o, CH4) absorb in the IR and re-emit in all directions. Eventually, when one approaches the tropopause, there are less molecules above than below and the upward IR makes it out to space. It’s defined as radiative-convective equilibrium. (I’m using Archer’s “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast”, as a guide here)

  45. Mike Flynn | June 8, 2014 at 5:48 am |

    A Lacis on another thread mentioned in excess of 30 climate models used by so called climate researchers. Choosing a number of say 34, we see that at least 33 must give incorrect forecasts, projections, scenarios, or whatever Warmist weasel word you choose, if their outputs are all different, which I am lead to believe.

    Therefore, at most 1 out of 34 can be correct, so initially we can say that the chance of any given model being correct is 33 to1, or about 97% chance of being wrong. Of course this a best case scenario, as all the models may be wrong. An additional problem arises if one model is actually verified against an actual future fact. Is this pure coincidence, and will the model continue to have predictive ability?

    Assuming – possibly foolishly – that one of our 34 models actually works (doubtful, but anything is possible), which one is it? Every modeller will no doubt claim that their model works, but none of the others have any skill.

    The Warmists get around this problem by apparently assuming that the miracle of the average can produce a correct and usable result from 33 out of 34 demonstrably incorrect model outputs. This is a pretty bold assertion, and would no doubt be Nobel worthy if it can be shown to be true. A naive projection of past data is just as likely to produce a usable result, and should cost considerably less.

    Running proven incorrect models numerous times, just produces more incorrect results, unless by pure coincidence, an individual run produces a correct result. Once again, you have no way of knowing which, if any, is correct.

    As an example of not knowing whether your model produces a correct result, consider the following enciphered phrase – 00000 00000 00000 00000.

    This was enciphered using a simple XOR bit manipulation with a 17 char pass phrase, and of course, using precisely the same process with the same phrase used to encipher the message will restore the message to its former pristine glory.

    Of course, any 17 char alphanumeric sequence pass phrase will produce a valid result. Many will appear to be linguistically valid, in any number of languages. But which is the right one?

    And so it is with 100+ climate models. The most logical course would be to assume that they are all providing incorrect answers, until proven otherwise. I am surprised that supposedly intelligent and obviously well qualified people support this farcical nonsense of believing obviously incorrect outputs.

    As usual, if my facts are wrong, I welcome correction. Similarly with my logic.

    Ad hom attacks are welcome, as are attempts at insults. I decline to take offence, and choose not to be annoyed, distressed or angered by any words anyone might care to direct my way. If you choose to waste your time in such activities, you will merely demonstrate your inability to provide a cogent argument, to other readers.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

  46. phatboy | June 8, 2014 at 5:50 am |

    The attempts to deceive continue unabated: http://www.unep.org/pdf/Emerging_issues_for_small_island_developing_states.pdf contains the following gem:

    In the tropical western Pacific, where many small islands are located, the rate of sea level rise
    was 12 mm per year between 1993 and 2009, that is, about four times the global average (IPCC 2014).

    • phatboy | June 9, 2014 at 2:59 am |

      …which if true, of course, would result in a mountain of water growing in the Pacific.
      And they wonder why there are so many sceptics.

    • Faustino | June 9, 2014 at 3:27 am |

      “Satellite data indicate sea level has risen in the Federated States of Micronesia by over 0.39 inches (10 mm) per year since 1993. This is larger than the global average of 0.11-0.14 inches (2.8–3.6 mm) per year. This higher rate of rise may be partly related to natural fluctuations that take place year to year or decade to decade caused by phenomena such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. This year-to-year variation in sea level can be seen in Figure 6 which includes the tide gauge record since 1950 and the satellite data since 1993.”

      Less than 8 inches (200 mm) in 20 years. Shock, horror, we’ll all be drooned!

      http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27698843
      (I have a BBC link with this, but the quote might be an official Australian document – will check.)

    • Faustino | June 9, 2014 at 3:30 am |

      International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative: Pacific Climate Change Science Program: Current and future climate of the Federated States of Micronesia. Don’t have the URL to hand.

    • phatboy | June 9, 2014 at 7:45 am |

      My point is, they present the higher sea level rise as if it were a sustained rise, which is of course nonsense.

  47. lolwot | June 8, 2014 at 7:23 am |

    It seems some deniers (Tanglewood, TDA, but I bet others) only believe in the “pause” because they think there is a scientific consensus.

    Quite hypocritical if you ask me.

    When challenged it turns out they will not, or cannot, define what the pause they believe in actually is. They seem to only believe it because it’s some meme they read on denier blogs or in tabloids (they even link to tabloid papers as evidence!). They don’t want to actually define it when I am threatening to be able to test it against actual data apparently.

    No denier to my mind has ever tested the “pause” for statistical significance. That’s interesting in itself.

    Deniers think the world has stopped warming. Realists who accept manmade global warming know that it will continue warming. That’s the situation and I think it’s quite important that when the world does in fact continue warming we remember who was wrong and who was right. I think a lot of the effort by deniers to pretend the pause is universally accepted is so they have an out when the world continues warming.

    • nottawa rafter | June 8, 2014 at 7:32 am |

      lolwot bats 1,000%. I believe what my eyes tell me. You can dabble in the weeds about statistical significance, but I stand back and in a millisecond see something has changed. The degree of change I will leave to small thinkers.

    • nottawa rafter | June 8, 2014 at 7:39 am |

      Bats 1,000 % for being wrong..

    • lolwot | June 8, 2014 at 7:41 am |

      “You can dabble in the weeds about statistical significance”

      Uh wait….irony alert!

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 7:54 am |

      Dabbling in the marshes,
      Splashing up statistics,
      Miasma mesmerizes,
      Pauses fool the physics.
      =================

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:03 am |

      Back in the day, when I tired of arguing with true believers, as the war of words wound wearily wasted, I’d challenge them to ‘watch the thermometers’. lolwot, I commend thee to that vision.
      =============

    • GaryM | June 8, 2014 at 2:15 pm |

      No denier can define the “pause?”

      Baloney.

      The entire CAGW movement depends on decades of reported surface temps showing what was falsely called “unprecedented warming in the last X years.” The pause is simply the failure of the consensus’ own temperature reports to continue that purported upward trend.

      It’s your own petard. If you get hoisted on it, don’t blame deniers.

      I for one don’t think anyone knows the “global average temperature,” or more appropriately, the total global heat content, is with any real accuracy. The real reason the vast majority of people “believe” the globe is warming is because that was what they were experiencing personally during the end of the 20th century. They are no longer experiencing that to the same extent, so public support for the CAGW agenda has been, to say the least, slack.

      This is the real reason the consensus used surface temps in the first place. It is also the reason they are dying for another super El Nino.

      lolwot is like one of those Japanese soldiers who kept turning up in caves on pacific islands after WW II. The MET Office, even the IPCC, acknowledge the “pause” in reported temps. But lolwot still fights on.

      • nottawa rafter | June 8, 2014 at 2:33 pm |

        The difference between the Japanese soldiers and lolwot is that no one told the Japanese soldiers the facts about the end of the war but lolwot has been told again and again and again and…..

  49. Jim D | June 8, 2014 at 8:48 am |

    Florida seems not to be served well by its current crop of tea-party politicians. Sometimes anti-climate-change extremism means not even adaptation is considered. Perhaps when they are up to their knees in central Miami, they might start to think about doing something about it.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/07/florida-climate-change_n_5465455.html

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 8:54 am |

      Two feet by 2060? C’mon, you don’t even believe that, so why the rest?
      ==========

    • Jim D | June 8, 2014 at 10:09 am |

      They are already having problems. Miami is not sustainable in the long term, unless plans are started now, which the Florida state government is just not going to do on principle, because any adaptation is an admission of defeat to them. This is how politics is played, and it benefits no one.

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 10:33 am |

      Hey, tell ’em it’ll be 20 feet. Surely that’ll get ’em moving.
      ===============

  50. Donald Rapp | June 8, 2014 at 9:04 am |

    Dear JC: There is something that I would like to learn, and I have yet to see this information provided despite many published papers and web postings – although perhaps it has been done and maybe I missed it. I am hoping that you, or others you could lean on, might provide a posting that would enlighten us. If I had the knowledge (but I don’t) I would generate such a posting.
    • We are all aware that without feedbacks, doubling CO2 leads to a Stefan-Boltzmann temperature rise of about 1 to 1.2 degrees Celsius.
    • We are also generally aware that climate models include feedbacks that raise this estimate to anywhere from 2°C to 9°C, with a “Goldilocks” value of 3°C (an increase of ~ 2°C above the non-feedback estimate).
    • I have never seen a quantitative breakdown of which specific feedback factors contribute how much (quantitatively) to the estimated increase above the non-feedback estimate for any climate model. Obviously, this will vary from model to model. It would be nice to see this information for at least some of the major models. Thus we might get a table of contributions to the increase above the non-feedback estimate, including separate contributions from clouds, humidity, ice/snow albedo, etc.
    Is this feasible? Has it already been done? If so, can you point to it? If not, is there someone out there who can do it?
    I sent the above to JC. Her reply was:
    ” the feedback breakdown has been done previously, assuming that the feedbacks add linearly (but i haven’t seen anything like this for the CMIP5 models). my current thinking on this is that it isn’t really useful to separate the fast thermodynamic feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, cloud, albedo), they aren’t all that separable and don’t add linearly.”
    Since JC is smarter than me about these things, I suspect she is right, but I still wonder what others think?

    • Jim Cripwell | June 8, 2014 at 9:33 am |

      Donald, you write “• We are all aware that without feedbacks, doubling CO2 leads to a Stefan-Boltzmann temperature rise of about 1 to 1.2 degrees Celsius.”

      GARBAGE. We are aware of nothing of the kind. The figure of 1 to 1.2 degrees Celsius is nothing more than a guess. It is based on unproven assumptions, and the output of non-validated models. One of the key assumptions is that when presented with a change of radiative forcing caused by the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere,, the response is entirely by radiation effects. Convection is ignored.

      • Donald Rapp | June 8, 2014 at 10:02 pm |

        Jim: You seem to look at the world through high contrast glasses. You have garbages and impossibles in your rhetoric. Its nice to be so certain and emphatic. Can you distinguish gray from black and white?

    • Jim Cripwell | June 8, 2014 at 10:43 am |

      I should add that the value of 1 to 1.2 C is IMPOSSIBLE to measure, so it is a purely hypothetical and meaningless number.

    • gbaikie | June 8, 2014 at 10:18 pm |

      –” the feedback breakdown has been done previously, assuming that the feedbacks add linearly (but i haven’t seen anything like this for the CMIP5 models). my current thinking on this is that it isn’t really useful to separate the fast thermodynamic feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, cloud, albedo), they aren’t all that separable and don’t add linearly.”
      Since JC is smarter than me about these things, I suspect she is right, but I still wonder what others think?–

      I think Judith is wrong.
      As for 1 C of warming, one is not going to get much change, but a “map”
      of what 9 C of feedback looks like would seem useful in terms what changes are needed for this to happen.

  51. willard (@nevaudit) | June 8, 2014 at 9:14 am |

    As promised to GaryM [1], here’s a list of contrarian arguments. I call it the **Contrarian Matrix**. As always, I’m thankful for any comment, suggestion, or concern Denizens may have. I could try to explain how it works, but I broke an elbow yesterday and type with one hand.

    Enjoy,

    w

    The Matrix is Everywhere

    0. There are reasons to suspect that Global Warming (GW) might actually be inexistent. The certainties of the misnomered greenhouse functions mask vast unknowns. The imperceptible GW may very well be natural, cyclical, chaotic, where carbon plays a minor role compared to the Sun, cosmic rays, CFCs, some known unknown (dragons perhaps), or some unknown unknown. Research for natural mechanisms is underfunded; Anthropogenic GW (AGW) is simply assumed. Our current period is not unprecedented. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide changes. Science is never settled. Lots of theories.

    1. Even if GW exists, we don’t know how much W there is and how much is caused by the A in AGW. There is no such thing as a global average temperature That “most” of the W since 1950 is from A means little; a global MWP would undermine that result. The GW has been less than predicted or overestimated by the models. Paucity of data prevails and its climate signal is almost indistinguishable from noise. We don’t know what ‘adjustments’ were made to these records. We need better proxies, better observations, everything back in Joules, engineer-level formal derivations, statistical analyses like Brown & Sundberg or objective Bayesianism, and traceable edits. We need best practices. New deck chairs would be nice too.

    2. Even if AGW is tangible, predicting what will happen to CO2 in the next century is a rather uncertain matter. Observation-based studies indicate a lower sensitivity, which means we’d have more time to prepare. The impact of AGW is also rather uncertain; silly mitigation policies may lead to suboptimal results. AGW is rather good, a net benefit in the short run. After all, CO2 is plant food, and certainly not a pollutant. Economic models tell us very little: _ad hoc_ input choices, void of theorical foundation, may contain Gremlins. Saying that AGW is “bad” leads us outside science, for science is value-neutral. Beware stealth advocacy. Cool it. Don’t panic.

    3. Even if AGW turns out to be bad, there is little we could mitigate. Economic growth is the best remedy. An Iron law excludes emission reductions that would stiffen growth. It’s a shame we can’t go nuclear for the moment. The rise of energy prices will lead to a huge increase in fuel poverty. Alarmist black swans tales may lead to the death of millions and to the creation of a world government. The precautionary principle should be taken into account, but only after careful considerations of cost and benefits. Let’s do no harm.

    4. Even if we could efficiently mitigate, and God knows that’s a stretch, mitigation may be unnecessary because carbon-eating trees or some other pixie dust will suffice. For the moment, nobody knows that to do. Whatever the future holds, we ought to be more pragmatist in our policy choices. Policymakers should look for win-win policies in order to improve the environment. Whatever we believe about AGW, many of the actions we would take to reduce greenhouse-gas production and mitigate global-warming effects are beneficial anyway. There more pressing concerns than AGW; for AGW, we need smart solutions. The most important response to AGW is intelligent adaptation. Personally, I’d geoengineer an ice-nine powered Heliotropical Adaptator made of Tin foil orbiting around the Earth (_HAT_). The best is yet to come.

    5. Even notwithstanding all of this, Climategate. The climate science establishment seems to produce predetermined answers. A cabal, a cadre, a cargo cult or a clique of corrupted, dogmatic climate science activists controls a knowledge monopoly. That one has to reach to figures like Lysenko for analogies is telling. Science does not work by consensus. Funded scientists ought to be severed from advocacy. Everyone in the WG3 should be terminated, if not cleansed. The postnormal IPCC should be disbanded. We won, you lost, get over it.

    [1]: http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/24/are-climate-scientists-being-forced-to-toe-the-line/#comment-570232

    • John Carpenter | June 8, 2014 at 9:29 am |

      Interesting, but what are these arguments contrarian to? Please state the ‘accepted’ argument in order to elucidate the differences.

      Thank you

    • jim2 | June 8, 2014 at 9:43 am |

      WE’RE ALL GONNA FRY!!!!

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 9:54 am |

      willard fails Kairos, but laughs it off.
      =============

      • dalyplanet | June 9, 2014 at 1:11 am |

        I am not sure where to respond now, but here seems appropriate.

        Willard made me laugh too.

    • omanuel | June 8, 2014 at 10:55 am |

      Thank you, willard (@nevaudit), for your excellent summary of some of the more incredible portions of the AGW dogma.

      The world’s ,political powers will remain aligned with consensus science dogma until they see a safe way to retreat, without fear of retaliation.

      I.e, peaceful reconciliation is the best way forward now.

      • willard (@nevaudit) | June 8, 2014 at 5:22 pm |

        Thanks, omanuel!

        Is “There are reasons to suspect that Global Warming (GW) might actually be inexistent” a good way to formulate your main position?

      • omanuel | June 8, 2014 at 5:36 pm |

        Willard,

        After five years of Climategate,

        1. AGW skeptics have science
        2. AGW believers have politics
        3. Society is deeply distressed
        4. Wisdom is noticeably absent

      • gbaikie | June 9, 2014 at 1:46 am |

        –4. Wisdom is noticeably absent–

        When was it noticeably not absent?

    • lolwot | June 8, 2014 at 11:00 am |

      haha that’s really good, nice and concise. It should have been on the thread “what is skepticism, really?”

    • John Carpenter | June 8, 2014 at 11:06 am |

      Let me take a stab at the non contrarian counterparts are for each argument based on what was written, then you make the call on if it is correct. The last phrase seems to sum up each argument.

      0. Contrarian argument: lots of (theory) choices
      Non contrarian argument: one theory/choice

      1. Contrarian argument: We need new best practices
      Non contrarian argument: we have adequate practices

      2. Contrarian argument: Cool it, Don’t panic.
      Non contrarian argument: Panic.

      3. Contrarian argument: Let’s do no harm
      Non contrarian argument: Let’s do harm

      4. Contrarian argument: The best is yet to come
      Non contrarian argument: This is as good as it will get

      5. Contrarian argument: We won, you lost, get over it.
      Non contrarian argument: we won, you lost, get over it.

      Willard, this does not appear to be your intention here. But the arguments as presented do not appear to make the point you may have intended. Maybe another look is required on these? Many of the examples presented are at the core of what climate science is looking at, particularly (1). Much of (2) presents important relevant discussion with regard to policy choices and frankly I have seen ‘non contrarians’ use some of them.

      Any additional thoughts?

    • willard (@nevaudit) | June 8, 2014 at 11:51 am |

      > Many of the examples presented are at the core of what climate science is looking at, particularly (1). Much of (2) presents important relevant discussion with regard to policy choices and frankly I have seen ‘non contrarians’ use some of them.

      That’s not a bug, but a feature, John. The main point is to collect what lines contrarians use. That non-contrarians can use the same arguments only show that what is inferred from them can vary from one audience to the next. This is why Poptech could collect so many papers that ‘support’ the contrarian position. Lots of things can be said to support lots of things, cf. Junior’s “is compatible with.”

      Perhaps I should talk of “lines of argument” instead.

      ***

      What would be the mainstream position regarding the existence of a global temperature?

    • John Carpenter | June 8, 2014 at 1:19 pm |

      “What would be the mainstream position regarding the existence of a global temperature?”

      Interesting question that could veer in many directions.

      If that is specifically directed at me to answer, here are my thoughts, though I can’t claim them to be main stream.

      A global temperature has utility as a reference point to compare with others and other types of measurements used to determine AGW. A data set of global (annual) temperatures has utility in understanding the general surface temperature trend over time. Global temperature is an average of a years worth of data and says little about regions or variation within the year. The data used to calculate the temperature is mostly land based tropospheric data. There really is no such thing as a global temperature in the sense of a physical understanding of the climate. The use of a global temperature can be abused by both sides of the climate debate as evidence for or against AGW depending on what part or how much of the data base is used. Proxy based global temperatures determined for pre instrumental measurement times are less certain than instrumental based measurements.

      Plenty there for both sides to argue with plus whatever I didn’t think of.

      I think another way to look at it is, what utility does it have?

      • willard (@nevaudit) | June 8, 2014 at 5:18 pm |

        > I think another way to look at it is, what utility does it have?

        Yes, exactly, John. From “global temps don’t exist,” we can go in lots of directions. The same would apply to “global temps are useful.” It all depends upon the argument in which this kind of line would appear.

        Worse, we could “pipe” the lines together. From “global temps don’t exist,” we could say “global temps don’t exist — CONVERT ALL IN JOULES!” That’s why I call this a matrix.

        ***

        Your interpretation of the paragraphs are quite good, BTW. It goes from theory to methodology, then to impacts, adaptation, and “science politics” or investigative journalism.

        Thank you for your insights. Much appreciated.

    • Don Monfort | June 8, 2014 at 4:36 pm |

      Nice work, willy. It reveals your true intentions here.

      • willard (@nevaudit) | June 8, 2014 at 5:19 pm |

        Thanks, Don Don.

        And what would be those true intentions according to you?

      • Joshua | June 8, 2014 at 5:58 pm |

        If I might offer my own off-the-cuff Matrix…

        Willard’s intentions are to derail Judith and/or distract the denizens from their important work to prove the “consensus” wrong and/or attack Judith and/or discredit Judith and/or bite Judith’s ankles and/or (in vain) prove how smart he is and/or promote a one-world government agenda and/or cause poor brown children to starve so he can create a Luddite Utopia and/or act as a defense for the “cabal” and/or hide from the reality that Mann and RC are meanies and/or make sure our children don’t think critically and/or end the enlightenment.

        The great think about being a “skeptic” is that you don’t need to provide validated evidence to support a claim, you only need to assert that any number of things (which may even be self-contradictory) are true.

    • George Turner | June 8, 2014 at 6:36 pm |

      I’ll offer up a contrarian argument I thought up yesterday about the disastrous consequences of 2C of warming above pre-industrial levels. The globe has already had about 0.5C of the warming, and due to UHI, big cities got about 1.5 C on top of that. That adds up to 2C. But instead of people fleeing the scorching, almost uninhabitable cites during the industrial era, people flocked to them. I reckon they were moving to urban areas for the warmer micro climate.

      This perhaps indicates that people won’t actually notice 2C of warming, because obviously the urbanites and sophisticated elites didn’t seem to notice that they’d grown up in the midst of an ongoing climate apocalypse, not noticing the wildly increased temperatures as they fretted over smog, graffiti, traffic congestion, and too many Starbucks.

      • willard (@nevaudit) | June 13, 2014 at 8:50 am |

        Thanks, George.

        I’m not sure I understand your argument, but I’ve added a “We’re already used to it” in 2, waiting to see a similar line of argument in mainstream contrarian channels.

  52. Wagathon | June 8, 2014 at 9:17 am |

    It’s inarguable that global warming is a Left versus right issue. The gravamen of AGW theory is politics not science: the demonization of Americanism. How many other social issues are better understood through the lens of liberal fascism?

    • Canman | June 8, 2014 at 10:25 am |

      I’d argue that AGW alarmism is a form of environmental puritanism. From H L Mencken’s quote: “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy (driving their SUV)”.

    • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 4:27 pm |

      “It’s inarguable that global warming is a Left versus right issue.”
      _____
      The fundamental issue is one of science, but it is made into a political issue because of its potential economic implications related to policy. In as much as the career politicians in both parties are now (and for quite some time) nothing more more than sycophants to their corporate benefactors, then the great sums of money are at stake have made this scientific issue a political one. Judith has become involved directly in this political/economic warfare, wittingly or unwittingly. Everything has a price.

  53. jim2 | June 8, 2014 at 9:29 am |

    From the article:
    …
    Progressive hero Noam Chomsky is terrified of the surveillance state that has developed during the tenure of President Barack Obama, calling it a grave threat to our fundamental civil liberties.

    In a column published Monday, Chomsky writes that the documents revealed to the public by Edward Snowden show a system that is flagrantly violating the principles of the Constitution.

    “It is of no slight import that the project is being executed in one of the freest countries in the world, and in radical violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures,’ and guarantees the privacy of their persons, houses, papers and effects,” Chomsky said.

    “Much as government lawyers may try, there is no way to reconcile these principles with the assault on the population revealed in the Snowden documents.”
    …

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/04/chomsky-obama-determined-to-demolish-the-foundations-of-our-civil-liberties/

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 9:39 am |

      Heh, when you’ve lost Chomsky.
      =======

      • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 1:38 pm |

        Kim,

        You apparently have a very narrow (and therefore incorrect) view of what Chomsky is all about. He’s be rallying against intrusive, “Big Brother”, globally expansive empire-like government for years, regardless of which of the corporate-controlled parties are in power.

      • kim | June 8, 2014 at 4:44 pm |

        Heh, you miss the point. Little before has this been brought out by the sustaining press narrative. Oh, it still hasn’t. Get it?
        ==================

      • kim | June 8, 2014 at 4:46 pm |

        Were it in your hearts, RG, you’d be leading the pitchfork pack. Bah!
        =================

      • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 4:52 pm |

        “Were it in your hearts, RG, you’d be leading the pitchfork pack.”
        ____
        The mob is too fractured, ignorant, and apt toward extremism. Besides, they are still getting plenty of cake. Such “eating of their own” doomed the French revolution to the tyranny of Napoleon. Corporate rule is not much better, but better.

    • jim2 | June 8, 2014 at 9:46 am |

      Obama’s a real jewel of a President he is.

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 10:52 am |

      Heh, now that Chomsky has lost himself, maybe the Government can find him.
      ========

    • Don Monfort | June 8, 2014 at 4:39 pm |

      Yes, Chomsky is notoriously non-partisan, without an ideological bone in his body. Everybody loves their Chomsky.

      • R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 4:46 pm |

        Chomsky has a clear vision of the dangers oft a corporate-controlled empire-like big brother government. he’s quite ideologically driven, and for good reason. If he comes down more on the side of one party over another, it is always the lessor of two evils as each must be corporate sycophants.

      • George Turner | June 8, 2014 at 5:38 pm |

        Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot. I can’t imagine what other evil he was weighing them against, but perhaps he should occasionally take his mind out for a nice walk instead of leaving it cooped up inside his head all day.

  54. omanuel | June 8, 2014 at 9:34 am |

    When “win-lose” solutions fail, try a “win-win” solution!

    Egos will be the only losers!

  55. Canman | June 8, 2014 at 10:43 am |

    Mark Steyn is anxious to get Michael Mann into court and onto the hot seat witness stand. Mann is stalling discovery while Steyn has gotten it over with months ago. It seems to me that there is already plenty of stuff in the public domain that could distroy Mann under oath. Could Steyn expedite his quest by forgoing discovery of Mann? Mann says his hockey stick is pristine while Steyn says he already knows it’s fraudulent. Why does anything have to be ‘discovered’?

  56. David Springer | June 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm |

    The single level nesting experiment has evidently concluded that single level nesting is inferior to deeper nesting.

  57. R. Gates | June 8, 2014 at 1:34 pm |

    A beautiful perspective on the anomalously warm waters on both the Pacific and Atlantic side of the Arctic right now:

    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-145.86,77.96,522

  58. A Lacis | June 8, 2014 at 4:00 pm |

    ianl8888 –
    “While the basic physics of infrared heat absorption by CO2 is well established, both theoretical understanding and real world evidence strongly indicate the effect of increased CO2 in the complex dynamics of the global climate system has been greatly exaggerated. The amount of back-radiated infrared energy from the planet’s surface is limited and is not increased by more CO2 in the air above. Although a small amount of CO2 in the air results in significant warming, this effect is quickly saturated. At pre-industrial levels of CO2 the portion of the IR spectrum in the absorption bands of CO2 was already 99.9% absorbed within a few tens of metres of the surface.”

    I have heard that kind of erroneous sentiment expressed before by armchair physicist types who may have a primitive understanding of some aspects of radiative transfer, but have zero practical experience in remote sensing or in the modeling of atmospheric radiative transfer. They don’t seem to appreciate the fact that the radiative effects of CO2 (and of all other greenhouse gases) involve the entire atmosphere, not just what happens at ground level.

    Both the emissivity and absorptivity of an atmospheric layer depend on the optical depth (amount) of the greenhouse gas that is present in that layer of the atmosphere. But in addition, the actual amount of radiation that the atmospheric layer can emit depends on the local temperature of that layer. The greenhouse effect occurs because radiation emitted at a higher temperature (e.g., the ground surface) is absorbed by a colder temperature atmospheric layer. Being colder, the atmospheric layer cannot emit as much energy in the upward direction as it has absorbed, thus “trapping” heat energy.

    In short, the bigger the temperature differential between the (warmer) emitting layer and the (colder) absorbing layer, the stronger the greenhouse contribution of this radiative energy interaction. Thus, the greenhouse contribution by CO2 (and H2O) molecules near the ground surface will be negligibly small, while CO2 and H2O molecules near the tropopause and in the stratosphere will contribute strongly to the strength of the greenhouse effect.

    Furthermore, in a radiative-only atmosphere (which happens to be the case in the stratosphere), there is no saturation of the greenhouse effect – the more opacity you put into the atmosphere, the stronger the greenhouse effect becomes. Venus is a good illustration of this. Only about 1% of the incident solar radiation is absorbed at ground level on Venus (compared to about 50% for Earth). Yet the strength of the greenhouse effect on Venus is about 500 K compared to the 33 K on Earth.

    • Tonyb | June 8, 2014 at 4:29 pm |

      Andy

      Perhaps you could clarify the physics questioned expressed by George and amplified by me?

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/08/state-of-the-blog-discussion-thread/#comment-589234

      Thanks
      Tonyb

    • Mike Flynn | June 8, 2014 at 7:29 pm |

      A Lacis,

      As I understand it, the maximum emission wavelength of the Earth at 288K is around 10 microns – this represents the vast majority of the energy.

      On the other hand, peak absorption of CO2 is around 15 microns at maximum. Therefore, we have an extremely small part of the atmosphere being heated by an extremely small portion of the energy emitted by the Earth at 288K.

      A physicist should take but a moment to calculate the percentage of the total instantaneous energy emitted by the Earth available for interaction by CO2.

      I wonder if you can help by providing the answer with workings. An answer which is within 10% of correct is good enough.

      I thank you for you assistance in advance.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

      • Pierre-Normand | June 8, 2014 at 11:29 pm |

        “As I understand it, the maximum emission wavelength of the Earth at 288K is around 10 microns – this represents the vast majority of the energy.”

        The Earth radiates across a very broad range of wavelengths. Google “outgoing shortwave radiation” so see the whole IR spectrum from satellite measurements over the tropics. The large chunk taken out from the middle is caused by CO2, from about 600 to 750cm-1 (wavenumber).

        “A physicist should take but a moment to calculate the percentage of the total instantaneous energy emitted by the Earth available for interaction by CO2.”

        As satellite observation shows, this is a huge change. In the tropics, the outgoing radiation close to the CO2 bands (that are enlarged by pressure broadening) emit at an effective temperature that’s about 55°K lower than the surface. That’s the temperature of the level where photons last escape to space on average. You can use the calculalor on the spectralcalc * com site to get a rough number. As the satellite OLR spectrum shows, CO2 is quite opaque from about 13 to 16 micron. The blackbody radiance (by unit steradian) at 285K is 119W/m2/sr. The band radiance from 13 to 16 micron at 285K is 17.7W/m2/sr. This is 14.9% of the total. CO2 emits to space in that band at about 230K on average (with current 400ppm concentration, as satellite OLR spectra show). That’s a band radiance of 7.5W/m2/sr. So, that’s 10.2W/m2/sr taken out from the total surface radiance. It’s a 8.5% reduction. This may not be accurate within 10% but probably within 50%. It also ignores the issue of overlap with water vapor and other greenhouse gases. But it’s enough to counter your claim that the effect of CO2 on OLR is utterly negligible. In fact, merely glancing at the measured OLR spectrum should have been enough to convince you of that.

      • Pierre-Normand | June 8, 2014 at 11:31 pm |

        Google “outgoing shortwave(sic) radiation”…

        longwave, of course.

      • Mike Flynn | June 9, 2014 at 1:18 am |

        Pierre-Normand,

        Now you see why A Lacis is unable or unwilling to answer a simple question. You can’t, but waffle on as though you know the answer. You don’t, but seem unwilling to admit it.

        As usual, you have contradicted nothing that I have said. Have you any information to contradict me? No, I thought not. I am talking about physics, and energy. Simple concepts. Once again, a physicist should take but a moment to calculate the percentage of the total instantaneous energy emitted by the Earth available for interaction by CO2, if he knows as much as he claims.

        What is the answer? If you don’t know, don’t feel embarrassed. I don’t know either. That’s why I asked.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Pierre-Normand | June 9, 2014 at 2:31 am |

        Mike Flynn,

        You were clearly arguing that CO2 can’t have much of an ability to interact with upwelling radiation from the Earth surface on the ground that the emissions peak for a 288K black body is located around 10 micron while the CO2 peak absorption spectral region “is around 15 micron at maximum”. From those two considerations alone you inferred that CO2 interacts with an “extremely small part” of the energy emitted by the surface. This is a total non sequitur. You ignored the width and overlap of the relevant spectral regions and seemingly assumed that the peaks were very narrow, which they aren’t at all. Just glancing at the observed OLR spectra measured by satellites, while knowing where the CO2 bands are, ought to make this painfully obvious. But now, it seems, you don’t care anymore about empirical data and you won’t trust reality itself unless models confirm it against your uninformed prejudice.

        Very well then. The MODTRAN transmission data for CO2 indicates that the atmosphere is opaque to IR radiation between 13.5 and 17 micron over very short distances. The observed OLR spectra directly confirm this. In my calculation I used 13 to 16 micron. Since I not only did the calculation but pointed out how it is done, and gave you a link to an online spectrum calculator, you can redo it for yourself with the better figures. The emission temperature in the relevant bands can also be read off the empirical OLR stectra with overlaid Planck curves.

    • Arno Arrak | June 8, 2014 at 9:43 pm |

      AAL – You are sweeping under the table the fact that there is no such thing as greenhouse warming now and there has been none for 17 years. Your greenhouse theory requires that increasing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide should result in greenhouse warming but it doesn’t. That Arrhenius theory of yours is obviously no good and should be rejected. The only greenhouse theory that can accurately explain this is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT), the one you and the whole Hansen gang have been vilifying for seven years now. It is not too late to change your mind. Just get off your high horse and admit that you were wrong but now you have seen the light that explains all mysteries you did not understand before.

    • ianl8888 | June 10, 2014 at 11:24 pm |

      Thank you for your reply

  59. Robert I Ellison | June 8, 2014 at 4:41 pm |

    ‘It is hypothesized that persistent and consistent trends among several climate modes act to kick the climate state, altering the pattern and magnitude of air-sea interaction between the atmosphere and the underlying ocean. The middle panel in Figure 1 shows that these climate mode trend phases indeed behaved anomalously three times during the 20th century, immediately following the synchronization events of the 1910s, 1940s, and 1970s. This combination of the synchronization of these dynamical modes in the climate, followed immediately afterward by significant increase in the fraction of strong trends (coupling) without exception marked shifts in the 20th century climate state. These shifts were accompanied by breaks in the global mean temperature trend with respect to time, presumably associated with either discontinuities in the global radiative budget due to the global reorganization of clouds and water vapor or dramatic changes in the uptake of heat by the deep ocean. Similar behavior has been found in coupled ocean/atmosphere models, indicating such behavior may be a hallmark of terrestrial-like climate systems [Tsonis et al. 2007]. ‘ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/abstract

    There are 2 elements – abrupt climate change and real changes in toa radiant flux and the reasons for that – and both rely on data and not just so narrative or even more just so models.

    The US National Academy of Sciences defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.

    Anastasios Tsonis suggests that decadal surface cooling and warming results from a change in energy uptake in the deep oceans or a change in cloud and water vapour dynamics. Both seem likely. In the simplest case the cooler or warmer water surface loses less or more of the heat gained from sunlight and so the oceans warm and cool. It produces a residual rate of warming considerably less that the rate of warming between 1976 and 1998.

    In the latter case Dr Norman Loeb – Principal Investigator for NASA’s Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) – shows that large changes in the Earth’s energy dynamic occur with changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation. However, CERES commenced operation just after the 1998/2001 climate shift.

    Earlier satellite data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP-FD) shows a substantial step increase in cloud at the turn of the century. Furthermore – an intriguing project originating with Dr Enric Pallé at the Big Bear Solar Observatory made photometric observations of light reflected from the Earth onto the moon from 1998. Short term changes in global reflectance – is for the most part cloud changes. A climatologically significant step increase in albedo was observed at the turn of the century. Project Earthshine has since expanded to three – soon to be to a global network – of robotic telescopes.

    The latest climate shift was 1998/2001.

    So starting at 2002 – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend

    Cloud cover changes as a result of changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation.

    e.g http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=112

    • kim | June 8, 2014 at 4:54 pm |

      The hourglass figures
      In the Kaleidoscope
      Drip the hours’ signatures
      And trip in turn the scope.
      ==============

  60. Pekka Pirilä | June 8, 2014 at 5:22 pm |

    Concerning the question about heating and cooling rates several graphs and some discussion can be found at

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/30/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-twelve-heating-rates/

    Many of the results are obtained by the same model that produces typical standard results for the GHE as discussed in other parts of that series of posts.

    The most important reason for the smallness of all the heating and cooling rates is that the atmosphere is close to the stationary state. Thus it’s not presently warming or cooling much at any point. Throughout the troposphere convection and latent heat transfer add a little heat. Radiation must compensate that and have an equally small cooling contribution.

    GHGs contribute much to the heating of the surface, the troposphere gets heated by the surface through convection and latent heat transfer.

    • dalyplanet | June 9, 2014 at 1:28 am |

      Pekka, you have been an excellent patient teacher to me. I sincerely hope you continue to post here.

    • JeffN | June 9, 2014 at 1:26 pm |

      I did love this sentence in the article you link to:
      “Mankiw also points out that that the very richest people—the ones who’d been paying 70% on the top tranche of their income—did contribute more tax revenue after Reagan’s tax cuts. That leads to the somewhat vexing possibility that the way to maximize government revenue is to jack up taxes on the middle class….”
      In other words- Laffer was right, it just didn’t produce enough dough for the redistributionists to hand out so now they face the political impossibility of hammering the middle class (while mocking Laffer). Perhaps they can call it a carbon tax to save the planet.
      An auditor, would note there are always two parts to the tax equation- what are you spending the money on, and how much of my money should be taken for that.
      Salon.com will never say how much higher the tax rate should be in order to dump more cash into something like the Newark schools, the country’s most expensive and worst. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/19/140519fa_fact_russakoff?currentPage=all
      Note the source- the left of center New Yorker. It seems that researchers have discovered that the love of big government is inversely proportional to its effectiveness. Who’d a thunk it!

  62. jim2 | June 8, 2014 at 10:11 pm |

    Apparently there are three big global warming articles in the NY Times.
    From the article:
    …
    Centuries from now, a large swath of the West Antarctic ice sheet is likely to be gone, its hundreds of trillions of tons of ice melted, causing a four-foot rise in already swollen seas.

    Scientists reported last week that the scenario may be inevitable, with new research concluding that some giant glaciers had passed the point of no return, possibly setting off a chain reaction that could doom the rest of the ice sheet.

    For many, the research signaled that changes in the earth’s climate have already reached a tipping point, even if global warming halted immediately.

    “We as people see it as closing doors and limiting our future choices,” said Richard Alley, a professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. “Most of us personally like to keep those choices open.”

    But these glaciers are just the latest signs that the thawing of earth’s icy regions is accelerating. While some glaciers are holding steady or even growing slightly, most are shrinking, and scientists believe they will continue to melt until greenhouse gas emissions are reined in.

    “It’s possibly the best evidence of real global impact of warming,” said Theodore A. Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
    …
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/science/the-melting-isnt-glacial.html?_r=0

    • cwon14 | June 9, 2014 at 12:09 pm |

      Orwellian statism is Orwellian statism;

      http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/tony-abbott-seeks-alliance-to-thwart-president-obama-on-climate-change-policy-20140609-39t93.html

      AGW is a prison planet of the collectivist sort, of course the left goes with the meme.

      • GaryM | June 9, 2014 at 12:38 pm |

        Friedman in particular is ridiculous. He pines for Chinese authoritarianism. His quoting Obama about “helping the market place” by implementing a carbon tax is par for their confused course.

        Friedman has become a no reality zone.

        “Several weeks ago, as he was drawing up these new emission rules, I interviewed President Obama in the White House library about climate and energy.”

        If anything can be said about Obama, it is that he is consistent in claiming ignorance about everything his administration is doing. If anyone actually believes he wrote any part of the massive regs to come, let alone is their author, they are delusional.

        It’s interesting though that he now sees 2 degrees C, not as a harbinger of disaster, but of the goal of all his new regs,

        “But I very much believe in keeping that 2 [degree] Celsius target as a goal.”

        This might come as a surprise to the progressive drones at the EPA.

        The ignorant being interviewed by the clueless. But then, it’s the new York Times.

      • pokerguy (aka al neipris) | June 9, 2014 at 1:01 pm |

        “The ignorant being interviewed by the clueless. But then, it’s the new York Times.”

        I finally made the switch to the WSJ after many years of NYT’s reading. It’s not so much how ludicrous so much of their coverage is….beyond laughable on “climate change”… but that they commit the unpardonable sin for a newspaper, of being tedious. Their editorial page is currently unreadable, an utter hack-fest.

    • brent | June 9, 2014 at 1:31 pm |

      For me, Paul Ehrlich being made FRS was the final straw, sort of representing the final descent of the Royal Society.
      Unfortunately my opinion is that it is an accurate indicator of the ideology of the leadership.
      I believe similarly that appointing Holdren as Obama’s “science advisor” is also an accurate indication of the “social views” of the US executive branch.
      Am I the only one who feels this disquiet?

  65. brent | June 9, 2014 at 12:23 pm |

    Obamacare: watch out, here comes “predictive modeling”
    http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/obamacare-watch-out-here-comes-predictive-modeling/

  66. brent | June 9, 2014 at 12:57 pm |

    Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Global Warming Alarmism
    Scare tactics should at least be entertaining.
    http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/09/neil-degrasse-tysons-global-warming-alarmism/

  67. angech | June 9, 2014 at 7:07 pm |

    Arctic sea ice , will it go in the right direction, after nearly breaking the negative million in extent it is now starting to improve slightly. Similar to the Gore effect we may see an Obama effect where the sea ice minimum is much higher than normal this year. Perhaps even positive. Remember, he will claim credit for it!

  68. GaryM | June 9, 2014 at 8:24 pm |

    I have a question for all the CAGWers here. To a person they seem to applaud Obama’s ignoring the law and US Constitution to impose his anti-coal regime on the US economy. Someone above linked to an article where some wag, clearly channeling Thomas Friedman,referred to Obama’s Thankfully ‘Dictatorial’ Approach to Climate Change.

    My question begins with an assumption.

    Assume that the US, EU Australia, Canada and the rest of the developed west were to decarbonize their economies, but China, India and Russia refuse to follow.

    The question is – what then?

    Will those so willing to impose their “consensus” by dictatorial means not have an obligation to the whole global population to ensure the rest of the world does the same?

    Imagine a western populace forced by their governments to forgo affordable energy, and forced to return to an economic level approximately equivalent to the 1800s. How hard will it be for future progressive demagogues to argue that those damnable “others” should not be allowed to destroy the climate, when we have sacrificed so much to save it?

    By tearing down the Constitution in the US, and slowly getting rid of representative democracy in the EU, you geniuses are paving a path for the real danger to global security. A centralized, non-democratic west with an unhappy populace and an all too easy target to blame for their suffering.

    This is an inverted form of the beggar they neighbor strategy embodied in the Treaty of Versailles after WW I. Except we are beggaring ourselves for the sake of globalclimatewarmingchange.

    Far fetched? Maybe. But easily as likely as the thermageddon predicted by the consensus and its failed GCMs.

  69. brent | June 10, 2014 at 8:31 am |

    10 Living Things That Are Loving Global Warming
    “Two hundred and fifty million years of physiological fine tuning has produced a creature that will be around for a long time to come,” he added in the interview. “Cockroaches will do well in the face of climate change.”
    http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/10-creatures-are-loving-global-warming-20140523

  70. Ragnaar | June 10, 2014 at 6:46 pm |

    http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/PDO_AMO.htm
    Tsonis et al 2007, using only two variables. PDO and AMO.

  71. William Lippincott | June 11, 2014 at 6:33 pm |

    The null hypothesis, useful or misdirection re CAGW?
    I wonder if recent discussion on which null hypothesis is appropriate is constructive. In its original construction, H-naught referred to no difference between two population or areas, one of which may represent treatment or effect and the other a control. Here the meaning, as well as the probabilistic threshold for rejecting H-naught is clear.
    It seems to me that neither Curry’s nor Trenberth’s version of H-naught is appropriate to CAGW theory. I think Popper’s reference to “prohibited conditions” as a means of falsifiability is what we should be talking about to decide whether CAGW is credible. One such prohibition might be that if man’s influence on climate is truly alarming then it must not be countered by natural phenomena.
    Your ideas?
    WH Lippincott

  72. Mark Silbert | June 11, 2014 at 9:31 pm |

    I just read this in the Weekly Standard.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-cultists_794401.html?page=1

    What say the alarmists?

  73. Agnostic | June 13, 2014 at 3:02 am |

    Dr Curry, an article you might find very interesting on the political polarisation in the US. You have discussed Mcright and Dunlap here before but the quote from one of their papers lower down in the article is very interesting.

    http://io9.com/its-been-150-years-since-the-u-s-was-this-politically-1590076355

  74. Jim Payette | June 14, 2014 at 4:27 am |

    I read this paper:P1: FXZ
    October 16, 2000 13:0 Annual Reviews AR118-13
    Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2000. 25:441–75
    WATERVAPOR FEEDBACK AND
    GLOBALWARMING

    Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden
    Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Princeton, New Jersey 08542
    And it basically said this can be figured out on clear nights what the effect will be but if it’s cloudy we don’t have a clue. That was in 2000. Has anything changed in the last 15 years?
    One thing has -” a new ingredient has been discovered: an extensive and previously unseen “twilight zone” of particles that represents a gradual transition from cloud droplets to dry particles…
    What appears as clear sky around a cloud as seen from the ground through a digital camera actually has a twilight zone of light-reflecting particles around it (right). Credit: Koren et al., Geophysical Research Letter
    Worldwide, up to 60 percent of the atmosphere labeled as cloud-free in satellite observations is actually filled with this twilight zone of in-between particles, according to the study.”
    This was 2007.
    It is my understanding that the feedback effects of water vapor and clouds and temperatures are still much debated and unknown with any certainty.
    How can anything be certain until this very basic function is understood.
    Then these models – can they be worked backward to show the Younger Dryas or the Ice Age ending?
    If not how can they be used to make forward prediction?
    Is my understanding correct that they only sort of work for a few decades with fudge factors?

  75. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen | June 17, 2014 at 11:59 am |

    I remain surprised that so few people here think politically. Politics uses science as a tool in power and interest competition, always has, selectively of course.. For man-made warming there were ready (if more expensive) solution available in the 1980s and CO2 is the ideal pollutant for politics, it crosses all boundaries and can be measured!! and traced to origin, The energy groups (nuclear, renewables) developed during the1970s in respnse to the oil crises, were suddenly again threatened by low fossil fuel prices) in late 19802. They liked the idea of warming caused by CO2 and with the help of UN bodies, green ideology and other bureaucracies wishing to grow (UNEP, WMO, WB/GEF), turned CO2 into a villain and into agreed (negotiated) science with the help of computer models that had the ‘right’ assumptions’ assumption, hence the IPCC. Big Science is only funded by politics as long as it is useful…’true’ science will take a few more decades to emerge, if at all.
    You got to look at energy politics (decarbonisation) at the international level to understand the enthusiastic (and now fading??) uptake of the ‘warmist’ argument. (See Aynsley Kellow and Sonja B-C E.Elgar 2002, International Environmental Politics:: Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process; and my many other publications in the 1990s in Energy Policy journals and elsewhere..
    Dr. Sonja Boehmner- Christiansen, Uni of Hull, formerly Science Policy Unit, Uni of Sussex UK

  76. Grant Black | July 5, 2014 at 4:20 pm |

    I find it intriguing that you never see a paleontologist weigh in re: climate. Being a paleontologist by education and first stage of my professional career, I routinely interpreted floral and faunal assemblages contained in well bore samples to extrapolate paleo bathymetry. Sea level change over time is a clear indicator of glacial and inter-glacial periods, i.e. Paleo climate.,
    One CLEAR irrefutable fact every marine paleontologist knows is climate is VERY variable over time. We routinely see sea level fluctuations far in excess of 600 feet. There were periods when the coast of the Gulf of Mexico was as far as 100 miles south of today’s coast and times when the Gulf boundaries extended as far north as southern Canada. Climate is and always has been variable. That was true in the past true and is still true today,