Week in review

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

From my twitter feed:

Bill McKibben : Fascinating, sad new paper: 1 big storm is enough to cut 3.7 years off the development of a poor nation http://www.nber.org/papers/w20352 

Matt Ridley:  Smart aid for the world’s poor [link]

Sea ice news Volume 5, # 5 NSIDC: ‘the expansion in Antarctic sea ice is confirmed’ http://wp.me/p7y4l-tHR 

Betty Beekeeper:  More than just Scarcity: Multifaceted #Water Conflicts in Yemen [link]

Paul Matthews:  Review paper on climate change communication by Victoria Wibeck [link]

Betty BeekeeperCIRES Report: Climate Change in Colorado A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation [link]

William M. BriggsThere Is No Difference Between A Forecast, A Scenario, or A Projection http://wp.me/pCnXP-3rK 

Andy Revkin:  Arctic methane news explored by @dbiello: [link  Top Russian permafrost wiz on “perma” in permafrost: [link]

Stephen Fleming“Complicated issue… the inclination should be to do nothing. That is different than saying nothing should be done” [link]

“Cold kills more than heat, CDC says” “Challenges widely held view that heat is the top weather-related killer” [link]

Richard TolFirst factual error in IPCC WG2 AR5 http://feedly.com/e/4CcMavkU 

Tony Thomas in the Quadrant:  Big Green Hypocrites [link]

Jonathan Jones“This is not only fraud, it’s slander” says Jose Duarte about the Lewandowsky nonsense. He’s spot on. http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/more-fraud 

Quote of the week:

Jonathan Jones roughly speaking the Consensus is what is believed in by activists who believe that the Consensus is important

end is near

255 responses to “Week in review

  1. David L. Hagen

    Since it was printed, “This is not only fraud, it’s” also LIBEL.

  2. Corrections, criticisms or comments would be appreciated:


    We realize we know only a little, but it is clear that the 1945 decision to hide the source of energy that sustains life elevated world leaders to the position God had historically occupied as ruler of the world.

    • Water vapor is the main atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ gas (GHG), making up about 4% of the atmosphere –i.e., 40,000 parts per million (ppm). By comparison, CO2 is 400 ppm (a hundred times smaller –i.e., 4/100ths of 1%); and, the total yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 from all sources (including all that is released into the atmosphere by all humanity) is just 1.8 ppm –e.g., like the hot sauce made from about two jalapeño seeds to spice up a burrito the size of a 32 inch English farmhouse sink.

      • Wrong, water vapor averaged over the atmosphere is 4000 ppm. In the upper atmosphere CO2 molecules outnumber H2O molecules.

      • If you want to convert 4% or 4/100ths into millionths, simply multiply by 1 on the form of 10,000 / 10,000 or 40,000 / 1,000,000 equals 40,000 ppm.

      • Real But Exaggerated

        As my moniker indicates, I think the whole thing’s overblown, but it’s important to distinguish concentration versus radiative effect. CO2 is pretty potent per molecule and has absorptive bands close to the terrestrial maximum.

      • Even if we assumed that humanity produced all of the yearly CO2 increase, meteorologist Joe Bastardi (Two Simple Questions…) says, “The EPA estimates that the U.S. contributes about 1/5th of the CO2 man emits, which would be .20 x 1.8 ppm, or .36” In other words, we’re talking about an increase of 0.36 ppm of CO2 gas that has 1/100th of the effect of water vaper that together with all GHGs has 1/1000th of the effect of the ocean on Earth’s climate. Bastardi says you should ask Mr. Gore two simple questions:

        What is the perfect temperature for the planet? Do you really believe that the U.S.‘ contribution of 0.36 parts per million of CO2 has any provably measurable effect on weather/climate?

      • Wagathon, turns out it is 0.4%, not 4%. It may be up to 4% at the surface, but not in the atmosphere as a whole.

      • Bastardi got that wrong too. He calls himself a meteorologist?

      • “Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from .01% at -42 °C (-44 °F)[23] to 4.24% when the dew point is 30 °C (86 °F).” (wiki)

      • Jim D.
        According to this, you have to be >10km up for CO2 to out number H2O.

        Are you suggesting that black body radiation from altitudes greater then 10 km have a significant effect on the Earths temperature?

      • DocMartyn, no, I was arguing against Bastardi’s assertion that CO2 doesn’t matter relative to H2O. Using MODTRAN you can see that at the surface more than 10% of the downwelling IR is from CO2 molecules. To achieve a similar effect to removing all the CO2, you have to remove 75% of the water vapor.

      • The volume of water vapor is about 4% in very warm and humid tropical air. Jeff Haby, Meteorologist

      • The average in the atmosphere is 0.4%.

      • There is very little water vapor in the coldest, driest most inhospitable places–e.g.,

        For all of the extremes one can find on this planet, there are few places more extreme and inhospitable than the continent of Antarctica. Where, then, is the most extreme locality on the most extreme continent? Last year, American and Australian scientists believe it they found it about 1 000 km from the South Pole in Australian-claimed territory on the Antarctic Plateau using satellites, ground stations and climate models. The site is simply called Ridge A, and the numbers behind it are staggering.

        The ridge itself lies at an altitude of 4 053 m above sea level, 144 km (89 mi) from the nearest sign of human impact, an automated Chinese space observatory (the loneliest one in Antarctica). The average winter temperature is around −70°C (−94°F), and there is so little water vapour in the air that one column of air has less water vapour content than the thickness of a human hair. It is also the centre of the polar wind vortex; perennially in the eye of the storm as winds circle around it but never over it… [http://basementgeographer.com/ridge-a-the-coldest-driest-quietest-calmest-place-on-earth/]

      • In the upper atmosphere CO2 molecules outnumber H2O molecules.

        Yes, but there is such a tiny number, why would Mother Earth Care.

      • For CO2, most of its emission to space comes from very high up where the air is thin, and it is the emission to space that affects the earth’s energy budget.

      • What that means is 99.72% of all greenhouse gases are … Natural

        So, if you like au naturale go for it! Polar bears could care less

        Water Vapor accounts for 95% of all greenhouse gases

        CO2 accounts for just 3.5% of greenhouse gases–mostly natural…

        Based on concentrations
        (ppb) adjusted for heat
        retention characteristics……..% of All……% Natural….% Man-made

        Water vapor………………………..95.000%…..94.999%…….0.001%
        Carbon Dioxide (CO2)…………..3.618%……..3.502%……0.117%
        Methane (CH4)…………………….0.360%……..0.294%……0.066%
        Nitrous Oxide (N2O)…………….0.950%……..0.903%……0.047%
        Misc. gases ( CFC’s, etc.)……….0.072%……..0.025%……0.047%


        “There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050.”
        [Source: Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal]

    • This may be explained better at the end of E. M. Smith’s technical discussion on nuclear energy:


  3. David L. Hagen

    More Deaths due to Cold than Heat
    See: NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: The Biological Impacts

    In the United States the average person who died because of cold temperature exposure lost in excess of 10 years of potential life, whereas the average person who died because of hot temperature exposure likely lost no more than a few days or weeks of life.
    • In the United States, some 4,600 deaths are delayed each year as people move from cold northeastern states to warm southwestern states. Between 3 and 7% of the gain in longevity experienced over the past three decades was due simply to people moving to warmer states. . . .
    Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics. Coronary and cerebral thrombosis account for about half of all cold-related mortality.
    • Global warming is reducing the incidence of cardiovascular diseases related to low temperatures and wintry weather by a much greater degree than it increases the incidence of cardiovascular diseases associated with high temperatures and summer heat waves.

    For the IPCC ignored data, see: Chapter 7. Human Health   PDF(0.6 MB)

    • Real But Exaggerated


      Total deaths from all causes peak strongly in winter and reach a strong minimum in summer for mid-lat countries.

      • Which is meaningless.

      • “Life is meaningless.”

        Interesting perspective. You might want to discuss this with a friend offline.

      • You read more than he wrote, but what he wrote is wrong.

      • No it is not wrong. It’s a comparison of apples and oranges. People in North Dakota live for a very very long time. Same for Minnesota. Extreme cold rarely kills them. It rarely kills anybody but unfortunate people who make a mistake. I can think of one recent example in South Dakota. A lady in a nursing home stepped through a patio door. She could not open the door to get back inside. There was no walkway from the patio to to another entrance. She had to walk through deep snow. She froze to death. Inside the nursing home, people die of old age in the winter. There’s a difference.

      • Time For An Ob

        As for seasonality, here’s a good report from actuaries ( anything creepier? ):


        Seasonality of death does become significant only after 50.
        But it is not ‘dying of old age’ but respiratory illness that seems to kill differentially.

        Perhaps it’s more significant to recall that direct weather deaths in general are exceedingly few such that they don’t even make the top causes of death lists:


      • Heh, thanks, JCH, nice explication. But it is wrong to say that comparing apples and oranges is meaningless.

      • David L. Hagen

        Time for an Ob:
        Re: “direct weather deaths in general are exceedingly few” ???
        How about when deaths from cold reache 30% of the population?
        Cooling climate change is far more dangerous than warming. See:
        Neumann, J.; Lindgrén, S. (1979). “Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: 4, The Great Famines in Finland and Estonia, 1695–97”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 60 (7): pp775–787. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1979)0602.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477.

  4. David L. Hagen

    End is Near vs Before the End
    When will we hear climatologists confirm fulfillment of the very alarming prophecy by John of the coming climate change before the End?

    The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

    Revelation 16:8-9 NIV

  5. Bill Mckibben wrote, “Fascinating, sad new paper: 1 big storm is enough to cut 3.7 years off the development of a poor nation”

    I doubt that McKibben tweeted this in support of Bastiat’s Parable of the Broken Window.

    From the abstract …
    The data reject hypotheses that disasters stimulate growth or that short-run losses disappear following migrations or transfers of wealth. Instead, we find robust evidence that national incomes decline, relative to their pre-disaster trend, and do not recover within twenty years. Both rich and poor countries exhibit this response, with losses magnified in countries with less historical cyclone experience.

    Destructive storms are bad. Who knew?

  6. Briggs:”There Is No Difference Between A Forecast, A Scenario, or A Projection” The title is wrong and I challenge anyone to interpret his natterings in plain English. When looking out 50-100 years you have to develop scenarios and create projections based on those scenarios. For example you might say CO2 will double in 50 years, or the solar irradiance will increase by 1%. Both would be scenarios, and then you would have a projection based on those scenarios. These are not forecasts because they presuppose a scenario, whether likely or unlikely. Similarly, other scenarios might relate to volcanoes, methane releases, rapid Arctic ice loss, etc. I don’t know if Briggs is really that dense, or if he is just trying to mislead people.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jim D: I don’t know if Briggs is really that dense, or if he is just trying to mislead people.

      there is no operational difference: people act the same no matter what you call the projection (etc); and when the events turn out different from what was modeled, forecast, etc, the theory is shown to be deficient.

      AGW scenarios are the basis for claiming that urgent action is needed. Failed AGW scenarios (e.g. GCM model output, failed forecasts from earlier IPCC publications) are evidence of liabilities in the theory that supports such calls to action.

      • Projections have underlying assumptions, whether it is GHG and aerosol levels, that the sun and volcanoes stay constant, etc. These are the scenario. A projection only makes sense in the context of its underlying assumptions about the external forcing factors, of which CO2 is just one. When verifying 50 years from now, you would only look at projections that had roughly right forcings at that time. In principle, someone could have projected in 1950 for a scenario of 400 ppm in 2015 and a 2 C transient (all inclusive CO2-proportional) sensitivity, a fairly good estimate of the warming between then and now, near 0.7 C.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: Projections have underlying assumptions, etc.

        That is a list of abstract distinctions without operational or actionable differences. Whatever IPCC wants to call its scenarios and such, Alan Leshner of AAAS is calling on AAAS members to urge their congressfolk to urgent action and to make $$$ donations to the cause. If you tell him they are only scenarios or projections, that won’t change his acting as though they are predictions of what will happen if these urgent steps are not taken.

      • Heh, of course there are differences in meaning. Look at all the different ways the words are used. These are great weasel words for the alarmists.

        It’s actually been kind of fun watching the process. Clearly, the alarmists want to be known for accurate visions of the future, yet weasel the words in an attempt to deny already failed previsions. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Gag me with a model.

      • Scenarios are very important for policies. You would have a mitigated and unmitigated policy and compare them. There is no better way to do this than with scenarios and projections. They distinguish policy outcomes in fairly stark terms. 500- ppm versus 1000+ ppm makes a big difference, and both are achievable depending almost entirely on policy. You have to compare the whole possible range to inform policy.

      • JimD
        Give me an example of a prediction that is true for all scenarios. OR are they dependent on scenarios, just like……………..

      • ghl, you can do a functional prediction such as, the temperature in 2100 is a function of CO2 at that time (all else being equal). This is a graph. Then at 2100 you can read off your CO2 and see what predicted temperature corresponds. It requires multiple runs spanning the possible 2100 CO2 range, and interpolating between them.

      • ………..projections.

      • ghl, predictions are difficult, especially about the future.

    • Steven Mosher

      There is no logical difference between the terms.
      The difference is your ability to control test conditions

    • Steven Mosher

      Let see if I can help.

      Suppose I say.
      If you drop a ball from 10 feet it will land in X seconds

      Then you drop the ball from 20 feet

      Does that make your prediction a forecast?

      Suppose you say if co2 doubles Temps will go
      Up by 2c.

      Suppose co2 only goes up by 50%
      Does that change your prediction into a forecast?

      Does it make it a scenario?

      • You would have two scenarios, one with a 50% increase and one with 100% increase, and each would come with a projection. When we get to the later time, CO2 will have increased by maybe 100%, so that projection actually was a prediction, but we only know that in retrospect.

      • Steven Mosher

        No jim they are both predictions.
        one was actually tested, the other wasnt.

      • Scenarios don’t have to be predictions. They are what-ifs. There is no need for a given scenario to be a strong possibility.

      • Steven Mosher

        Jim D

        let see if I can make it clear

        Prediction 1: if c02 increases by 2X, temp will go up Y
        Prediction 2. if C02 increases by X temp will go up Z

        Now, note the logical form. its the same.

        next, we have no absolute control over the experiment and c02 goes
        up by .89X. temp goes up by Q.

        what can we say?

        We dont redefine “prediction” merely because we cannot control the test conditions. we can say

        1. We are not able to test the prediction.
        2. we can re run the prediction using the observed values.

        Instead of doing either 1 or 2, people try to introduce a new term
        “forecast” or scenario. which means.. a test we meant to run but
        were not able to.

        of course one could do all values or a sensitivity study.. GCMs are too slow for that.

      • Steven Mosher, the very use of “if” in your “prediction” makes it a projection, not a prediction. Now you can make a separate prediction of how much CO2 will increase, but that would be a different model. Combining these two models, you then have a prediction, but you may also need a solar model, some way to predict volcanoes and aerosols, etc., so this why the term “prediction” is rarely used. Too many “if you hold this or that constant, assume this rises so much, etc.”.

      • Steven Mosher

        Jimd all predictions have an implicit or explicit IF

      • They are very careful to say that GCMs are not giving predictions because the GCMs are being given the forcing change according to a scenario. What might be a prediction is if I said I predict 1 C of warming per 100 ppm added, because there you have the main conditional. What I don’t think anyone can predict is how much CO2 we will have in 2100, because that depends on societal factors, and therefore no one can predict the temperature in 2100, and I don’t think anyone has claimed to have.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Jim D said:

        ” These are not forecasts because they presuppose a scenario, whether likely or unlikely. ”
        “When we get to the later time, CO2 will have increased by maybe 100%, so that projection actually was a prediction, but we only know that in retrospect.”

        No, Jim.
        Predictions are not made in retrospect. :)



        The term “projection” is used in two senses in the climate change literature. In general usage, a projection can be regarded as any description of the future and the pathway leading to it. However, a more specific interpretation has been attached to the term “climate projection” by the IPCC when referring to model-derived estimates of future climate.


        When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.”

      • It may be useful for the climate community to actually have a good understanding of the sun.

        Recent solar excursions ie fast changes in the Bartol rotation have exhibited large changes in amplitude over short periods.

        The quiet sun event (a spotless sun) causing a 1.6 wm^2 excursion in TSI.

        a persistent sun ( of a lower amplitude ) over the next 2 SC is a game breaker.

      • Most boring sub-thread ever.

        noun \pri-ˈdik-shən\
        : a statement about what will happen or might happen in the future

        noun \prə-ˈjek-shən\
        : an estimate of what might happen in the future based on what is happening now

        verb \-ˌkast; fȯr-ˈkast\
        : to predict (something, such as weather) after looking at the information that is available

        noun \sə-ˈner-ē-ˌō, US also and especially British -ˈnär-\
        : a description of what could possibly happen

        All from Merriam-Webster online.

      • ‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of (perturbed physics) model solutions. ‘ IPCC TAR

        We can neither project or predict. This is a core mathematical reality that seems to elude most people.

      • I am really appreciate JimD’s efforts at explaining predictions and projections. All ya gotta do is produce a shotgun blast of varied projections and then if one turns out to have been correct, you get to claim you made an accurate prediction. I plan on using that scheme some time. It sounds like fun.

      • Steven Mosher says:

        “Prediction 1: if c02 increases by 2X, temp will go up Y”.

        What happens if you wait until CO2 doubles (hits 560 ppm) and the temperature goes up Y (a longshot – but say it does) – but a whole bunch of scientists say Yes – but that Y isn’t from CO2 – it is from one or more of the other variables which were not controlled?

        One of the big problems I see is that no matter what prediction or forecast is made – because many variables are changing all the time – no one will agree whether any particular prediction was right.

        How will we ever validate a GCM?

      • Ted Carmichael

        This is all a rather tedious argument over semantics, IMO. If you want to say “scenario” instead of “prediction,” fine. But I submit that, to the degree a scenario gives us information about what is expected to happen, it is a prediction; to the degree that it doesn’t give information about what is expected to happen, it’s f*$&^%# useless.

  7. Real But Exaggerated

    Mckibben gave a talk at our University and tried to make the case that ( this was a while back ) peak oil was going to send us back to an idyllic subsistence farming state.

    I couldn’t help but imagine how many of the faculty would starve to death and be generally miserable without air conditioning. But he is an evocative speaker.

    • In the “idyllic subsistence farming state,” who will pay to develop anti-cancer drugs, pocket computers, energy and a communications/transportation infrastructure? And as the world’s population grows to occupy all the arable/productive land, how small will each “subsistence farm” get before starvation results.

      Will communes return or are the 1960s gone for good?

  8. “1 big storm is enough to cut 3.7 years off the development of a poor nation”

    Not 3.75 or 3.8, Bill? I guess greater precision depends on more sophisticated calculations of bigness. Where’s Lew?

    I’ve also heard it reported that one big climate scare supported by aimless factoids can cut 37 years off the development of any nation. Maybe even 38. I can’t give you the months.

  9. Pingback: There Is No Difference Between A Forecast, A Scenario, or A Projection | William M. Briggs

  10. Progressive “education” policy is in the process of doing to colleges and universities what it has already done to primary and secondary education.


    • GaryM,

      That article is too much of a rant. If a college degree is used as a “proxy for job performance” it cannot be all bad. I also did not think “tuitors” aspiring to receive job training rather than a Liberal Arts education is so bad. The cost being high is a problem that pretty much everyone would liek to solve, etc.

  11. Cogenra Claims Super-Cheap Solar With LCPV (LCPV stands for “low-concentration photovoltaics”.)

    Fifty cents a watt? Wow. That’s the module cost claim for utility-scale installations that Cogenra is making with its new T14 PV system.

    “The rugged, reliable, low-cost optics and the high efficiency, Made-in-USA T14 receiver enable the module to achieve fifty cents per watt, providing a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) that is up to 20 percent lower than conventional photovoltaic (PV) systems,” the company said.

    For comparison, as Greentech’s Herman K. Trabish noted, the recent GTM Research PV pricing trends report forecast that “looking into 2015 and beyond, module pricing will resume its long downward trajectory, eventually hitting $0.50 per watt for Tier 1 Chinese modules in the base forecast.”

    From a site I just found: Concentrating Photovoltaics

  12. Drought-Resistant Rice Sows Wealth in India
    New Agricultural Technologies Cushion Impact of Late Monsoon Rains

    If, as the saying goes, you reap what you sow, then Indian farmers are some savvy sowers. Thanks to new drought-resistant strains of rice, along with more efficient farming techniques, farmers are enjoying larger crop yields, even under adverse weather conditions.

  13. Cold kills more than heat, CDC says” “Challenges widely held view that heat is the top weather-related killer”

    Death certificates say more cold deaths than heat related.

    The old man living alone in the Northern Climes doesn’t pay the utility bill. Gas is turned off. Cold is the killer in the winter. To prevent such a recurring scenario states have enacted laws to prohibit utility companies from shutting off the gas during the winter. Nevertheless, it still happens.

    Before we speak of poor people not having money to pay the bills, a man, living alone over 75 years of age is more likely than not on Social Security and does have steady income. But, when the old man begins to feel the effects of the dwindles, well, either someone is looking in on him regularly and checking that he is paying the bills or has a extended payment program with the utility, then bad things can happen.

    Advanced age, dwindling capacity, isolation, cold climes = deadly outcome.

    Death certificates do contain sufficient information to make such an assessment.

    Welcome to the real world Baby Boomers!

  14. From the article:
    U.S. oil giant Exxon Mobil began drilling in Russia’s Arctic on Saturday, despite Western sanctions imposed on its Russian partner Rosneft, and was hailed by Russia’s president as an model of “cooperation”.

    Although U.S. sanctions over the crisis in Ukraine are not designed to halt joint projects by Russian and U.S. companies, they nevertheless aim to starve Rosneft of dollar financing and ban access to modern technology.
    (end quote)


  15. Learned a few things this past week: 1) Alarmists are alarmed 2) The public is not buying the AGW message 3) A cottage industry has risen called Climate Change Communications 4) The stated purpose of the CCC industry is to increase public support for mitigation and adaptation policies. 5) CCC research shows that the scare tactics are counterproductive and the public is not aware that over 90% of scientists believe in AGW (their words)

  16. From the article:

    Since January, Oklahoma has had 292 earthquakes that register a magnitude 3.0 or larger, more than any other state in the continental United States. That’s nearly triple the 109 last year. Through 2008, Oklahoma averaged less than two a year.[http://link.reuters.com/vyg62w]

    The unprecedented earthquake activity has put Oklahoma in the center of an emerging debate over whether the disposal of wastewater from oil and gas production triggers earthquakes. It has prompted enactment of broad new rules that go into effect Sept. 12.

    “The houses are bouncing. It is frightening,” said Matt Skinner, spokesman for the Oklahoma Corporations Commission, which regulates oil and gas work in Oklahoma. Skinner’s home itself has suffered quake damage.

    Oklahoma’s economy relies heavily on oil and gas. Seventy of Oklahoma’s 77 counties produce crude oil and gas, and 4,500 disposal wells around the state handle the industry’s wastewater. Scientific studies have shown wastewater activity may cause quakes when occurring near geologic faults.

    Regulators say they do not know if disposal wells, which can reach thousands of feet underground, are to blame for the sharp rise in earthquake activity. As a precaution, they are scrambling to scrutinize every well, and even shutting some down.


    • Drilling causes earthquakes, burning fossil fuels causes global warming. In the first case they want to slow down until they figure out what is happening. In the second, not so much. Precautionary principle in action, or not.

      • Does the drilling in Canada cause earthquakes?

      • JimD Didn’t Hansen confirm that the pause is real? How can you then say that burning fossile fuels causes global warming?

      • If they do fracking, probably.

      • rls, you may have noticed it warmed 0.7 C since 1950 alone. That would be just the beginning. There were also real pauses in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. Didn’t stop it, did it?

      • Precautionary principle?
        1. More CO2 could cause global warming. Stop making CO2.
        2. More CO2 could prevent global cooling. Make more CO2.

        It’s a wash.

      • There is an ideal in the middle. Hansen, McKibben, et al. say it is 350 ppm (350.org). Maybe you can join them.

      • Jimd

        This small rise is merely. Continuation of a warming trend we can observe from the early 1700″s.

        We can observe a number of other long term warming and cooling trends with around 1350 being the second major peak in the mwp and another in around 1150AD. There was a cooling trend that separated the early medieval warmth and the end of the roman warm period . Today is nothing out of the ordinary.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Drilling causes earthquakes”

        err no.

        the thesis being investigated is whether or not pumping water into the ground causes issues, or whether one can develop standards to mitigate the risk.

        “The rules taking effect next month require well operators to make daily reports on volume and pressure of wastewater injection instead of monthly reports, as previously required.

        Many wells must have seismic monitoring equipment, and testing of certain large disposal wells now must take place annually, instead of every five years. Regulators also can require testing of any well, large or small, at any given time”

        basically, in OK they pump the waste water into the ground.
        To ascertain if this is the cause, they will do daily monitoring.

        science aint settled yet

      • Ok, let’s say that drilling the wells doesn’t by itself cause earthquakes, only when you start fracking in them.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “There were also real pauses in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. Didn’t stop it, did it?”
        Of course warming stops if temperatures do not go up.
        You like to abuse the word “stop”.
        Do you stop at stop signs or do you tell the court that you did not stop, since you continued to go away or back to your home?

      • JimD: “USGS’s studies do not suggest that hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking,” causes the increased rate of earthquakes. USGS’s scientists have found, however, that at some locations the increase in seismicity coincides with the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells”. http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/Is-the-Recent-Increase-in-Felt-Earthquakes-in-the-Central-US-Natural-or-Manmade.cfm

      • Steven Mosher

        Jim D.

        no. Its the waste water disposal.

        That is, after the fracking

      • JimD: The latest UAH chart shows a plateau 1979-1997, a spike in 1998, a return to the 79-97 mean in 1999-2000, a modest increase in 2001, and an elevated flat plateau 2002-2014. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

      • Meanwhile the land is doing this.
        Even “cold” years now are warmer than anything before 1995.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “Meanwhile the land is doing this.”

        Cherry picking to remove 2/3 of the world.

        Niiiiiiiiice work.

      • Some fracking companies are cleaning up and recycling the frack water. This only makes sense, especially in the West where water is dear. It would remove the need to inject water deep into the ground and stop the earthquakes, if that is the reason, which I’m guessing it is.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Cherry picking. Why start? You were talking about global average surface temps.

      • There is a good reason that the land leads the ocean like this. It shows something about the nature of the warming (internal versus external). Sometimes it helps to step back and see the big picture like this.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “Land leads, ocean follows”
        Nope. Look at 1940ish. Ocean leads

      • Jim D:

        Even “cold” years now are warmer than anything before 1995.

        And check out what anomaly data really means.

      • thisisnogood, do you see which one bends down then up first?

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “There is a good reason that the land leads the ocean like this. It shows something about the nature of the warming (internal versus external). ”

        Oh, if your argument now is that ocean surface is internal, then let’s remove the arctic warming from “the big picture”.

      • phatboy, did I say months or years? You are using months. Sorry for your mistake.

      • Jim D:

        Land leads, ocean follows, especially obvious in 30-year smoothed trends.

        Funny how that obvious lag completely disappears if you don’t use 30-year smoothing: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1900/mean:12/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900/mean:12

      • Jim D:

        phatboy, did I say months or years? You are using months. Sorry for your mistake.

        If you knew anything about filtering then you would know that 12-month smoothing does not yearly data make.

      • Jim D’s a firm believer in the principle of torturing the data until they confess.

      • phatboy, last I checked a 12-month average would be an annual average. Smoothing improves the signal to noise ratio which leaves a stark signal that skeptics prefer not to even think about.

      • Many little Richters in time saves 9.

      • Jim D, 12-month running averages are not annual averages.
        Besides, simple averaging produces artefacts.
        A little lesson in averages:
        Given the two series: 1, 2, 3, 2, 1 and 1, 2, 0, 4, 1,
        a) which series has the highest maximum, and
        b) which series has the highest mean?
        And do look up what anomaly data means. It’s not synonymous with temperature data.

      • The difference between surface (@2m) and tropospheric temps is latent heat.


        It is an artifact of water availability at the surface. That it matters is yet one more of Jimbo’s delusions.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “phatboy, last I checked a 12-month average would be an annual average. Smoothing improves the signal to noise ratio which leaves a stark signal that skeptics prefer not to even think about.’

        Oh, we do think about what you try to do, Jim D.

        That’s why it’s not successful.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Let’s think more about your assertion of “internal” for ocean surface temps, Jim D.

        Please be more complete and explicitly and tell what you mean by “external” and “internal”

      • I am interested to know your method of getting an annual average from monthly averages.

      • thisisnogood, there are very obvious thermal inertia reasons that subjecting a mixed land/ocean earth to warming externally makes the land warm faster.This happens locally every summer where the land warming leads. Internal forcing mechanisms don’t have the land warming a decade ahead of the oceans, because these are argued to be ocean-driven changes. It is clearly external from a mechanistic viewpoint. Once you get to that point you can start to think about which external forcing it is.

      • ‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans.’


        Jimbo’s vague hand waving about significant mechanisms are utterly worthless. Something he seems unable to process for some odd reason.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “there are very obvious thermal inertia reasons that subjecting a mixed land/ocean earth to warming externally makes the land warm faster.”
        “warming externally.

        Oh, so you’re talking about external forcing?
        Land surface temps are driven by external forcing and ocean surface temps are driven by internal forcing?

      • thisisnogood, they both are driven by external forcing, which is why the ocean lags. It’s quite simple to understand. Do you need it explained why the ocean warms more slowly than land when both are warmed by the same forcing? There is some physics there, so maybe that is where you got lost.

      • Rob Ellison, this is a transient state when warming rates matter. The equilibrium state happens much later. If the land gets drier it will stay more warm than the water at equilibrium too, which is what that paper is saying.

      • Again the only physics involved in the land/sea difference is that of the balance between radiative and convective heat transport.

        It doesn’t show up as heat differences in the troposphere.


        Jimbo is utter nonsense linked to made up physics, no real science references at all and no understanding of Earth sciences. A clearer example of the Borg collective could not be found.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        Jim D said

        “they both are driven by external forcing, which is why the ocean lags. It’s quite simple to understand. Do you need it explained why the ocean warms more slowly than land when both are warmed by the same forcing?”

        No, Jim, and it would be better if you didn’t attempt such transparent means to shift away.

        So if you do mean to say “externally forced” and that both are externally forced, then what is your “internal” for sea as opposed to your “external” ?

      • ‘The land surface temperature is more sensitive to the oceans than the oceans are to the land surface temperature, which is related to the processes causing the land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios. It suggests that the ocean’s natural variability and change is leading to variability and change with enhanced magnitudes over the continents, causing much of the longer-time-scale (decadal) global-scale continental climate variability. Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’

        The utter BS from Jim continues without a pause. This is what the paper is saying – it is a relatively simple message until it gets distorted through the lens of cognitive dissonance.

      • thisisnogood, “internal” would be warm water coming from somewhere below the surface as in the AMO, PDO or Tisdale’s ENSO ratchet effect. If that was happening, the oceans would have warmed first or in phase with the land, which is clearly not happening, so it doesn’t favor those being the dominant warming causes.

      • Rob Ellison, we discussed that paper before. Sadly their model study did not reproduce the observed warming pattern well when they forced the land with the ocean. You have to look at the pictures to see this, because they did not say much about it except for a low pattern correlation coefficient.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “internal” would be warm water coming from somewhere below the surface”

        So you have “external” being external forcing, and “internal” is warm water coming from below the surface.

        Is that correct? Do you call that an internal forcing?

      • Yes, internal mechanisms just redistribute energy within the system, affecting the mean surface temperature that way. ENSO is the biggest example of that. Over time it cancels itself out since energy is not gained from anywhere by the definition of internal. Some say it could account for temporary swings of as much as +/-0.1 C on decadal scales which is enough to offset a decadal trend from external forcing changes.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        And so you removed it in order to show a more extreme warming than global surface temperature.
        Is that correct?

      • ‘In this study the land–sea contrast, reflecting stronger warming over land than over oceans, was reinvestigated in observations and in a series of GCM simulations. Previous studies on this issue focused either on the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic forcings (e.g., Cess
        et al. 1990) or on highlighting that this land–sea contrast exists in global warming scenario simulations beyond simple transient effects (Sutton et al. 2007; Lambert and Chiang 2007; Joshi et al. 2007). In particular Joshi et al. (2007) illustrated that this land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios is maintained by latent heat release in the free atmosphere and the associate atmospheric lapse rates. It therefore represents a mechanism that appears to be intrinsic to the climate system. A somewhat overlooked subject in the discussion of these previous studies is the implication that these findings have on the ocean–land interaction in natural climate variability, which was the focus of this study.’

        Utterly dishonest BS from Jimbo. The extremes of dissimulation these people go to seems quite incredible. The open question is whether they actually believe it or are playing some game for obscure purposes to do with delusions of scientific credibility.

        ‘Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’


        That internal variability doesn’t result in large changes in TOA flux is another entrenched delusion. Do they read it – or does this just result in glazed eyes and does not compute?

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “Some say it could account for temporary swings of as much as +/-0.1 C on decadal scales which is enough to offset a decadal trend from external forcing changes.”

        You mean to say that the shrill alarmists are dialing it back now? From .3 to .1?
        Well done, people!

      • thisisnogood, removed what? Long-term trends removed the internal part because they cancel themselves out. I didn’t have to remove anything, just averaged over 30 years.

      • Rob Ellison, you are quoting random snippets of papers again. Context is everything. What kind of modeling studies are these? Are you fully in agreement with these models and what they conclude because you didn’t quote a conclusion, only what looks like an introduction snippet. I was actually talking about temperature observations only, but you insist on quoting modeling studies. Isn’t it ironic?

      • thisisnogood, it could even be 0.5 C at annual scales for El Ninos, but when you average over longer times these diminish to 0.1 C on decadal scales, and almost nothing at 60 years.

      • The residual from the mid 1940’s – when emissions took off – is some 0.07 degrees C/decade. This is not likely to persist in this century.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “thisisnogood, removed what? Long-term trends removed the internal part because they cancel themselves out. I didn’t have to remove anything, just averaged over 30 years.”

        Sure you did, removed SST.

        “Meanwhile the land is doing this.
        Even “cold” years now are warmer than anything before 1995.”

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “thisisnogood, it could even be 0.5 C at annual scales for El Ninos”

        I was talking about .1 cancelling out decadal warming from external forcing.

        It was ..3 decadal from the shrill alarmists. A .1 wouldn’t cancel it.

        Now you’re all calming down. that’s a good sign. Good work, people!

      • thisisnogood, I showed land temps because skeptics forget that their warming rate is 0.3 C per decade sometimes, and land temps lead global temps, and at least now you know why.

      • I quoted from the conclusion – from a paper based on both observations and slab models. The paper was about land temps being forced by the oceans. That is clearly in the ‘snippets’ provided – along with the comments on the physical mechanisms of the land/oceans contrast.

        This is clearly in stark contrast to Jimmy’s delusion hand waving in the direction of imaginary physics. They can’t admit to being wrong – because this suggests that they are much dumber than the climate pragmatists they have denigrated for so long. There is no science – there is no physics – and the relatively simple message from actual science must be misinterpreted because it doesn’t agree with the meme. Jimbo’s stock in trade is obviously nothing more than a delusional narrative.

      • Rob Ellison, so why do you think the land started warming before the ocean and is rising twice as fast? What do your modeling studies tell you about that? As I said, there is a simple mechanistic explanation and you don’t need a model, just physics.

      • There is a simple mechanism for the land/ocean contrast – and this is as stated in many studies. Try reading some instead of peddling non-specific – let alone referenced – appeals to supposed simple mechanisms. Jimbo’s credibility is zilch.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo

        “I showed land temps because skeptics forget that their warming rate is 0.3 C per decade sometimes, and land temps lead global temps, and at least now you know why.”

        No, Jim, the predictions were for global, and we will not forget, thank you!
        0.1 doesn’t cut it for negating a 0.3 prediction.
        So you tried to make it look like the predictions are for land only and not global?
        That’s just sad, Jim.

      • JimD,

        Here is a pretty good explaination of the hydrologic cycle. I guess it has mainly to do with convection and storage:


      • JIMD

        On the one hand you torture the data and claim an increase per decade much faster than has occurred and on the other you say context is everything.

        Here is the historical context I quoted above


        Do you really believe in this constancy of climate through the ages until Man altered things around 1900. In other words are you a hockey stick man?

      • nottawa rafter

        After reading this thread and others like it in recent days, Jim D seems to be the last man standing. He is being a good soldier and trying to protect the fort until the cavalry comes to the rescue. Where is the rest of his unit? The weight of the evidence in recent weeks is certainly on the side of uncertainty and caution and the others may be getting a queezy feeling and having some self doubt bubble up from their sub-conscious. Carry on Jim D, you are one brave soldier.

      • nottawa

        jimd has always been one of the most polite of the warmist group but recently he seems to be using data in a way which , if applied to sceptics, would be referred to as cherry picking or even inventing cherries.

        lets hope he reverts to his normal style of posting using purely factual information, rather than one viewed solely through the distorting effect of an alarmist prism.


      • Jim D:

        I am interested to know your method of getting an annual average from monthly averages.

        When you state that some years are warmer/cooler than others then you have to provide the averages for those years as evidence.
        Yearly averages are not the same as 12-month rolling averages.
        A 12-month rolling average will make a warm year surrounded by cooler years appear cooler than a cool year surrounded by warmer years.
        If you want to talk about smoothed data then talk about smoothed data – just don’t pretend it’s yearly data.

      • tonyb, “jimd has always been one of the most polite of the warmist group but recently he seems to be using data in a way which , if applied to sceptics, would be referred to as cherry picking or even inventing cherries.”

        Ah, but in radiant physics above all else, JimD isn’t cherry picking he is just following the game plan. Somewhere between 4km and 10km his and his fearless leaders “surface” resides and that surface responds to dry gas forcing provided all other things remains equal. Unfortunately, all the action is between their selected “surface” and the surfaces that influence the actual surface we live on.

        Andy Lacis commented some time back that water vapor in the atmosphere will increase by 30% providing the majority of future warming at their “surface”. The problem with that is the oceans have to provide that additional moisture, but they lie below the Hansen reference “surface”. Since the “forcing” on the oceans is not the same as the “forcing” on their reference “surface”, their projections will fail. Solar has a much larger influence on ocean energy than CO2 equivalent forcing.

        The overly simplistic Hansen model doesn’t consider the water vapor lens that separates their “surface” from the real surface and no matter how eloquent you try to be, they will never understand until the look at alternate frames of reference.

        As we say down here there is more than one way to skin a catfish, comparing frames of reference is the thermodynamic equivalent.

      • Thanks Cap’n, that’s a nice picture.

        I think I’ve never heard so loud
        The quiet message in a cloud.

      • Capt’nDallas

        I have been following Rob Ellison’s posts and links on global warming and now I read your post. I followed you until:

        “The overly simplistic Hansen model doesn’t consider the water vapor lens that separates their “surface” from the real surface and no matter how eloquent you try to be, they will never understand until the look at alternate frames of reference.”

        Maybe you have something in Phun Physics on this subject and I just missed it. If so, please provide a link and I will “Go Fish.”

      • OK, I haven’t yet seen skeptics directly responding to data like this. Why is the land warming twice as fast as the ocean, and leading it, when you look at long-term trends? The end trend centered near 2000 for land is 0.3 C per decade. The global trend is included in blue and ends with 0.18 C per decade. As I mentioned, external forcing and thermal inertia explain this. This is the earth with a transient response to a strong forcing change that it can’t quite keep up with in a global way.

      • RiH008, “Maybe you have something in Phun Physics on this subject and I just missed it. If so, please provide a link and I will “Go Fish.””

        Pretty much all that Phun Physics is about is exploring different frames of reference and seeing how different estimates from difference frames tend to converge or not. Then attempt to simplify to the most basic frames for a simple back of the envelop, “elevator” type model/explanation or sound bite since few have the attention span to actual think the problem out.

        For example using the “average” ocean temperature/effective energy of 4C/334.5 Wm-2, adding 3.7 Wm-2 of forcing would produce an approximate 0.7C of warming and require about 316 years to be realized. Since the “average” ocean temperature/effective energy relates only to 71% of the surface of the Earth, the impact felt over the entire surface would be 334.5*.0.71 => 237.5 Wm-2 or approximately the estimated Ein/Eout at some point in the atmosphere called the effective radiant layer. 237.5 Wm-2 is the effective energy of approximately -18C degrees which would be a dry atmosphere relatively speaking. Adding 3.7Wm-2 to that unrealistic “surface” would produce about 1C of warming all else remaining equal. Based on these simple frames, the average energy of the oceans determines the average energy of the effective radiant layer not the other way around.

        Thanks to the properties of water, 4C maximum density of fresh and heat of fusion 334 Wm-2, the oceans provide a stable reference. What changes is the area of the oceans that are liquid and the area of the lower atmosphere that can be considered “moist”. That moist air area or envelope is lens shaped, It is not uniformly thick and never covers the entire surface making it one sucky reference layer.

        There are quite a few people that have tried to explain that the surface and the selected “surface” are not the same making global mean surface temperature pretty much irrelevant. The poobahs won’t listen so I am just waiting for the face plants.

      • Capt’nDallas

        Thank you, “lens” explained. My mind’s eye sees the atmospheric structure.

        “What changes is the area of the oceans that are liquid”

        Are you speaking of ice as the non-liquid? Then I understand.

  17. We know this is just regional.
    From the article:

    The summer of 2014 has been one of the mildest on the books — and could be the first summer in a decade without a heatwave.

    “It wasn’t clear if it was going to be a hot or a cool summer,” said National Weather Service meteorologist David Stark. “We started out the year very cool and it seems like we just continued that. It doesn’t look like we have any heat waves in the near future.”

    Instead of searching for the skimpiest outfits to battle the sizzling sun, New Yorkers are reaching for their sweatshirts.


    • China produces about 4.5 times the amount of coal as the US. It’s the top producer. Abandoning coal in the US won’t matter one whit in the long run. Dumb regulations. The US suffers.

      • Steven Mosher

        our target is China. wait for the next piece.

        we have said repeatedly that action by china is the KEY.

        That said we should not be building any new coal in the US.
        and should focus on Gas and nuclear and R&D on renewables.

    • The real answer is more nuanced; it depends on the time‐frame considered, how long we continue to use gas going forward, and if the sunk costs involved in developing natural gas infrastructure hinder or help the development of future near-zero carbon technologies. Those nuances are the subject of this paper. [my bold]

      Question for you Steve…

      Did my constant harping on methane generated from solar/electrolytic hydrogen (whether by existing processes or the bio-conversion I’ve been advocating) have anything to do with the bolded sub-subject?

      Oh, and another question: why is that text so hard to copy/paste?

      • Steven Mosher

        to my knowledge no.
        Zeke authored the entire piece himself and structured the analysis.

        the rest of us just threw rocks at him on a weekly basis.

      • Nat gas already has had a negative effect on coal. Obama’s regs aren’t really necessary. I’m skeptical of wind and solar, but very positive on nuclear no matter what the coal or petroleum situation. The fed needs to streamline regulations on nuclear plants. Private industry would then provide the R&D.

      • Jim2: I was following nuclear a few years ago and the approval process had already been streamlined. Have they now gone backward?

    • A number of the equations used in this paper have a lot of uncertainty the paper does nothing to highlight or account for. Even worse, some of the equations have basically no underlying support aside from hand-waving. That makes the analysis in the paper overly simplistic and its results overstated.

      Also, I’m not sure its representation of its sources is fair. For instance, it cites Section 10.9 of the IPCC AR5 WGII, saying:

      Some economists who study the impacts of climate change on social and natural systems argue that these impacts are highly nonlinear. They suggest that the negative impacts on the world will be relatively modest for less than a degree or two of warming, and that each additional degree of warming would bring significantly more damages

      Yet Section 10.9 says:

      Climate change may be beneficial for moderate climate change but
      turn negative for greater warming.

      Based upon Richard Tol’s work, which says we should expect benefits for up to two degrees of warming. I don’t see how one can cite the IPCC report and say “the negative impacts on the world will be relatively modest” for an amount of warming it suggests might have positive impacts.

      I’m a harsh critic of that section of the IPCC report, and I don’t believe it is justified, but if you’re going to cite something, I think you have to describe its results accurately.

      • Can comments like WebHubTelescope’s get deleted since they’re nothing more than mindless attempts to smear people?

      • Net benefit or net negative impact might reflect a balance of positive and negative impacts. It is entirely possible that there might be modest negative impacts even while there is a net benefit..

        If you’re going to criticize something as being inaccurate, I think you have to consider a variety of interpretations.

      • Joshua’s “defense” here shows why he is such a waste of time. I quoted a source and how the source was described to show an apparent discrepancy. He responded by suggesting a strained interpretation under which the two quotes aren’t necessarily contradictory, as though that disproves what I said. However, he did nothing to show that interpretation is actually applicable.

        Joshua could have looked at the source in question and checked to see if his proposed interpretation had any relevance. He didn’t. Instead, he just pointed out a semantic possibility without any concern for whether or not it was actually relevant.

        I could have avoided this by giving a more detailed overview of what Section 10.9 said, but odds are he’d have found some other nit he could pick. If nothing else, he could have made one up. He does so on a regular basis.

      • ==> “Can comments like WebHubTelescope’s get deleted since they’re nothing more than mindless attempts to smear people?”

        Did anyone else catch the irony here?

      • ==> “However, he did nothing to show that interpretation is actually applicable.”

        I don’t know if it is applicable. It may or may not be. My point was to show the flawed logic of your comment where you indicated a particular interpretation when others could be possible.

        I’m perfectly happy to accept that your interpretation may have been correct. Maybe the authors really were thinking that there would be no positive impacts and only moderately negative impacts – and thus be inconsistent with the IPCC characterization of “beneficial” meaning there would be a net benefit. I also doubt that the IPCC would be arguing that despite there being an overall net benefit, there wouldn’t be any negative impacts from moderate climate change.

        Sorry for forcing you to respond to my comment, and thus forcing you to “waste [your] time,” Brandon. But in my own defense, you have told me a number of times now that you weren’t going to respond to my comments, so I was assuming that under that condition, I wouldn’t be forcing you to decide to respond.

      • Steven Mosher

        “A number of the equations used in this paper have a lot of uncertainty the paper does nothing to highlight or account for. ”

        If you’re refering to Zeke’s paper, then you are wrong.

        The greatest uncertainties are in leakage rates and efficiencies.
        Those are handled by sensitivity analysis.

        As for his ham fisted handling of the damages argument.. he just doesnt get it.

        Let me explain.

        Today people who argue against gas, focus on the next 20 years and short term damages. they dont look 100 years out.

        the literature suggests that damages 100 years out are greater than those 20 years out.

        The whole paragraph helps

        “Some economists who study the impacts of climate change on social and natural
        systems argue that these impacts are highly nonlinear. They suggest that the
        negative impacts on the world will be relatively modest for less than a degree or two
        of warming, and that each additional degree of warming would bring significantly
        more damages [8]. In this case, measures focusing on the longer-term forcing (e.g.
        post-2050) would be preferred to reducing short-term forcing. If these economists
        are correct, then likely CH4 leakage rates should not be as large a concern as CO2
        emissions. The atmospheric concentration of CH4 can be rapidly reduced simply by
        reducing CH4 emissions in the future, while the atmospheric CO2 we accumulate
        today will persist for a long time regardless of future emissions [22, 23].

        To recap. Those who want to kill gas as a bridge fuel want to focus on the next 20 years. we think the literature suggests that the damges 100 years out are more important.

        apparently Brandon disagrees.. on some un known and un cited basis.

      • Steven Mosher, thanks for explaining:

        If you’re refering to Zeke’s paper, then you are wrong.

        I’ll have to try to remember this approach in the future. Whenever someone suggests the equations I use to model something have substantial uncertainties in them, I’ll just say, “You’re wrong.” I’ll also try developing telepathy so I can be like you:

        To recap. Those who want to kill gas as a bridge fuel want to focus on the next 20 years. we think the literature suggests that the damges 100 years out are more important.

        apparently Brandon disagrees.. on some un known and un cited basis.

        I haven’t said anything to suggest this. Claiming someone overstates the certainty of their analysis in no way indicates you think the opposite position is true. The only way this could be “apparently” true is if you could read my mind.

        Then again, you say:

        As for his ham fisted handling of the damages argument.. he just doesnt get it.

        But don’t actually quote or reference anything I say to indicate what I got wrong. I don’t think telepathy could explain that one. Maybe I’m wrong though. I could just be underestimating the supernatural forces you have at hand.

        That, or you could just be hand-waving away things you don’t want to actually address, like you’ve done time and time again.

      • ITT VoTech of Tulsa beats University of California at Berkeley.

        That’s because “BEST adds a huge warming trend”.

      • Steven Mosher

        “I’ll have to try to remember this approach in the future. Whenever someone suggests the equations I use to model something have substantial uncertainties in them, I’ll just say, “You’re wrong.” I’ll also try developing telepathy so I can be like you:”

        1. you didnt specify which equations.
        2. the only equations used are givens for the analysis.
        3. the dominate uncertainty is in leakage rates and efficiency,
        if you think otherwise go win your nobel.
        4. If you want to assign uncertainties to the givens, then the curves merely shift in y, not in X, unless there is more uncertainty in one than the other.
        5. The purpose of the sensitivity study is to show the first order effect
        of shifting from coal to gas and countering the sunk cost argument.


      • Steven Mosher

        brandon neither Web nor I can read your mind

        the print is too small.

        There are exceptions

        That’s because “BEST adds a huge warming trend”.

        But knock yourself out. Go publish.. or better yet find somebody willing to pay you. that’s a good objective measure of your worth..

      • Steven Mosher:

        brandon neither Web nor I can read your mind

        Nor apparently my words, as neither of you seem capable of interpreting simple sentences correctly. Well that, or you just refuse to. Either way.

        By the way, it’s really silly to say:

        There are exceptions

        That’s because “BEST adds a huge warming trend”.

        As aside from WebHubTelescope, nobody thought what I said in that conversation was wrong because what I said was obviously correct. There is little you could do to make yourself look worse than join in on this stupid smear campaign of WebHubTelescope’s.

        The silliest part is I provided data and code to replicate my results, exactly what you say people should do. Neither of you even tried to check my work, exactly what you say critics should do. One could easily interpret this as you insisting upon standards only when doing so is convenient.

      • The VoTech smears BEST. Au contraire, du projection.

      • Seriously, do I have to be stalked from one topic to another, with people responding to everything I say with pointless smears?

        It was bad enough when people would randomly bring up my name in derogatory contexts just to insult me when I wasn’t around, but this is… I don’t know.

      • Smear artist, get a mirror dude.
        The vast majority is research is good stuff, structured for others to extend and improve upon. Not to cr@p on.

  18. From the article:

    Frank discovered that when intermittency is taken into account, wind and solar end up requiring subsidies or hidden support somewhere on the grid, while hydro, wind and natural gas all pay for themselves and create economic benefits. Nuclear is the big surprise, since it has the highest construction costs, which usually make it seem the most expensive. But because of its extraordinary capacity factor – reactors run more than 90 percent of the time – its extreme reliability requires no backup and reduces costs to the grid. Natural gas is even better, mainly because of its ability to ramp up and down to meet fluctuations in demand (and fill in quickly for solar or wind).


  19. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Here’s what the future will look like:

    “Within about 15 years every new car sold in the United States will be electric. Up to 60 percent of power might come from nuclear sources. And coal’s footprint will shrink drastically, perhaps even disappear from the power supply.”

    It’s interesting that Quaker analysists agree and that Forbes’ analysts agree too.

    Question  How is it that the scientific climate-change consensus so excellently matches the accelerating business consensus *AND* religious consensus?

    Denialist shills keep on slogan-shouting … but are *ANY* thoughtful citizens listening?

    The world wonders!

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

    • Fan, thanks for that link to the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP). I am checking it out now, but a country-level energy transition solution is the way to go, and if the top emitting nations can do something individually, as this report by country-level teams shows, this would make it feasible.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Further Forbes rebuttal of denialist disinformation

      In each of the past three years, the world has invested more than a quarter-trillion dollars to add over 80 billion watts of renewables (excluding big hydro dams).

      That growth is accelerating: solar power is scaling faster than cellphones.

      Big European utilities lost €0.5 trillion in market cap, as an Economist cover story featured, not because renewables couldn’t compete, but because they competed all too well, wiping out old power plants’ profits.

      The same is happening to some well-running U.S. nuclear plants, now facing closure as uneconomic just to operate.

      Conclusion  Foresighted scientists, foresighted engineers, foresighted investors, and foresighted citizens all agree: the era of “Big Carbon” is ending.

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

      • Fan; Federal government projections show coal and nuclear staying at current level, natural gas with the greatest expansion, and renewables with insignificant increases. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_electric.cfm
        Notice the sources used by Forbes. Looks like a lobbying effort by green energy benefactors.

      • the era of “Big Carbon” is ending.

        Wishful thinking. “Big Carbon” will switch to carbon-neutral (“renewable”) sources, such as biowaste (instead of coal), methane produced from solar-hydrolytic hydrogen and CO2 from the ocean/atmosphere, and fuel from algae.

      • OOps! This belongs here: A handful of the most poorly managed companies may go under.

    • Fan,

      It sounds good but for some reason I wouldn’t bet on it. The forces that would take us there are all there. Republican big and small business types should like it. Democrat big government types would like the regulation of nuclear and CO2 mitigation. That leaves big oil and anti-nuke greens to rain on the parade. Big oil may need to change its business model to the pkastics and chemical industry along with jet fuel that would probably mean price increases in a controlled market model similar to diamonds. Big green would have to be restrained by Hansen-like activists; an accident or two could mean game over. Also electric cars are a toxic waste hazard at end use so that might be a consideration.

      The reason I lose optimism is look what Germany did in reaction to Japan’s nuke accident. If the grid is not fully supported by nukes then all the electric cars will cause power failures. They’re already worried about that here in CA. Supposedly solar powered juiced electric cars would be ideal but the inerrim stages could prove tricky. I’m also never too confident in goverments role as if they have a chance to screw up and waste money that’s the way they’ll roll. Finally if there is another crash and depression as many predict it will be back to drill baby drill for the repubs.

      I’ll have to see a few more signs that I’m not seeing now to invest in that 15 year future.

    • Some key technologies, which are critical for deep decarbonization in all DDPs, are not yet technically mature or economically affordable. They include:
      – Advanced energy storage, flexible load management, and integrated portfolio design for balancing power systems with high penetrations of variable renewable energy (e.g. wind and solar)
      – Very high performance appliances, controls, and materials for buildings
      – Zero emissions vehicles with adequate range, notably battery electric or fuel cell light-duty vehicles
      – Sustainable biofuels or synthesized fuels for air and marine transport

      Some emerging low-carbon technologies are key in a subset of the 15 DDPs. These include:
      – New types of renewable energy technologies (e.g. advanced geothermal, deep offshore wind, and tidal energy)
      – Carbon-capture and sequestration (on fossil-fueled power plants and industries)
      – Advanced nuclear power technology that sustains public confidence and support

      So none of the required technologies are mature or cost effective? Of course we can always make do with progressive fantasies in the interim. What sense can we possibly make of this ludicrous posturing from FOMBS about something that is so freaking obvious and that we have been touting for decades? Technologies are the sin qua non and cheap energy is the sane goal?

      The grown up strategy is R&D – perhaps a billion dollar global energy prize – linked to fast mitigation programs involving multiple gases and aerosols, agriculture and ecologies in high growth, high energy social and development objectives. Can they really not see that?

      • The timeline is 2050. Compare now with 1970 to get an idea of technological advance rates. You give up too easily.

      • So an assessment of the current state of technology – from the document in question – is giving up?

        The only thing I am giving up on is the potential for rational discourse from progressive fantasists.

      • Technological innovation is the key cheap energy is the objective. Is this not what I have clearly said many times?

        And – really – the article FOMBS linked to fantasized 15 years. I have given up expecting honesty from these delusional twats as well.

      • The grown up strategy is R&D – perhaps a billion dollar global energy prize […]

        Rather than dragging the money out of tax-supported government funds, why not tweak the IP laws so people/organizations that develop appropriate technology can profit more from it?

        In fact, wasn’t what the whole system of “intellectual property” was intended for in the first place?

      • Chief,
        That is why nuclear would be needed.
        Tesla’s Model S has a 265 mile range you can easily go from LA to San Diego and back. There is also 170 super caharger stations around the US. You can now go coast to coast in the US. It takes 20 minutes for half a charge. You’d think that would improve in 15 years.

    • Over a third of residential PV systems were installed without the benefit of state incentives.

      No wonder the Kochs are against “state incentives.” They’re no longer needed.

  20. Danley Wolfe

    JCurry – I like the cartoon. Except I modified it by putting on my own byline in small print at the bottom saying “IPCC: AR5-WG2”. Which is reminiscent of the guy at the football game with the sign John 3:16, or more appropriately Revelations 1:9-10 with the double entendre being the environmental religious movement is poised on the cusp of falling on its face allowing the return of true belief in what we once knew as Real Science.

  21. From the article:
    Software created by the controversial UK-based Gamma Group International was used to spy on computers that appear to be located in the United States, the UK, Germany, Russia, Iran, and Bahrain, according to a leaked trove of documents analyzed by ProPublica.

    It’s not clear whether the surveillance was conducted by governments or private entities. Customer e-mail addresses in the collection appeared to belong to a German surveillance company, an independent consultant in Dubai, the Bosnian and Hungarian Intelligence services, a Dutch law enforcement officer, and the Qatari government.

    Countries Where Computers Were Targeted by FinFisher
    Islamic Republic of Iran
    Russian Federation
    Saudi Arabia
    United Arab Emirates
    United Kingdom
    United States

    The leaked files—which were posted online by hackers—are the latest in a series of revelations about how state actors including repressive regimes have used Gamma’s software to spy on dissidents, journalists, and activist groups.


  22. Danley Wolfe

    Re Bill McKibben. This is a model study. What other things were going on during the model periods besides weather events. Developing countries were going through rapid growth in the twenty year period starting around 1990. Rapidly growing economies continue to grow but at lower growth rates as the economies get larger and experience more capital deepening. What happened to SE Asia in 1997. it turned over on its head. That was not a weather event. The models need to have a lot of other control variables before the authors start presenting with and without weather events results for comparison. Always ask what else happened, what are the missing variables I am not including. This is a working paper and is not peer reviewed. I am disgusted with modeling and modelers misrepresenting the world. “Thailand has not recovered since the Tsunami but it also had two coups and government run by military junta. That has sure hurt both Thai tourism which represents a major part of the Thai economy.

  23. “Richard Tol: First factual error in IPCC WG2 AR5 http://feedly.com/e/4CcMavkU

    Many people are undernourished because of the civil war going on in their own country. Rulers know that they can control and enhance their own power by controlling the flow of food. The remedy? Use the internet to expose why the food is not getting through.

  24. The best article I’ve read this year:

    But Gnarr liked his weasely politician character. Sure, he was a rogue, but a cheery one. So Gnarr uploaded a few clips to Youtube. The clips were popular, so he created a website with a parody of a party. He called it the Best Party and promoted it with the compelling slogan: «Why vote for second-best when you can have the best?»


  25. Let’s rehearse some essential facts about natural variability. The inflection points in the surface record are around 1910, the mid 1940’s, 1976-1977 and 1998-2001.

    Causality is not in doubt – nor that it involves large changes in cloud radiative forcing. This coincides precisely with changes of state in both the north and south Pacific. The residual warming between the mid 1940’s and 1998 was some 0.07 degrees C/decade. This gives a worst case scenario for anthropogenic effects. As the Sun cools fr om a 1000 year high – the residual over this century is likely to reflect this.

    Abrupt shifts every few decades – e.g. http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/klimavorhersagen-ueber-mehrere-jahre-moeglich/ – are not predictable and can lead to substantial change in climate states.

    • Steven Mosher

      there is no 1000 year high

    • ‘Thus, the analysis of the numerous varieties of proxy climatic records is indicative of high variability of the
      Holocene climate. Furthermore, palaeoclimate records reveal the presence of fairly regular quasi-periodic patterns of major large-scale global climate changes. A correlation of historical records of solar activity and climate change and also cosmogenic isotopes, proxies for solar activity, and millennial scale variability in palaeoclimate records demonstrates the connection between solar variability and climate change. As
      mentioned above, cosmogenic isotope records can be used as a measure of changes in solar activity and in cosmic ray flux in the past. More significant changes in the Holocene climate are characterized by a quasi-2400-year periodicity in cold conditions possibly caused by changes in solar activity. The Sun-climate relation is most clearly seen during the Little Ice Age. Additional study is needed to investigate the rate and
      change of atmospheric circulation in the past. The change in the processes of atmospheric circulation may alter the distribution of precipitation both high and low latitudes that may lead to the large fluctuations in lake levels, monsoon activity and redistribution of moisture and heat on the Earth’s surface.’ http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2008/M/Dergachev.pdf



      ‘Abstract. In this review we discuss the occurrence and statistical properties of Grand minima based on the available data covering the last millennia. In particular, we consider the historical record of sunspot numbers covering the last 400 years as well as records of cosmogenic isotopes in natural terrestrial archives, used to reconstruct solar activity for up to the last 11.5 millennia, i.e. throughout the Holocene. Using a reconstruction of solar activity from cosmogenic isotope data, we analyze statistics of the occurrence of Grand minima. We find that: the Sun spends about most of the time at moderate activity, 1/6 in a Grand minimum and some time also in a Grand maximum state; Occurrence of Grand minima is not a result of long-term cyclic variations but is defined by stochastic/chaotic processes; There is a tendency for Grand minima to cluster with the recurrence rate of roughly 2000-3000 years, with a weak ≈210-yr periodicity existing within the clusters. Grand minima occur of two different types: shorter than 100 years (Maunder-type) and long ≈150 years (Sp¨orer-type). It is also discussed that solar cycles (most possibly not sunspots cycle) could exist during the Grand minima with stretched length and asymmetric sunspot latitudinal distribution. These results set new observational constraints on long-term solar and stellar dynamo models.’ http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/IAU286_us.pdf

      So the Sun doesn’t change – pretty much like climate doesn’t change unless acted on – there are no grand maxima and minima – and the Sun is definitely not at a modern grand maxima. Phucking incredible.

  26. On

    “Betty Beekeeper: CIRES Report: Climate Change in Colorado A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation”

    I was an invited reviewer. Unfortunately, this is yet another report that uses multi-decadal regional climate projections.

    My review is at

    Pielke Sr., R.A, 2014: Review of Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation, 13 pp. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/rpt-86.pdf

    Here is part of what I wrote

    “the use of multi-decadal global climate modeling, either by itself, or downscaled using statistical and dynamic modeling [is used in the report] to produce analyses of how climate could change in the coming decades. Such modeling results (whether the terms “prediction” or “projection” is used, must be based on the demonstration of the ability of the climate models to actually predict (project) CHANGES in regional climate statistics. If the models cannot show such skill in hindcast runs, why should they be relied on for the assessment of future climate?

    I document this inability of the models to pass this test and recommend an alternative approach to assess risks.

    • Averaging a lot of model runs that tend to make the same mistakes and expecting different valid results is a bit insane.

    • > Such modeling results (whether the terms “prediction” or “projection” is used, must be based on the demonstration of the ability of the climate models to actually predict (project) CHANGES in regional climate statistics.

      Whether it’s called “prediction” or “projection”, let’s assume it must be predictive.


      • Willard, a “projection” is just a “prediction” gone wrong.

      • A conflation is just an argument gone wrong, Cap’n.

      • If you base the meaning of “projection” on native (prior) meanings of the word, all it means is identifying the past direction of movement of some index, and projecting that movement into the future.

        This “projection” then, is also a “prediction”, with the assumption (explicit or not) that “the past can be used to predict the future”. As far as I can tell, the meaning of “projection” has recently been extended to include some previously metaphorical uses, in a haphazard, intermittent, and selective fashion.

        Bottom line, it’s all a bunch of semantic quibbling.

      • EWillard, Right. I guess that is why the “believers” descended with vengeance on our hostess when she pointed out that the ensemble model predictions, which included uncertainty limits, where about to fail. That is when the subtle distinction between prediction and projection became such a robust topic.

        Joshua should now chime in with, “Mommy! They did it first.” :)

      • @willard (@nevaudit)…

        See page 5.

      • > This “projection” then, is also a “prediction”,

        A projection is a ballpark to see where your ifs and buts get you. A prediction is a bet that your its and buts are true. Here:


        Turning projections into predictions is like using Quackle to tell you how a Scrabble game will end. This sometimes works for endgames (ie its Monte Carlos are astonishing) but why the hell should we expect this from climate models?

        Mr. T Monster is watching everyone, including Denizens. He feeds on certainty requirements hidden behind conflations like these.

      • Curious George

        contains a sentence “it is legally impossible to falsify a projection.”

        Could a lawyer comment on legal aspects of the projection-prediction differences?

    • None of these metrics should led us to conclude that the climate is not changing because of both human and natural climate forcings and feedbacks, [my bold]

      I hope this is a draft.

    • Assume a can opener.

    • Steven Mosher

      “If the models cannot show such skill in hindcast runs, why should they be relied on for the assessment of future climate?”

      1. because we have to rely on something.
      2. because its the best tool we have
      3. because its only One of many tools we can use
      4. because our reliance doesnt have to be total or complete.

      You ask me what the future holds. You deserve an answer

      I tell you, this model says x, that model says Y, our understanding is limited.
      these are limits. this is the best I can tell you.

      And they as a policy maker you get to decide how much reliance.

      Here is a clue: scientists dont get to decide what policy makers choose to rely on.

      They can roll dice and tell you to pound sand.

      dont like that? become a policy maker, its a free country

      • Policymakers are looking for a wrench because the GCM hammer isn’t unbolting the problem.

  27. The correlation in the graph looks too good to be true. But it should stimulate discussion.

    “It’s the Sun

    “Solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard has revised his reconstruction of sunspot observations over the past 400 years from 1611-2013. Plotting the “time integral” of sunspot numbers from Dr. Svalgaard’s data shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s and continuing through and after the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850. After a ~30 year hiatus, accumulated solar energy resumes a “hockey stick” rise for the remainder of the 20th century, followed by a decline beginning in 2004, all of which show remarkable correspondence to the HADCRU3 global temperature record:”


    • nottawa rafter

      This may be a big deal. I have read enough of Dr Svalgaard’s comments admonishing others who want to pin it on the sun to wonder if it really is as much of change as it appears. It will be interesting, as you say, how he describes this apparent change. Things are indeed becoming curiouser and curiouser.

      On the other side, I have read about papers that didn’t have the significance that I thought they would. So the next post on solar activity should provide some insight on how he describes the findings.

    • Good stuff. We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.

    • Steven Mosher

      sadly the time integral of sunspots is not physically meaningful.

      • I remember a rabid alarmist at Tom’s old site who disappeared after I sent him off looking for Livingston and Penn.

        Sure the sunspots don’t do it. Climate and they respond to the same cause. Or so I’d guess.

      • The catenary geometry (the smile of a necklace) from sunspot data suggest the laugh will be on mosher.

  28. We all know by know that likening climate change, that alarmists blame on the hand of men and women — who engaged in nothing more that going about the business of living for the benefit of all society — to the analogy of a hothouse — result of humans constructing a greenhouse — is a gross abuse of science, for many reasons. For example, yes, we can stop humanity from building greenhouses. The first thing Hamas did when taking over the Gaza strip in 2005 was to destroy the greenhouses in the area where the Jews had lived. Because we can tear down greenhouses, does that mean that by analogy we can stop the climate from changing? Would that it were possible to protect ourselves from the threat of killer weather conditions like abrupt low temperature winds and cold rains by simply increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.

  29. Built for stability by Paul Valdes

    State-of-the-art climate models are largely untested against actual occurrences of abrupt change. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that simulations of the coming century with these models will provide reliable warning of sudden, catastrophic events.

    Critical thresholds may be inherent to the climate system. If so, they could lead to abrupt, and perhaps irreversible, changes to the Earth system. This possibility has caught the imagination of the public — often under the emotive term ‘tipping points’ — and has led to a huge growth in media and scientific publications on the topic in the past few years[1]. If we are about to cross such a critical threshold, the implications for climate adaptation strategies could be significant. Likewise, knowledge of thresholds would have a strong influence on mitigation policy, not least by helping to define the meaning of the term ‘dangerous climate change’.


    I argue that climate models of the current generation, as used in the latest assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have not proved their ability to simulate abrupt change when a critical threshold is crossed. I discuss four well-documented examples of past rapid climate change (Box 1). In two cases, the models did not adequately capture the basic climate configuration before abrupt change ensued, and in the remaining two examples, to initiate abrupt change the models needed external nudging that is up to ten times stronger than reconstructed. The models seem to be too stable.


    Overall, the modelling of past abrupt events does not give us confidence in the ability of complex models to simulate critical threshold behaviour that we know has occurred in the past. In response to this deficiency, first we need to challenge the palaeodata[14], and continue to improve our knowledge of past forcing factors and the ensuing climate response. Second, we need to understand the physics and dynamics of documented abrupt change events better[15]. And third, we need to develop more sophisticated tests of the full complexity models — tests that help to analyse their behaviour during abrupt changes. 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. [my bold]


    In the meantime, we need to be cautious. If anything, the models are underestimating change, compared with the geological record. According to the evidence from the past, the Earth’s climate is sensitive to small changes, whereas the climate models seem to require a much bigger disturbance to produce abrupt change. Simulations of the coming century with the current generation of complex models may be giving us a false sense of security.

    Also see here.

    The bottom line is that the linear model espoused by the IPCC is unreliable in both directions: the magnitude of effect from a gradual increase in “Global Average Temperature” may well be even smaller than they predict, and they have nothing useful to say (but don’t admit it) regarding the possibility of sudden, dramatic changes to the climate. Much less the probability, which at this point can’t be evaluated.

    So should we overturn the world’s entire economy because of a possible risk whose probability can’t be evaluated? Or should we engage in “low-regrets” approaches to reducing atmospheric pCO2 as quickly as feasible consistent with the current rapid rollout of available energy and other good lifestyle to the non-Western world?

  30. How Michael Hale Became Thousands of Nerds’ Worst Enemy by Tweeting a Photo:


    Paging WebHub.

    • “…our grandchildren will walk and bike into a different kind of forest than we do now.”

      Our grandchildren again. I’m so sick of those guys. They’re the ones who’ll be making fun of us for our tattoos…and for incinerating American forests in British power plants.

      Think of the scope for satire we’re giving them. Steven Schneider in flaired pants wagging the finger about global cooling. Then the same guy in straight legs banging on about global warming. Oh, how they will laugh at us, those smug grandchildren with their fancy futurist thingies.

      I just hope our great-great-grandchildren give it to our grandchildren.

  31. I wanna hear more about Pielke Fils’s debate with Kevin Trenberth last week. Anyone have a clue?

  32. I’m not for zero military intervention, but I do like the more liberal moral stance along with the small government, individual freedom ideas of libertarians.

    From the article:
    Recent polls indicate that libertarian ideas are gaining traction among voters, especially with “Millennials” under the age of 33, a group whose strong support was critical to the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.

    According to a February 2014 Pew Research Poll, only 31 percent of Millennials believe there is much difference between the Democratic and Republican parties (compared to 49 percent of Baby Boomers.) Even more significantly, a majority of Millennials support such classic libertarian positions as legalization of pot, gay marriage, and a less interventionist foreign policy.

    Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the son of libertarian icon and former Presidential candidate Ron Paul, is well positioned to harness this growing libertarian sentiment in a likely 2016 run for the Republican Presidential nomination. Robert Draper argued in the New York Times Magazine last week that while a national “libertarian moment” may have arrived, Senator Paul may be unable to exploit it.


  33. Some progressives are starting to drop the pretense of trying to teach children to read, write, add and subtract.


  34. I judge what is credible by what makes sense to me. What I already believe does bias how I view what I see and read. I do know that.

    To change the way anyone believes, you must give them data that shows something else is true and you must be willing and ready to do that for a long time and be open to failure. It is really difficult for any of us to change our mind or the mind of any one else.

    In the Climate Debate, I have signed on for the long battle. Everyone on the Consensus Side does disagree with me. Most on the Skeptic Side do not agree with me, they have different Skeptic Theories. Actual Data is on my side. Correlation between Earth Temperature and Ice Extent is 100% since Polar Ice Cycles started happening.

    People with different Theory, on the different sides, say that the Ice Extent happens because of feedback from other Climate Drivers. They have no way to prove that other than Peer-Reviewed Climate Consensus based on Climate Model Output that has always not delivered valid forecast for what did actually happen. The different sides do use the, almost identical, unproven, feedbacks and correlations to support their Theory.

    I do that, but my feedbacks and correlations are 100% and they do not do that well.

  35. Just when you CAGWers thought you had the goal in sight, we find you can’t rest on your laurels.
    From the article:
    Don’t believe the hype: 5 reasons to be pessimistic about climate change


    • But, but won’t that increase the costs fer all those climate scientists’
      trips ter Cli sci conferences in exotic far away places …and thereby
      increase taxes fer the serfs?.

      One of them, ‘serf’ not them others.

    • At first I thought: huh? This latest piece of pottiness comes from engineers? But aren’t they supposed to be among the non-potties of the world?

      Ah, but then I saw it: they’re environmental engineers.

      I’m reminded of Dame Edna Everage’s comment back in the 70s about the leftist loon, Dr Jim Cairns. “He’s a doctor…but not a make-you-better doctor.”

  36. What with Barry’s masterful statesmanship, the Middle East is on fire, literally and figuratively. Once upon a time, the price of oil would have gone through the ceiling. But something curious has occurred: the price of oil has instead gone down.

    WTI is down …

    and even more surprising, Brent is also down …

  37. It’s so sad to say that global warming, aka “climate change,” has killed agriculture in the US, just as the “climate scientists” claimed it would. From the article:

    Corn Production Up 1 Percent from 2013 Soybean Production Up 16 Percent from 2013 Cotton Production Up 36 Percent from 2013 Winter Wheat Production Up 2 percent from July Forecast

    Corn production is forecast at 14.0 billion bushels, up 1 percent from 2013. Based on conditions as of August 1, yields are expected to average 167.4 bushels per acre, up 8.6 bushels from 2013. If realized, this will be the highest yield and production on record for the United States. Area harvested for grain is forecast at 83.8 million acres, unchanged from the June forecast but down 4 percent from 2013.


  38. My ag comment is in moderation? K.

  39. From the article:

    Mark J. Perry
    Macro, economy, Professor
    Profile| Send Message|
    Follow (557 followers)
    Another U.S. Energy Milestone: U.S. Was The World’s Largest Petroleum Producer In April For The 18th Straight Month
    Aug. 14, 2014 4:53 AM ET | Includes: BNO, CRUD, DBO, DNO, DTO, DWTI, OIL, OLEM, OLO, SCO, SZO, UCO, USL, USO, UWTI

    (click to enlarge)

    The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released new data this week on international energy production for the month of April, and here are some highlights of that update:

    1. For the 18th month in a row starting in November 2012, “Saudi America” took the top spot again in April as the No. 1 petroleum producer in the world. Also, for the 18th straight month, total petroleum production (crude oil and other petroleum products like natural gas plant liquids, leased condensate, and refined petroleum products) in the US during the month of April at 13.63 million barrels per day (bpd) exceeded petroleum production in No. 2 Saudi Arabia (11.61 million bpd), see chart above.

    2. During the 2004 to 2008 period before America’s shale boom started, Saudi Arabia routinely produced 2 – 3 million more barrels of petroleum products a day than the US. But since America’s shale revolution started in 2009, there has been a surge of nearly 60% in the supply of petroleum produced in the US and America surpassed Saudi Arabia at the end of 2012 to become the world’s No. 1 petroleum producer. In April, production of US petroleum products (13.63 million bpd) exceeded Saudi Arabia’s output (11.61 million bdp) by more than 2 million bpd, which is the biggest difference in favor of the US during the 20 year history of international production data from the EIA (see chart).


  40. Maybe we’ll get a “pick your topic” thread soon, but I found this notable.
    From the article:

    New Delhi: Thorium-based 300 MW nuclear power plant at Kalapakkam in Tamil Nadu will be commissioned next year, Parliament was informed today.

    Answering a supplementary during Question Hour in Rajya Sabha, Minister of State for Personnel Jitendra Singh said a major part of the project has already been completed and it would be commissioned next year.

    India is one of the leading countries with well-advanced Thorium utilisation technologies, developed indigenously, and has the world’s third largest (around 12 per cent) Thorium reserve.

    “For a large growing population of our country, it is important to have a vision of energy independence, implying the necessity for meeting the energy demands using indigenous resources to the maximum extent,” Singh said.